Israel has the leader it chose

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman is worried for Israel. (The opinion piece is probably paywalled, like most NYT content.)

After traveling around Israel and the West Bank, I now understand why so much has changed. It is crystal clear to me that Israel is in real danger — more danger than at any other time since its War of Independence in 1948.

Friedman sees three major threats: fanatical Islamists who are better-armed and better-organized than they ever have been, surrounding Israel on all sides; the need to maintain international support from as many other nations as possible even as Israel pursues the kind of house-to-house combat that inevitably kills many innocent civilians and therefore arouses international condemnation; and finally, "the worst leader in [Israel's] history — maybe in all of Jewish history", who is temperamentally incapable of taking any steps toward a two-state solution, the only way for Israel to survive (or so I gather is Friedman's opinion).

Here's Friedman's recommendation for the first step Israelis should take toward finding a way out of this disaster.

The sooner Israel replaces Netanyahu and his far-right allies with a true center-left-center-right national unity government, the better chance it has to hold together during what is going to be a hellish war and aftermath.

Um, okay, yes, in the abstract, that's a good idea. But haven't you missed something, Tom?

Yes, those far-right fanatics who are slavering for a fully Orthodox Jewish state, shorn of the secularism that has been part of Israel's body politic since the beginning, are indeed unfit to govern. They proved it by leading Israel into this crisis. Bibi himself is an awful leader for Israel right now: by thoroughly dividing and distracting Israelis, convincing many that they had more to fear from his power grab than from any external enemy, he likely kept the military from noticing the signs of the impending attack.

However, Bibi and his allies didn't gerrymander their way into power, as Republicans have in the U.S. The extremists who surround Bibi reflect a large and growing fraction of the Israeli population.

How, Tom, is Israel supposed to create your magical center-left-center-right unity government when a huge chunk of the population is hard-right?

Bibi is in some ways uniquely bad as a leader but getting rid of him wouldn't change the bitter divisions in the population that put him in power.

R.I.P John Klezdy

You probably never heard of John Klezdy, even if you live in Illinois. You probably never heard the band for which he was lead singer, the Effigies.

These things make me sad because the Effigies are, in my not-so-modest opinion, one of the greatest unsung bands of my lifetime.

What really saddens me, though, is that John Kezdy died Saturday at the age of 64.

His death doesn't just sadden me, though: it angers me. I'm not sure why. He died a few days after he crashed into a van while cycling and I think I'm pissed because accidents are mostly preventable. I'm probably also pissed that we live in a world where a kick-ass songwriter and singer can perish without his music having reached the millions of people who need to hear his music, even if they never knew they needed it.

But I think I'm mostly pissed because John Klezdy is dead while so many overrated, overblown, and overexposed mediocrities breathe on, churning out sonic manure, sometimes to great acclaim.

John Klezdy died too fucking early. Fuck this world.

A small community isn't always a welcoming one

Jake Meador, a practicing Christian, ponders why a lot of once-practicing U.S. Christians stopped attending services. (His piece is in The Atlantic and might be behind a paywall.)

According to Meador a new book, The Great Dechurching, offers insights into the exodus. Though "religious abuse and more general moral corruption in churches" certainly is a factor, the majority of the lapsed faithful cited the pace and intensity of life in these United States. Meador characterizes the problem thus:

Contemporary America simply isn’t set up to promote mutuality, care, or common life. Rather, it is designed to maximize individual accomplishment as defined by professional and financial success. Such a system leaves precious little time or energy for forms of community that don’t contribute to one’s own professional life or, as one ages, the professional prospects of one’s children. Workism reigns in America, and because of it, community in America, religious community included, is a math problem that doesn’t add up.

(A couple of links omitted.)

Meador argues that the solution is for churches to become models of a better way of living.

What is more needed in our time than a community marked by sincere love, sharing what they have from each according to their ability and to each according to their need, eating together regularly, generously serving neighbors, and living lives of quiet virtue and prayer? A healthy church can be a safety net in the harsh American economy by offering its members material assistance in times of need: meals after a baby is born, money for rent after a layoff. Perhaps more important, it reminds people that their identity is not in their job or how much money they make; they are children of God, loved and protected and infinitely valuable.

If you're Christian, this is an appealing vision.

What about the non-Christians?

A large enough town might have enough believers of different religions and denominations to support multiple places of worship, each and all of which I suppose ought to provide an active and embracing sense of community, in Meador's vision.

What about the small towns, though? What about the places where one Christian denomination (for it will generally be a Christian denomination) dominates?

If you're a Christian teen who is LGBTQ+, will that denomination's church welcome you?

If you're a Muslim resident of that town, how can you share in a sense of community that originates in a religion that's not yours?

Oh, and what about the non-religionists? If you're an atheist or nonbeliever, can you share in a sense of community that arises from any religion?

The problem with Meador's vision, then, is that it overlooks one of the biggest problems with a small community, whether it be a church or town: it can be absolute hell for anyone who isn't perceived to fit in.

One could argue that Christian churches are specifically problematic because the Bible has a myriad of injunctions that literal-minded adherents use to make life miserable for others. However, the blind spot in Meador's vision isn't limited to churches. The furor over Jason Aldean's "Try That in a Small Town" highlights the blind spot his fans and politically likeminded people have, one that isn't about Christianity per se. Rather, it's about what it means to belong — and who gets to decide who belongs.

Aldean and his supporters don't see anything objectionable in his lyrics, and why would they? They're the ones who fit into the towns in which they live. They feel part of a close-knit near-family.

For those who are out of step or make others uncomfortable, though, it's a very different and unhappy story. In a small community someone who's different, even if harmless, may have no refuge from unremitting community disapproval (or worse). They're made to feel that they don't belong and that it's their fault.

That is what Aldean and others don't see (or won't admit). That's the dark side Aldean's lyrics bring to mind for all the nonconformists who find themselves on the outs in those supposedly idyllic communities. (The nastiness is visited on a lot of non-Whites, too, who often find themselves being seen as a threat.)

Meador's vision doesn't comfort this nonconformist, who wants no part of religion. I think centering community in churches will simply exacerbate the problems faced by nonconformists all over, because the Abrahamic religions can't help defining themselves in part by whom they exclude.

You lied, Bibi

I slammed Netanyahu in 2015 for his shameless pandering to Republicans and reactionaries. He has done nothing to endear himself to me since. To the contrary, he has only reinforced my opinion that as long as he leads Israel, the U.S. must not give Israel its unconditional support.

Not only is Bibi giving every appearance of a guilty man trying to derail the criminal case against him (in his case, by arrogating to himself and his political allies the power to smother the case, or to wipe any conviction off the record), but — because he needs help in his corrupt effort — he's allowing the most dangerously authoritarian, reactionary, and puritanical politicians in Israel to transform the country from a democracy to a theocracy with pseudodemocratic trappings — rather like Iran, one of Israel's chief enemies. (The irony seems to be lost on those ardent right-wingers — or perhaps they relish it.)

According to the New York Times, Bibi has been on a PR offensive in the U.S., trying to defend his coalition's recent passing of a highly controversial new law "that stops the [Israeli Supreme] court from overruling government decisions that it finds lacking in 'reasonableness.' "

The government argues that the doctrine gives unelected judges too much leeway to overrule elected lawmakers. Critics call it an important tool for preventing corruption and abuse of executive power.

Mr. Netanyahu’s media blitz with the American broadcasters — he also spoke with ABC — came amid mounting international concern over Israel’s domestic turmoil. The hard-line coalition’s judicial overhaul has split the country, prompted hundreds of thousands to protest for weeks on end, and cast a painful light on Israel’s widening divisions.

I won't get into the new law, which is only the first (and by all accounts, the least controversial) of three laws which, if all enacted, would hand full power to the prime minister and his or her ruling coalition.

What I want to note is Bibi's disingenous attempt to reprimand the U.S. for daring to opine on his brazen undermining of Israeli democracy.

On Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu called Mr. Biden a “great friend of Israel.” But he said Israel would ultimately reach its own decisions, adding that he had not commented on other countries’ internal debates over the limits of executive power.

Spare me, Bibi. You spoke volumes about your feelings concerning executive power when Barack Obama was in office.

His brazenly partisan appearance before Congress rubbed a lot of us the wrong way. He used our legislative body as a campaign prop for his election, and aligned himself forever more with the Republican Party. His apologists note, correctly, that there's no love lost between Netanyahu and President Obama, but his personal dislike of the President does not excuse his blatant violation of diplomatic courtesies. Bibi's appearance amounted to a slap in the face not of President Obama, but of the entire United States.

Your 2015 appearance carried your implicit rebuke to the sitting president of the United States: "Your authority, Mr. President, doesn't mean squat. If I can benefit from your nation's domestic divisions, I will and you can suck on it."

Actions speak louder than words.

You lied, Bibi. You sure as hell have "commented" on the United States' "internal debates over the limits of executive power". You weighed in on the side that says, "If a Democrat is in office, screw that president's power."

Go ahead, Bibi, keep lying to us. Keep giving us reasons to rethink our unthinking support for Israel. Keep making your country's most fanatical religious zealots its face. By doing so, you push the U.S. closer and closer to cutting its support for Israel, potentially saving us billions of dollars.

I'd feel bad for the many Israelis who oppose your government's disdain for democracy, but at least we wouldn't be abetting your most reactionary and narrow-minded citizens' worst impulses any more.

Try again, Clarence

Per a New York Times article headlined, "Justice Thomas Says He Was Advised Lavish Gifts Did Not Need to Be Reported":

Justice Clarence Thomas said on Friday that he had followed the advice of “colleagues and others in the judiciary” when he did not disclose lavish gifts and travel from a wealthy conservative donor.

In a statement released by the Supreme Court, the justice said he believed he was not required to report the trips.

“Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable." ...

What kinds of gifts and travel are we talking about?

ProPublica revealed on Thursday that the justice had traveled by private jet and yacht at the invitation of Harlan Crow, a Texas real estate billionaire. The vacations, which took place over nearly two decades, included trips to Indonesia and to Bohemian Grove, an exclusive retreat nestled in the redwoods in Northern California.

I had seen the ProPublica headline but couldn't bring myself to read the piece. Clarence and Ginny Thomas so disdain public opinion, and are so immune to public pressure, that I figured, why bother raising my blood pressure to no good purpose?

However, Clarence's "they told me it was okay" excuse takes his contempt for public opinion and the public's intelligence to new depths.

Clarence, you know damned well that flying on a private jet isn't like being treated to dinner at Applebee's. That you can't be bothered to muster even the smallest amount of shame for your failure to disclose — that you expect us to swallow the rank excrement of "but 'they' told me it was okay" — is despicable. You have benefited from your past and present colleagues' indifference to the institution's reputation, a reputation which, thanks in no small part to you and your wife, is deservedly in the toilet.

In short, Clarence, you're full of it.

You've pledged to comply with new disclosure guidelines adopted last month. If you do, better late than never. However, I'm betting you'll still find ways to skirt the intention of those guidelines. After all, neither you nor Ginny loves being treated like the little people who have to follow the rules, do you?

How will we remember this era?

I've been reading a bit about how discredited causes are remembered. Specifically, I had my eyes opened by Susan Neiman's simultaneously scholarly and deeply personal 2019 book, Learning from the Germans: Race and the Memory of Evil.

Neiman compares how Germany has gone about confronting its Nazi past with how the United States has confronted the legacy of slavery. The comparison turns out to be a good deal more complicated than most of us would like, certainly the "most of us" who like to believe we're on the "right" side of history. To be an admirer of Hitler today is monstrous, no question. Yet to say that Germany has successfully grappled with Nazism and its legacy is ... well, contentious. Not all Germans believe that, and the skeptics have compelling reasons for their doubt.

Yet if Germany has had a difficult time looking itself in the mirror, the United States largely has kept its eyes closed, at least until recently.

Neiman observes that much of this country's problem grappling with the legacy of slavery arises from its refusal to examine a good century of its history, namely, the period between the end of the Civil War and the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s. When skeptics of systemic racism complain that slavery ended over a century ago, they take advantage of popular ignorance of Reconstruction and its backlash, the so-called "Jim Crow" era. Some historians contend that the latter era's brutality, which included lynching and mass murder, merits a more brutally honest name, like "neoslavery". I can't argue with them. To paraphrase an observation made by Martin Luther King, Jr., chattel slavery ended in 1865 but African Americans weren't truly freed for another century. If more of us understood the truth of neoslavery, how thoroughly it ground AFrican Americans down under a web of legalized terror and economic exploitation, we'd give short shrift to the willfully obtuse argument that "slavery ended over a century ago and we should move on".

So both Germany and the United States still have work to do, coming to terms with the horrific legacies of their pasts. The United States has a lot farther to go in its own journey than Germany, though.

With all that in mind, I wonder: what will our descendants a century hence make of this era's legacy? (I'm limiting myself to considering the United States from here on.)

In our time we've seen a good forty percent of the country (the actual number varies depending on context but forty percent seems to be a good overall estimate) descend into political madness. There is no other way to characterize the reactionary (not conservative) embrace of the corrupt, cartoonishly dishonest, and venemous Donald Trump. Just this week, he reasserted his dominance over his would-be challengers for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — by being indicted in New York State.

The sheer number of verified and verifiable lies that Trump has told since he announced his candidacy in 2015 utterly disqualifies him as an authoritative or trustworthy source of information about anything. Yet millions of otherwise sane Americans repeat his assertions — echoed and embellished by far-right media and social media — with absolute confidence.

At one time I believed they were doing so purely out of spite, as a rhetorical middle finger to those of us who still have some trust in the mainstream media and, more broadly, in expertise and truth. Yet the vast majority of those millions have put their money and their health where their mouths are. They have repudiated the consensus of the medical and public-health communities that the vaccines against CoViD-19 are safe, and have refused to be vaccinated. They have done so because Trump, among others, has assailed the vaccines as toxic, or as sinister vectors for mind control.

It's worth remembering that (1) Trump himself got vaccinated, though he did his best to conceal that fact, and (2) Trump at least nominally presided over Operation Warp Speed, the government project that led to the vaccines' development. Yet millions of Trump's followers have repudiated the vaccines anyway.

To trust a compulsive liar — one who doesn't even follow his own (bad) advice — does not make sense. It makes no sense to me, and it won't make any sense to our descendants a century from now.

I remember the horror of the 1978 Jonestown Massacre in which hundreds of cultists committed suicide at the direction of the cult's leader. That was my first brush with what I've since discovered is a real vulnerability in the human psyche, one that explains adherence to horrific ideas not just by hundreds, but by millions. Sometimes the right — or rather, wrong — person comes along, able to convince a lot of people that they should put their complete trust in him. (It's almost always a man.)

Forty-five years on, we still don't have much of a handle on how cult leader Jim Jones gained his hold over his followers. I wonder if, a century from now, science will be able to explain that, or the power of our own time's literal cult hero, Trump.

Or will our descendants a century from now still struggle against the enduring, toxic legacy of the delusions Trump and likeminded allies have spread? Will his deluded message live on in a new "Lost Cause" narrative, perhaps fused with the old one that is one of the Confederacy's most evil legacies ("evil" because it tries to deny historical truth)?