Genghis's blog

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

Genghis — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:14:41 +0000

Dear Mr. Alexander,

Thank you for your important and original editorial, "Why are liberals so condescending?" I had no idea that I been guilty of employing tired and contemptuous stereotypes of my conservative brethren. I realize now that my partisan arrogance has limited "our national conservation on critical policy issues" and that if I and my fellow liberals had just been a little more charitable towards conservative sensibilities, the Republicans would be working with us to move the nation forward in harmony instead of being forced to filibuster every bill, nomination, and procedural motion on the Senate floor. All I can say is that I'm sorry, and I will try to be better.

Since your essay explained the many ways in which liberals are condescending but didn't actually answer your own question, I'd like to help by explaining why we liberals are so arrogant.

We're not really bad people, but our feelings have been hurt too. I wish that all conservatives were reasonable people like you who offer helpful constructive criticism. But I've been hearing so much lately about how evil I am and how I hate the Constitution, it's hard not to take it personally. I know that you said Glenn Beck is just "a marginal figure and a media gadfly," and I keep reminding myself of that, but he's sold millions and millions of books, which is way more than any of the liberal writers that you cited. I don't think many people have heard of Thomas Frank, the Edsalls, or even (no offense) Alexander Gerard, but Glenn Beck is everywhere.

Still, I know that Beck doesn't speak for most conservatives. In your editorial, you mentioned a poll by Markos Moulitsas which shows that only 23% of Republicans believe that their states should secede from the Union. That doesn't seem like too many. But you know, I looked at the survey, and it also shows 63% of Republicans think that Obama is a socialist. They probably mean that in a good way, but it just seems like a lot. And it makes me wonder, with no disrespect, how well most Republicans understand socialism.

But I'll try to forget about Glenn Beck. He's just one guy. There are probably many other bestselling conservative books that are far more positive about liberalism. Like Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies and Dick Morris's Catastrophe: How Obama, Congress, and the Special Interests are Transforming. . .A Downturn into a Crash, a Recession into a Depression, and a Disaster into a CATASTROPHE . . and How to Stop Them and Ann Coulter's Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change.

I'm sure that you're familiar with all these books. You probably also read Coulter's: Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right when it came out 8 years ago. She wrote that "the more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be." That's sort of close to the point of your editorial, isn't it? She also wrote that "much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse." I have to confess that these words sound a little condescending.

But I'm sure that hardly anyone reads Ann Coulter and those other people. And anyway, Republican politicians are much more reasonable and open to liberal ideas. For instance, George W. Bush always consulted Democrats about their concerns. But it did bother me a little when Dick Cheney suggested that Democrats "are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States" and when Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that Obama "is obsessed with turning terrorists loose in America."

I also thought that Tom DeLay was slightly disdainful when he wrote that "liberals have finally joined the ranks of scoundrels like Hitler." But most Republicans don't go that far. I believe Rep. Paul Brown (R-GA) when he said that he wasn't comparing Obama to Adolf Hitler, though it was weird when he added, "What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road." I wonder if he talked to Rep. Steve King (R-IA) because he suggested that we might "end up in a totalitarian dictatorship." Could that be why Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called Obama "an enemy of humanity?"

Anyway, shame on Thomas Frank for writing that working-class Republican Kansans care more about abortion than their own economic interests. Who does that guy think he is? I was so disgusted by his condescension that I re-read part of his book. I'm sure that you remember the bit about conservatives' propensity to "take offense, conspicuously, vocally, even flamboyantly" and how they complain that "the virtuous are persecuted by the 'sanctimonious,' by the arrogant, by the falsely pious, by the corrupt" and the part where he writes, "Everything seems to piss conservatives off, and they react by documenting and cataloging their disgust."

Had Frank read your brilliant editorial, I'm sure that he would never have written such nonsense.

Sincerely,
Genghis

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Persecution Politics: Conservatives Challenge New Hate Crime Law

Genghis — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:14:46 +0000

A conservative "civil liberties" group has challenged the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act. The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center is suing U.S. government on behalf of three pastors and the president of the American Family Association of Michigan. The suit alleges that the law violates the plaintiffs' freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment, the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, Federal jurisdiction constraints of the 10th Amendment, and, for good measure, the Constitution's Commerce Clause. That's three Amendments and one Clause, which is an awful lot of unconstitutionality for one bill.

According to Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, "the sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible." It's other sole purpose, he claimed, is to use the threat of prosecution "to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin." It's other other sole purpose is to elevate "persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors," i.e. perverts, "to a special protected class of persons." And it's other other other sole purpose is to "pay off" homosexual advocacy groups for supporting Obama in the last election. That's an awful lot of sole purposes for one bill.

Robert Muise, who is handling the case, explained that the new law "creates 'thought crimes' by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions." This position is shared by the James Dobson who has warned, "If you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality - you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'" It's also shared by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), whose office has produced talking points declaring that "The Hate Crimes bill creates a new Federal 'Thought Crime.'" Actually, a lot of right wing folks share this view. Just google "homosexual thought crime" for hours of surfing pleasure.

But to jump straight to the heart of the matter, listen to Andrea Laffery, director of the Traditional Values Coalition: "The goal is to undermine the First Amendment and persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality."

If you're not a right wing zealot or a gay fascist, you may be wondering why anyone thinks that the hate crime bill, which is designed to combat violent against homosexuals, persecutes Christians. In his famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," Richard Hofstadter notes that political paranoiacs tend to project their own qualities and aspirations onto others. Thus, members of the religious right project their own hatred and intolerance of homosexuals onto the homosexuals. This act of projection enables them to feel justified in their hatred and intolerance. As Freud writes in his analysis of paranoia, "He hates (persecutes) me, which will entitle me to hate him."

In fact, the religious right has a long history of trying to reverse the intolerance equation. For instance, Anita Bryant, a former pop singer and beauty queen, famously campaigned against a 1977 Miami ordinance to guarantee equal employment and housing rights for gays by stating, "If this ordinance amendment is allowed to become law, you will in fact be infringing upon my right or rather DISCRIMINATING against me as a citizen and mother to teach my children and set examples or point to others as examples of God's moral code as stated in the Holy Scriptures." [Emphasis hers.]

Tim LaHaye, who created the bestselling Left Behind series, argued that "when all job discrimination for homosexuality is removed...teachers can be expected to brainwash our children with the 'blessings' of the unhappy gay life."

But the award for Best Projection in Homophobic Literature goes to Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, authors of The Pink Swastika, for attempting to prove that the Nazis were not intolerant of homosexuals; they were homosexuals. Scott Lively, incidentally, has just made the news again for speaking at a conference in Uganda about the evils of the "gay agenda." After the conference, the Ugandan Parliament increased the penalty for homosexuality to death by stoning. That should stop those intolerant homosexuals from criminalizing the Bible.

And by the way, Matthew Shepard, the murder victim for whom the hate crimes bill was named, was not killed because he was gay. According to Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), it was just a robbery. The accusation of homophobia is "a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills." Obviously, no one would ever murder people because of their homosexuality.

I'm currently writing a book on right wing persecution politics titled How Bill O'Reilly Saved Christmas, to be released in October. For more on the topic, see my Persecution Politics series.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Inappropriate Behavior Rampant During Obama's State of the Union

Genghis — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:58:10 +0000

The media's focus on Justice Samuel Alito's head shaking dissent during President Obama's State of the Union address has overshadowed many other breaches of decorum from both sides of the aisle. State of the Union expert Dr. Isabel Strong called the reaction to Obama's speech "the most indecorous since President William Henry Harrison's infamous 'the state of the union is phlegmatic' speech of 1843."

While it is not unusual for legislators to react with subtle expressions of disapprobation to presidential utterances, Strong noted that Republican facial reactions bordered on disgust. She recorded an unprecedented number of scowls and glares directed both at the President and legislators across the aisle. Democrats, for their part, countered glare for glare, delivering an average 42.3 glares per minute to the Republicans' 47.3, the highest on record since analysts began measuring in 1913. By contrast, Republicans were almost four times more likely to scowl than their Democratic counterparts.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) delivered the most glares of any legislator, averaging 89.3 per minute. His glares were directed at Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader Harry Reid, and an unknown woman in the balcony. The count is disputed, however, by facial expression expert, Dr. Shayna Punnem, who argued that some of the alleged glares were in fact leers.

In addition to scowls and glares, Dr. Strong listed many other examples of inappropriate behavior. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) yawned fifteen times during Obama's criticism of Senate inaction, and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) appeared to pick his nose during Obama's discussion of the Federal deficit. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) twitched every time Obama said the word "economy," though many analysts believe that the twitches were involuntary. During Obama's spirited defense of his health care plan, Rep. Mike Simson (R-ID) licked the ear of Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), twice. At 23 minutes into the speech Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) shot a spit ball across the chamber that hit Rep. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in the eye. She was rushed to Bethesda Medical Center immediately afterward where she is reported to be in stable condition. In addition, Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Ted Poe (R-TX), dressed as telephone repair men, attempted to tamper with the cell phone of Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) and were quietly escorted from the chamber.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) who received notoriety for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's last State of the Union, was tightlipped and stone-faced throughout the speech, but those sitting next to him reported hearing a quiet high-pitched squeal from his vicinity, and there are unsubstantiated reports that he bit off his own tongue.

Other than Justice Alito's head shake, the Supremes were respectful and expressionless throughout the speech, but bystanders witnessed a spirited debate afterward, with Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor nodding as Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito shook their heads furiously. Justice Kennedy reportedly just bobbed his head from left to right.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Tea Party Threatened by Capitalist Menace

Genghis — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:03:38 +0000

The Tea Party, a potent collection of dyspeptic right-wing populist groups, was on the verge of national conquest. Having defeated a Republican candidate in a New York House election and a Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts Senate election, it seemed that there was no stopping this crew of tax-rejecting, socialist-hating, health-care-not-wanting defenders of the Constitution and all that is good in America.

But on the eve of triumph, the Tea Party's first ever national convention is collapsing in acrimony, having been sabotaged by a devious Capitalist conspiracy. According to news reports, the organizer of the event, a for-profit company called Tea Party Nation, secretly planned to make money by charging $500 per ticket. Tea Party Nation had also colluded with guest speaker Sarah Palin, who reportedly plotted to charge a $100,000 speaking fee. Some even suspect that Tea Party Nation had a secret relationship with Tea Party Express, an organization that is controlled by Capitalist corporations and the Republican Party, a well-known Capitalist front. Erick Erickson, who runs the right-wing blog, RedState.com, called the whole event "scammy."

Tea Party Nation has not responded to our attempts to contact them. We can only conclude that they are deep inside an insidious Capitalist plot to destroy the Tea Party. We encourage Teapartiers to make use of their excellent protesting skills to protest their own convention. We also call on President Barack Obama to reign in these devious Capitalists with legislation that would make it a crime to make money by charging poor people exorbitant fees--except for health care of course.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Hurling Thunderbolts for Health Care

Genghis — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:55:05 +0000

Yesterday's Massachusetts' election affects me personally. I'm self-employed and have a cheap health plan. Within the first few months of beginning a new plan, I'm already involved in a dispute with the provider, Golden Rule, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare. My health plan, I recently discovered, doesn't cover preventive care in the first three months. I don't know why they have this restriction. It would not be a big deal except that no one told me about it, not when I signed up and not when I called to confirm that my physician was in network. I learned of the restriction only when I received the bill for my annual check up, which happened to come two-weeks before the three-month limit. But I'm sure that it's written in my contract somewhere.

Nonetheless, my dispute is minor, a few hundred dollars. Many people far less fortunate than me with serious diseases and hospital bills running hundreds of thousands of dollars have been left desperate and hopeless because of contractual technicalities. Others have no insurance contacts at all.

Now it seems likely that the health care bill, which seemed at long last close to passage, will fail like the others. The Democrat-controlled House can't agree with the Democrat-controlled Senate. America will continue to boast the worst health care in the industrialized world. American people will continue to suffer.

I have an urge to blame voters in Massachusetts, who already have state guaranteed health care and left the rest of us to fend for ourselves. But why should Massachusetts' historical liberalism make the state more responsible than any other? If I blame Massachusetts, I may as well blame Georgia, Oklahoma, Alaska...

I have an urge to blame Republican legislators, who have put politics ahead of humanity. They know the system is f-cked, but they would rather let people suffer than lose an opportunity to attack the President. They have enthusiastically exploited the ignorance and fear of their constituents for political points. But I didn't vote for those legislators, and they don't give a damn what I think or what I say

And so I'm left with my own party, the people that I canvassed for, raised money for, and voted for. The Democrats have squandered the greatest mandate that they've had in decades. They will not see 60 Senate votes again for a very long time, and they may find themselves all too soon back in the minority. I stood by them as they permitted the twisted abortion amendment. I stood by them as they dropped the public option. And now I sit horrified as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama throw their hands in the air.

I need a threat, a penalty, some figurative thunderbolt that I can hurl at the Capitol. But if we Democrats turn against the leaders of the party, when we Democrats turn against the leaders of the party, we will throw the nation into the waiting arms of the oily Republican leaders who gleefully wring their hands in anticipation.

Nonetheless, unless the Democrats get their act together soon, I see no alternative. The Democratic Party is not a blue hat that you get to wear in November. It's not a rich uncle who hands out plum subcommittee assignments. For elected officials, Democratic Party membership comes with responsibilities. The most important of those, in 2010, is to pass a health care plan. That, more than any other reason, is why we elected you. If you can't do that, take off your blue hat and hand over your subcommittee. Come back to us when you're ready to lead.

And for those Democrats who don't sit around quibbling haplessly in historic legislative chambers, call your Representative.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

5-Year-Old Philanthropist Raises Money for Haiti

Genghis — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:29:58 +0000

Last Thursday, I received a phone call from my friend, Lily, a San Francisco native halfway through her kindergarten year. In truth, we are more than friends. We married in an unofficial ceremony during the summer of 2008, and over a few brief hours of marital bliss and several cups of imaginary tea, we were blessed with four or five children, one of whom resembled a furry red monster. But alas, the marriage could not survive the age and geographical distances. We drifted apart. Lily claims not to remember the wedding, and the kids are stuffed in a box somewhere.

But Lily and I remain friends. When she called on Thursday, Lily got to straight to the point in her typical businesslike fashion. She was raising money for earthquake victims. Would I pledge $5? I would. Then I offered a counter-proposal. If Lily were to produce a fund-raising video, I would post it on my blog. Lily came through. Here's the video, with a special cameo by her sister Fiona.

Please help the suffering Haitians by matching my $5 donation and forwarding this video to friends and family.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Persecution Politics: Civil War Rages in the G.O.P., but Watch Out What You Wish For

Genghis — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:18:28 +0000

In the wake of resignations by Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan, Democrats may be taking some shortsighted solace in the prospect of a brewing conservative civil war between the Republican Party establishment and the revolting Teabaggers, no pun intended. The differences between the warring camps are not ideological - the G.O.P. long ago purged its dissenting moderates - but attitudinal. The Teabaggers have embraced a paranoid worldview according to which they suspect President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, and assorted White House bureaucrats (the so-called "czars") of a secret plot to destroy the country, or as Teabag-hero Glenn Beck has put it, "feast on the Republic." The paranoia has led them to vilify any Republicans who express doctrinal flexibility or willingness to compromise with Democrats.

Dale Robertson, one of the founding baggers, recently growled to the Republican Party, "We are turning our guns on anyone who doesn't support constitutional conservative candidates." The latest victim of Teabagger gunplay is Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, an ally of moderate Gov. Charlie Christ. Teabaggers, who have vowed to block Christ's 2010 Senate campaign, reportedly orchestrated Greer's resignation. On his way out, Greer lambasted the "destructive behavior" of those who have been "tearing and shredding the fabric of the Republican Party to pieces." Jim Greer, incidentally, is the same voice of moderation who promoted the conspiracy theory about Obama's back-to-school speech last September:

As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology…President Obama has turned to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves.

The intraparty conflict may help the Democrats this fall, blunting the effect of Dodd and Dorgan's resignations and the negative impact that a weak economy typically imposes on the incumbent party. Last November, a special election in New York's 23rd congressional district offered a sample of what is to come. Teabaggers supported Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, a devotee of Glenn Beck, in his challenge to moderate Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava. After Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh endorsed Hoffman, Scozzafava dropped out of the race and threw her support to Democrat Bill Owens, who narrowly won the election in this heavily Republican district. "Tea Party Patriots" hoping to emulate Hoffman are already running campaigns in Virginia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania.

But self-satisfied Democrats would do well to study their political history. The Teabagger revolt is only the latest battle in a long-running G.O.P. struggle that has wrenched the party and the nation ever rightward. In 1976, the liberal conspiracy du jour was not a cabal of government "czars" but a plot by "secular humanists" in the government and the schools to destroy Christianity. To thwart the plot, Rep. John Conlan (R-AZ) introduced an amendment prohibiting federal funds for educational programs "involving any aspect of the religion of secular humanism." It passed the House but failed in the Senate. One of the legislators who voted against it was Rep. John Anderson (R-IL), an evangelical who had once introduced a constitutional amendment to "recognize the law and authority of Jesus Christ" over the United States. Anderson had been a favorite of the burgeoning religious right movement, but his vote against the attack on secular humanism enraged them. As one columnist wrote at the time:

Trust the zany right-wingers to work themselves into a perfect lather because Anderson voted against Washington issuing an unintelligible decree to local schools.

In consequence of Anderson's betrayal, the right backed a fundamentalist minister named Donald Lyon in the 1978 primaries. Anderson squeaked out a victory but sought to escape his conservative district by running for president in 1980. He lost the primary to Ronald Reagan and then ran as an independent, winning 7% of the vote. He may have peeled off more Carter supporters then he did Reagan supporters.

The 1978 column about the "zany right-wingers" observed that "the Republican 'left' has been shrinking even faster than the party itself has been. Today, the GOP is a conservative party, with...more ideological uniformity than any major American party has had in this century."

The name of the columnist: George Will.

Today, Will has been supplanted as a leading conservative commentator by the proud "journalists" of FOX News. And the "ideological uniformity" of 1978 Republicans - many of whom shunned cultural issues like abortion and school prayer - seems like a tepid foreshadowing of today's right-wing Republican Party. Let us hope that we never reach the day when statements by FOX commentators about the power of the right wing seem like anachronistic throwbacks to the liberal days of 2010.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

BREAKING: God Apologizes for Failure to Disrupt Senate Health Care Vote

Genghis — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:45:11 +0000

God issued an unusual apology on Monday for failing to stop Senate Democrats from cutting off a Republican filibuster of the health care bill. In a brief press statement, God acknowledged underestimating Democrats' resolve and promised a thorough review His divine intercession policies.

In recent weeks, millions of Americans had prayed for God's help to stop the Democrats from passing a health care bill. After the Family Research Council organized a 90-minute prayercast with Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Randy Forbes (R-VA), and Todd Akin (R-MO), most theological analysts predicted that God would heed the demands of his constituents. Many interpreted Saturday's record-breaking blizzard in Washington D.C. as evidence that God was taking steps to address the crisis.

But Democrats thwarted the blizzard by holing up overnight in the Capitol building as they doggedly pursued a cloture vote. Realizing that the act of God had failed, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) called for an emergency intercession, insisting, "What the American people oughtta pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight."

Analysts focused on the 92-year-old Robert Byrd (D-WV), who seemed like an easy target for the most powerful deity in the universe. But when aides wheeled the senator into the Senate Chamber at 1:06 am, it was clear that God had screwed up.

In His press statement, God expressed surprise at the Democrat Senators' determination, stating that "no one could have predicted that those lazy, spineless secularists would get their act together," but He acknowledged that the miscalculation had seriously undermined His reputation for omnipotence. In addition, God blamed "bureaucratic snafus" on His failure to respond to Senator Coburn's urgent prayer, and He promised "a full, unblinking review" of the Emergency Divine Intercession Network (EDIN).

While God conceded that institutional changes could take eons, too late to save innocent Americans from Federal death panels and health care benefits for illegal immigrants, He promised an extensive evaluation in which all punitive options would be considered, including "fire," "brimstone," "flood," "pestilence," and "frogs."

God's supporters expressed disappointment at His failure to stop the Senate vote. While some held out hope that He could still pull off a Christmas miracle, others expressed disillusion and skepticism. According to one depressed believer who asked not to be named for fear of divine retribution, God was "on probation":

"If He puts an outside expert in charge of the review, maybe I'll go back to Church. But if it's just another ass-kissing preacher blinded by God's alleged perfection, I'll put my faith into another institution with more accountability. The peer review system in the Hindu pantheon is very appealing to me these days."

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Who is a Jew? Britain's Supreme Court Dings State-Funded Jewish School

Genghis — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:08:14 +0000

When I was twelve years old, my father took a sabbatical in London, and our family moved from quiet, middle class Iowa City to London's buzzing if somewhat downtrodden Camden neighborhood. I enrolled in a "state school" called J.F.S. (Brits confusingly call their private academies "public schools".) I would walk to school by myself past the gloomy "estates" (housing projects) and the jumbled little shops of Kentish Town, shyly self-conscious in my blue blazer, gray sweater, and striped blue-and-gold tie.

But I would not put on my blue-and-gold beanie until I arrived at the school. A beanie is an unusual accessory in an English school uniform. Its significance is suggested by the full name of the school, Jews Free School. The "beanie" was a yarmulke.

Britain lacks the strict separation between church and state of the U.S. A third of its state-funded schools are religious. Most are Anglican or Catholic, but 37 are Jewish, seven Muslim, two Sikh, one Hindu, one Greek Orthodox, and one Seventh Day Adventist. The majority of my classes at J.F.S. were secular, but Hebrew study and a course called "Religious Knowledge" were required. The cafeteria was kosher, and we recited Jewish prayers several times a day. In addition to the state holidays, we also got the Jewish holidays off, and the school closed early on Fridays--my favorite part of attending a Jewish school.

J.F.S. is the news today. Britain's Supreme Court has ruled that it must change its admissions policy. J.F.S. only admits Jews, but that practice is not illegal in the U.K. What is illegal is the way J.F.S.'s admissions policy defined what it means to be a Jew. According to traditional Jewish law, if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish, no matter what you believe. If she's not, then you're not, no matter what you believe. You can, however, convert to Judaism, though it's not nearly as easy as dunking your head and embracing God. There are various rituals and tests of knowledge required, and if you're male, you need to be circumcised. (The last requirement may partly explain why there are so few Jews in the world.)

The case in the news involves another twelve-year-old boy, known as M in court papers. His father is Jewish, his mother is Jewish, and I presume that M is circumcised. But M's mother was not born Jewish; she converted in a progressive Jewish synagogue. Since J.F.S.'s admissions policy only recognized Orthodox Jewish conversions, M's mother's conversion didn't count. Ipso facto, the school did not consider M to be Jewish and refused to admit him.

M sued. He lost. He appealed. The Court of Appeal found the school's admissions policy to be based not on religion, which is legal, but race, which is not, and ruled for M. J.F.S. appealed. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling. J.F.S. has changed its admissions policy to use a "religious practice test" instead of the matrineal test.

The question of what it means to be a Jew is one of the most divisive questions within the Jewish community. Orthodox synagogues and organizations claim exclusive privilege in defining Jewish identity. For instance, under Israel's Law of Return, all Jews are allowed to settle in Israel and to become citizens. For most of Israel's history, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel had the authority to determine the validity of conversions according to Orthodox requirements. In 2005, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that non-Orthodox conversions outside Israel were also valid.

I have a younger sister who was too young to attend J.F.S. when we lived in London. She is adopted. As a Native American, we're pretty sure that her biological mother wasn't Jewish, Mormon theology notwithstanding. When I was young, I remember traveling to Des Moines, where my sister had a ritual bath called a mikvah and officially converted to Judaism under Orthodox rules. My parents explained that our synagogue, the only one in Iowa City, wasn't religious enough and that my sister needed the full conversion in case she someday decided to move to Israel or wanted to marry an Orthodox Jew. They weren't thinking about Jewish schools in England.

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos

Senator Orrin Hatch and the Eight Nights of Hanukkah

Genghis — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:05:39 +0000

Orrin Hatch--Utah's longest serving senator in history, former presidential candidate, proud member of the Finance Committee, the subcommittees on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure and Taxation and IRS Oversight, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as well as the Joint Committee on Taxation--can now add another feather to his well-befeathered hat: Hanukkah lyricist.

You may be surprised to learn that in addition to his senatorial duties and occasional cameos on major motion pictures, the 75-year-old Republican senator is also a songwriter. From his profile page at LDS Music:

Senator Orrin Hatch's song "Heal Our Land" was performed at the inauguration of President George W. Bush, January 20, 2005. This patriotic song was sung by Wintley Phipps, a gospel singer who has performed for presidents at the White House and for popes at the Vatican. He is also the founder the U.S. Dream Academy, an online Christian academic resource.

One of Orrin Hatch's songs can be found on the commemorative CD for the 2002 Winter Olympics. He recently teamed with the Osmonds: Second Generation to produce I Love America. And in the wake of September 11th, Orrin released the single, America United: A tribute to all those who lost their lives on September 11th. His works also include The Locket (music written for the book by Richard Paul Evans), Put Your Arms Around the World with Santita Jackson and Chris Willis, and Many Different Roads: A Tribute to Diana Princess of Wales and Mother Teresa.

According to Wikipedia, the senator has also released several songs under the pen name, "because it's you, man," but this seems like one of those examples when the "citation needed" warning should be heeded.

Senator Hatch loves music, obviously, but he also loves the Jews, whom he affectionately calls "the chosen people." We chosen ones are well known for writing fantastic Christmas jingles like "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" and "White Christmas," but when it comes to their own holidays, we stink. Our best known Hanukkah melody, "I Have a Little Dreidel," is the most tuneless piece of festive tripe since "Happy Birthday."

When the good senator learned of our suffering from the writer, Jeffrey Goldberg, he decided to return the favor for all those Christmas songs by writing one for us Jews. According to Goldberg:

Hatch said he hoped his song would be understood not only as a gift to the Jewish people but that it would help bring secular Jews to a better understanding of their own holiday. 'I know a lot of Jewish people that don't know what Hanukkah means," he said. Jewish people, he said, should "take a look at it and realize the miracle that's being commemorated here. It's more than a miracle; it's the solidification of the Jewish people."

And so, without further ado, I give you Eight Nights of Hanukkah by Orrin Hatch, a.k.a. "because it's you, man":

On behalf of the Jews of America, nay, the Jews of the world, I say, "Thank you Senator for the generous gift of song. It has helped us to realize the miracle that's being commemorated." (For those who watched the video but still don't realize the miracle that's being commemorated, you can find details in my Hanukkah post from last year.)

According to the NYT, Senator Hatch has said that Eight Nights of Hanukkah will not be his last venture into Jewish music. "Anything I can do for the Jewish people, I will do," Mr. Hatch said in an interview before heading to the Senate floor to debate an abortion amendment.

To which I respond again on behalf of the Jews, "Thank you, Senator, you've done enough. Happy Hanukkah."

Feature video:

Include this post in the featured videos