In the “West Wing” episode “Inauguration,” scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin has his characters quoting–I believe–Margaret Mead in saying, “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”
So now we’re seeing this taking hold in Crawford, Texas, as Cindy Sheehan puts exactly what the White House has never wanted onto the losses in Iraq: A human face.
I have to admit, I think it’s absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he’d actually have to GO anywhere. Ma’am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Nevertheless, when the time came, her son did what he signed up to do. Did what he had to do. And now she’s doing what she has to do–getting in the President’s face. And the President is doing what he has to do–hide in his ranch and wait for this to go away.
She’s demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.
PAD
UPDATE–I really like this notion, as mentioned below: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size…and grow…and grow…”
It’d be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, except it’s Mothers Opposing Bush. MOB. “Yes, there’s a MOB scene here in Crawford.” “MOB rule has broken out outside the White House…”
Interesting thought.
• 
I dont know what Ms. Sheehan said or meant. I’m more concerned with the association people make between Israel and Iraq. I hope she didn’t make that association, but even if in this case she didn’t, the idea is out there.
It seems to me that people are born racist and need to learn how not to be racist. It is difficult. Racism is like a childhood disease. Some people develope antibodies, but some don’t, and some are not as imune to all kinds of racism/prejudice.
I don’t want to ascribe antisemitism to the Presbyterian curch. I have friends who would be happy to see external forces pressure Israel with regards to its policies towards Palestinians. I’m less enthusiastic. I don’t think they are really antisemitic, but I do think their focus on Israel of all places has to do with considerations other than humanism. I do feel there is something hupocritical about it. But mostly it is pointless.
“hey Peter, i know this has nothing to do with the current thread but i wonder if you’ve read this. It’s about you & McFarlane
http://www.savantmag.com/14/rant14.html“
I hadn’t seen that before, no.
For anyone wondering, the writer got snippy because I didn’t support McFarlane in the Tony Twist case. The reason I didn’t, of course, was because I thought Todd was a dunce for getting himself into that fix in the first place. He went out of his way to name a criminal after a hockey player and then went out of his way to SAY in PRINT that he’d named the character after the hockey player. Dumb dumb dumb.
The column’s basically a slanted screw-job. For instance, he doesn’t bother to mention that although I thought Todd brought the trouble needlessly on himself, I stated repeatedly I thought the monetary amount was insane and deserved to be struck down.
To cite one example of how wrong-headed the columnist was, I quote the following:
“Lest we forget the many, many references to Little Mermaid characters in David’s Aquaman. The Pinky & The Brain references in The Incredible Hulk. The Ben Stein references in Young Justice. If you think the NHL is tough with copyright infringement, you should see the boys from Disney at work. These guys sue elementary schools for painting Minnie Mouse over the girls’ bathroom. Peter’s just as guilty as Todd is here, and yet he doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with kicking a man when he’s down.”
No, Peter’s not just as guilty. Throwaway one-shot in-joke references that don’t mention the actual names of the characters or violate trademarks or copyright is not the same thing as introducing a regular character in both the comic and in an animated series. As for Ali Ben Stein in”Young Justice”…guess what? I cleared it. With Ben Stein. I contacted him, told him what I wanted to do, sent him the script, got his approval for everything from the name to the jokes to the likeness used in the comic, and sent him comp copies when the book came out.
In other words…I behaved responsibly.
And Todd didn’t.
That’s the difference.
And if the columnist wanted to behave responsibly, he might have asked me instead of making baseless charges.
PAD
As much as I admire Lileks ability to turn a clever phrase, he’s wrong to say that just because the governments in most of the middle east are wrong, that means that the government of Israel is right 100% of the time.
It seems to me that people are born racist and need to learn how not to be racist.
I disagree completely. Racism is taught.
Den,
Yes, the person – and i use that term loosely here – who ran over Cindy Sheehan’s crosses is scum. And racism IS taught.
Wow. How about that? I ‘ve areed with you twice on one thread:)
I’d say that racism is a learned thing, although fear of the outsider, the stranger, might be an ingrained instinct. Racism goes far beyond any natural instinct.
As much as I admire Lileks ability to turn a clever phrase, he’s wrong to say that just because the governments in most of the middle east are wrong, that means that the government of Israel is right 100% of the time.
I don’t think he believes that. I think he believes that almost 100% of the criticism goes toward the Israeli side while Arab governments commit daily human rights abuses with nary more than a collective shrug from the same people who are so quick to judge Israel.
I disagree completely. Racism is taught
This we can agree on. I know of no study that shows racism to be something one can be born with. Even the fear of a stranger or of differences in physical appearance don’t explain racism. I’ve never, for example, seen a kid born with the fear of red hair. Put a bunch of little kids of all races in a room with toys and you’ll have a bunch of happy kids (unless there aren’t enough toys, then it’s like the UN with a slightly higher percentage of soiled pants.)
I think he believes that almost 100% of the criticism goes toward the Israeli side while Arab governments commit daily human rights abuses with nary more than a collective shrug from the same people who are so quick to judge Israel.
I would disagree with that statement as well. I know many people willing to criticize both Arab and Israeli governments.
On the other hand, Bush is a great supporter of Israel and he can’t seem to stop metaphorically fellating our “friend” in Saudi Arabia.
Like I said, I’m all for criticism against Israel. It is also true that people criticize the Arab world, and other places too. But, there is an exagerated focus and sometimes even vilification of Israel when worst abuses are happening all over the world. This double standard does not excuse what Israel does, but it makes it easier for the people who support these things to justify themselves.
When people miscast the deaths of innocent Palestinians by the Israelis — against which I have demonstrated more than once — as if Israel goes around slaughtering civilians, while ignoring or paying less attention for the slaughter of thousands in Sudan, and while ignoring the deliberate attacks on civilians by suicide bombers, it is more difficult for my side to convince Israelis that we should act differently.
I don’t kbnow if racism is something people are born with. It is also necessary to clarify the supposed difference between racism and prejudice. But here is an observation. Israelis don’t have the heritage of racism towards blacks. Nor are blacks so oftenly associated with crime as they do in the US. They do not hate them or fear them. There are blacks in our society, and many people would disapprove of racism towards them. But if you asked Israelis, too many will display bigoted concepts. They don’t know any better.
Similarly, Americans don’t have a heritage of conflict with Arabs that we have, but since 9/11 how much prejudice emerged against Arabs.
Racist ideas about Arabs, Jews, Blacks, etc. are always out there. People need to make a conscious effort to reject them.
Racism is taught. They got it exactly right in “South Pacific”–You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear. You’ve got to be taught from year to year. It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear. You’ve got to be carefully taught.
I’ll never forget once when I was channel surfing, and I stumbled over an episode of the Montel Williams show, of all things. And it was one of the most compelling instances of TV I’ve ever seen.
Williams had on two women: A white supremacist, and a member of the NAACP. And these two women are going at it, and the white supremacist is explaining that whites and blacks simply CANNOT get along peacefully. That there must ALWAYS be hostility.
And Williams says, “It’s interesting you should say that. Can we cut to the green room camera please?”
And there in the green room are two children: The black woman’s daughter and the white woman’s son. Both of them are about four years old. They are playing together, peacefully, joyfully.
The black woman is now grinning and the white woman erupts at Williams. “You said you were going to keep my son in a private room! That he wouldn’t be speaking to any of these people!”
Meanwhile the kids suddenly realize they’re on TV, seeing themselves on the monitor. Giggling deliriously, they both bound onto the nearest couch and start bouncing and waving. Then, purely spontaneously, they throw their arms around each other and continue to bounce and laugh.
The white woman goes completely mental. She leaps out of the chair, bolts from the studio, down the corridor (a cameraman with a hand-held following her the whole way), grabs her son, and drags the bewildered kid away down the corridor. The little girl is left behind, stretching out her arm, calling his name, and he’s shouting back to her in a piteous manner, wanting to go back and play with her some more.
That was maybe five, six years ago. I have little doubt that if that boy encounters a black girl now, he’d spit on her or shove her or call her a profane name.
Yeah. It’s taught.
PAD
“I don’t think he believes that. I think he believes that almost 100% of the criticism goes toward the Israeli side while Arab governments commit daily human rights abuses with nary more than a collective shrug from the same people who are so quick to judge Israel.”
i think one reason Israel is singled out for criticism is in response to it so often being held up as a shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the savage middle east.
As for Columbus, while the scientists of his day acknowledged that the world was round, many of the lay people of the day persisted in the belief that it was flat. Kind of like certain people with regards to evolution or global warming.
The reason Columbus set sail was commercial..to discover a shorter trade route. It had nothing whatsoever to do with science. Proving the religious nuts wrong was such a sexier, if you’ll excuse the term, reason though, that when Washington Irving wrote it, everyone glommed onto it.
Of course, John. In fact, his critics in Europe didn’t shoot him down on the basis of the Earth being flat, but because the journey was too dangerous or that the distance was greater than he had anticipated (turns out they were right about the latter).
So really, the idea that he “proved” the Earth is round is about as accurate as saying he “discovered” America, except for the natives that were already there, some vikings who had been there 500 years earlier, and the fact that he never actually did set foot on the mainland.
Still, my original point was just that there were many sustitious people of his time that did believe that the Earth was flat. There still are a few flatearthers around today, in fact.
“i think one reason Israel is singled out for criticism is in response to it so often being held up as a shining beacon of freedom and democracy in the savage middle east.”
Compared to the other countries there it’s an exaggeration but not much of one. It’s a far more accurate statement than the one held by a majority of EU members according to a Gallup poll-The poll found 59 percent of Europeans believe Israel represents the biggest obstacle to Mideast and world peace.
That doesn’t mean automatically that anyone who believes that is an anti-semite. It’s not like Europeans have a history of hating Jews.
It’s amazing to me that the photos of the two gay kids being executed in Iran didn’t generate much outrage. Palestinians execute “collaborators” and the world yawns–meanwhile, American cop-killers get marches in their honor.
There’s no point in getting upset about the double standard but it’s fun to point it out and hear the squeals.
i think there’s a tendency to hold democracies to a higher standard than autocratic regimes.
this is why, on some level, i’m more upset about Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo Bay than i am about what Hussein did to his people (which was, objectively, far worse).
certainly, Israel is a lot better than most of its neighbors.
i would have to say that the very existence of Israel is very problematic for the region. just because it adds fuel to the fire.
that doesn’t mean i think we should get rid of Israel. i can’t help but think there was a better solution to the issue of a Jewish homeland, but i really don’t know what that would be.
i don’t believe that either the bible or the fact that they were there a thousand years ago gives them any rights to that land.
however, the fact is, they’re there now. they’re established and they have legitimate squatter’s rights. it is their home now. i’m not using the term squatter’s rights derisively here.
it’s a really twisted situation. the Jews, who have been oppressed throughout history were put into a situation where they became de facto oppressors simply by being there.
i thought that this was a very good article on the current state of anti-semitism:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050103&s=judt
Tony Judt makes some good points but while the situation in Europe among non-Muslims may be much improved, the level of pathological jew-hatred among Israel’s neighbors and in all too many of those who emmigrate from there, is cause for serious concern. Tha word “nazi” gets tossed around way too much but when you have The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion being made into TV movies it’s hard to imagine how a people raised on that filth will be able to participate in Mr. Judt’s “one-state” solution to the problem.
1) I do hold Israel to a higher standard, but then again, I am an Israeli.
2) I don’t like the idea of other countries first putting my country on a pedestal and then knocking it off the pedestal. There are Israelis such as myself that are not satisfied with some of Israel’s less democratic practices. But, unlike the US, we are not interested in being an ideal for the rest of the world. And although we may have been more likeable as victim, we do not want to be that either. Israel should act better for itself.
3) In any case, if one’s interest is to help people who are suffering there is little significance to the democracy or the lack of democracy of the opressor, only to the degree of suffering.
4) The idea that Israel adds to the fuel in the middle east,or that the existence of Israel should be questioned is a frightening idea for me. Everybody accepts that the Americans have treated the native-Americans badly, or the Europeans were wrong to colonize the world. It is accepted that Islam’s conquests are in the distant past. But nobody questions the US’s right to exist, or expect Europeans to give up their countries as well as their colonies, or that Islam should roll back its conquests. Nor is it assumed that the west should give up its economic interest with the Muslim world because these contacts fuel Bin-Laden. The Jews could not persue their own national interests all these centuries because a large part of the world (and the land of Israel/Palestine) was divided by two greater religions, who also considered the same land sacred. Would it have been better had the Jews then go on to build a homeland on lands taken from Africans or Indians?
5) I hate getting into the historical stuff, the real problems are here and now.
6) Israel did not become an oppressor just by being there. The oppression was the result of wars that have placed Arabs in a weaker position compared to Jews. But the wars started because the national asperations of the Jews to build a Jewish State opposed the national aspirations of Arabs wishing the same land to be part of an Arab or Muslim nation-state. This is a conflict between nations, not oppression.
7) The best way I heard to explain the situation in Israel/Palestine now is this: The Palestinians are fighting two wars. One understandable war to end their occupation by Israel. Another to destroy Israel, which is less acceptable. Israel is fighting to defend itself from terrorism, which is understandable; but also to continue the occupation of the Palestinians, which is not. The Palestinians use terrorism for both goals, which is unacceptable. Israel uses military force which is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. And here lies only part of the complexity of the situation.
“But nobody questions the US’s right to exist, or expect Europeans to give up their countries as well as their colonies, or that Islam should roll back its conquests. Nor is it assumed that the west should give up its economic interest with the Muslim world because these contacts fuel Bin-Laden.”
to be honest, i have heard all of these things suggested. ok. actually i haven’t heard anyone talking about rolling back Islam’s conquests, but the rest i’ve heard.
actually, your comparison to the U.S. is very fitting. i feel the same way about both (ok, i know a lot more about the U.S. situation, being part Chocktaw). i consider the founding of the U.S. and the founding of Israel to both be very problematic. though, frankly, the Jewish people had a better claim on that land than Europe had on America.
however, the fact is, we’re here, it’s our home now. i don’t consider the elimination of Israel to be an option for reasonable people to consider. In the U.S., i see more people who’d like to see the Palestinians driven from the West Bank and Gaza than Israel eliminated.
i’m more concerned about anti-Arab sentiment than anti-Jewish sentiment simply because i see more of it.
Micha,
Your perspective is appreciated; we hear so much about the Middle East situation but not that often from people actually a part of it.
As Micha points out, the situation in Israel is very complicated. I think both the Israelis and the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, which is which I disagree with any effort to distill the conflict down to a simplistic “Israel good, Palestinians bad” mentality.
Israel exists and is not going anywhere. The Arab world has never come to terms with that fact. The sad thing is, the more the Palestinians engaged in terrorism (supported by other Arab nations), the more it pushed Israel into taking more heavy-handed tactics to protect their security.
Recent events do raise some hope. The new Palesntinian leadership and the pullout of Gaza have given us at least a glimmer that peace can be found.
Thanks Bill.
Anti-Arab sentiments in American society probably have more to do with 9/11 and Iraq than with Israel. Americans have to deal with them as Israelis have to deal with theirs. However, although antisemitism may not be very visible in American society, it is part of the ideology and propaganda of Al-Qaida and other Arab and Muslim organizations and governments. And these people act on their beliefs. So it should be taken seriously, while making sure it is not used as an excuse for misconduct by Israel or the US.