The Zeitgeist

A Nazi Crematorium

Baking Jews with Mike Huckabee:

When is an Oven an Oven?

Last weekend former Arkansas Governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee opened the oven door on President Obama’s Iran Nuclear deal and let out a big blast of heat and blowback.

On Sunday, July 26^th in an interview with Breitbart News, Huckabee said “this president's foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." The metaphor used by Huckabee is that of the Nazi crematoria of World War II which were employed in the extermination of six million Jews.

The next day Huckabee was all over broadcast and cable TV defending his criticism of the Iran deal in those terms and saw his poll numbers rise appreciably against the 17-candidate GOP pack.

No end of vituperative criticism and righteous indignant invective was inveighed against Huckabee by President Obama, others within his administration, prominent Democrats, prominent American Jewish Liberals and the gaggle of cable talking heads. “How could you and how dare you compare the Iran nuclear deal to the Holocaust” was the general refrain. Somehow Huckabee had sacrilegiously besmirched the hallowed memory of the Nazis’ victims. But did he really?

It begs the question, what is an oven exactly? We’re all familiar with coal and wood fired ovens, which often make the best pizza. There are electric ovens and convection ovens, toaster ovens, gas-fired ovens and microwave ovens all employing differing levels of technology to achieve the desired result of cooking whatever dish might be placed within and sometimes you can burn a roast or casserole if the oven is too hot. The Nazis burned people in really big ovens. The main target of Nazi burning were Europe’s Jews who they killed with industrial efficiency with an eye towards genocide, at which they were nearly completely successful.

Hitler and his minions were unabashed and unapologetic about their stated goal of eradicating Europe’s (and even the world’s) Jews. At great cost to their war effort they pursued this goal practically until the bitter end. It was really kind of a rabid hate.

The Ayatollahs along with the political and military leaders of Iran have made no bones about their admiration for the Nazis’ effort (which paradoxically they deny ever happened) and their oft publicly stated desire to complete Hitler’s work by eradicating the State of Israel and all of the six million Jews in it. This is no secret, it’s shouted in the streets of Iran, in their press, tweets and broadcasts. They provide extensive monetary and strategic backing to various heavily armed proxy terrorist groups encircling Israel with the aim of enabling them to murder as many Israelis as possible and as an advance guard for the big, final push somewhere down the road.

This is why there is a wall to wall consensus in Israel from the far left to the far right against President Obama’s Iran nuke deal. After the experience of World War II and decades of ethno-religious hatred against them in the Middle East, Israelis take threats of genocide seriously and don’t pooh-pooh them as fantastical.

By allowing Iran to keep their nuclear program and permitting any pretense of inspections to expire in a decade along with the repeal of economic sanctions, the return of $150 billion in frozen assets, the lifting of prohibitions against selling Iran arms and intercontinental missiles, isn’t the deal in fact enabling Iran to burn more Jews in the short term and possibly realize their stated goal of genocide against the Jewish people perhaps 10 years on?

In the only two instances where atomic weapons were used against civilian populations (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) we saw the power of the atom to burn and incinerate. While the Nazis had to turn one body at a time into powder and ash, atomic weapons can do that to tens and hundreds of thousands in an instant and cause delayed death from radiation shortly after for the survivors of such a blast. If you incinerate thousands of bodies a day manually or perhaps a million instantaneously is not the end result the same?

The real desecration of the Holocaust victims’ memory is allowing such a thing to happen again, enabling would-be genocide by caving into the demands of dictatorial bullies who are fueled by religious and racial hatred. Holocaust survivors and most Jews generally ascribe to the philosophy of “Never Again” to a Holocaust against them.

Mike Huckabee used some very blunt language to disparage a deal that puts millions of Jews in harm’s way and Israel between a rock and a very hard place defensively.  When it comes to saving millions of lives perhaps diplomatic politesse is precisely the wrong tack to take and some plain speaking will both clear the air and shed more light.

For the diplomats in the White House and at Foggy Bottom this is all one big process and they’ll move on to the next treaty. For Israel and the Jewish people this is about life and death. Jews are very familiar with ovens of every caliber and would prefer not to be exposed to the heat in the Iranians’ kitchen.

The Zeitgeist

ISIS or ISIL head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He's no Romeo.

ISIS vs. ISIL. What’s in a Name?

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the Bard of Stratford posited and Juliet articulated “What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Juliet, vexed by the danger of a relationship with Romeo by virtue of his family heritage but nevertheless in love with the boy is making the point that who someone is matters more than what that person is called.

On a far less romantic note, way more dangerous than Capulets or Montagues (or Sharks or Jets in the New York iteration) is the Middle Eastern terrorist group alternately known as ISIS or ISIL, against which President Obama has declared war upon.

Thirteen years ago when former President George W. Bush launched the War on Terror, we had no such confusion as to the moniker of our foe, we knew them as al-Qaeda. Today, depending on who you’re listening to, we could be up against two different enemies who are actually one and the same. No, our adversary doesn’t have a split personality disorder – they know quite clearly who they are and what they stand for. We are the ones sowing the confusion.

If you listen to the President, or to John Kerry or to Chuck Hagel or to various members of the defense establishment, we are committed to “degrade and destroy” a group named “ISIL,” which stands for the “Islamic State In the Levant.” However, when watching the news, seeing some members of congress, hearing pundits and talking heads, reading news sites and such we are told that we’re fighting a nefarious organization named “ISIS,” which is short for the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.”

Within any given newscast, we can see Administration spokespeople wax on about ISIL while the anchors, analysts and correspondents keep saying ISIS, sometimes directly to one another within the same conversation. How are we to agree on a long term strategy to eradicate this evil if we can’t agree on what to call them? A rose by any other name, indeed

I believe we should all agree on “ISIS” and push the Administration to change their tune. Here’s why:

● “ISIS” is easy to pronounce, like “Hamas.” It just sounds better. ISIS is a nemesis. “ISIL” always comes across as awkward; it causes the tongue to make an unnatural pause before saying the next word. ISIS makes for better looking headlines, with the final “S” more graphically attractive than looking at an “L.” If we’re to spend a lot of time over the next few years talking about this group, we should make it as pleasant a linguistic experience as possible.

● “ISIS” sounds like the name of some ominous and dastardly group, like “Kaos” from Get Smart. Would Agents 86 and 99 have made any headway against “Kaol?”  All evil and violent NGOs have cool names.

● “ISIL” on the other hand sounds like the last four letters of some cholesterol, diabetic or cardiac pharmaceutical – the kind that gets advertised all day on CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Is it ennobling to be up against a pill, even if most of these medications warn you of the danger of heart attack, stroke or death?

● The “L” in “ISIL” is for the “Levant,” an old-world word that stands for the Middle East, particularly for the area between the Mediterranean and Iran. Most Americans wouldn’t know where the Levant was if it fell on them – also – why give this group regional status? Isn’t it the President’s objective to bomb them back into some corner or Syria anyway?

There’s a scary-looking black-clad guy named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who is the head of ISIS (or ISIL). Perhaps when our team of Navy Seals eventually gets to his lair in Syria, just before we pull the trigger, we can ask him which English-language acronym he prefers? After all, a Caliph should be able to write his own epitaph. Maybe we could send a message to his YouTube account asking him to clarify this debate for us before his next televised beheading?

My bet is al-Baghdadi will go for ISIS as he and his group seem to be very image conscious and media savvy. But in all seriousness, the American people will soon be clamoring for an end to the ISIS-ISIL ping-pong, especially if we’re being asking to support another trillion-dollar war effort. Juliet may not have cared much about names and labels but the American people deserve an adversary whose name is easy to pronounce and as we know from the play, ultimately the names did matter, which is why I’m “pro-ISIS” and “anti-ISIL.”

The Zeitgeist

In a Free-Market Economy “Income Inequality” will Always be a Fact of Life.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.” Only three divine “inalienable” rights were then named, those being “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Ever since the Occupy Wall Street events of a couple of years ago there seems to be a clamoring for an additional sacred right to add to the original troika – that being income equality. The mantra of income equality was recited to great effect by then candidate and now New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and has subsequently been picked-up by President Obama.

It is true that the overwhelming majority of Americans are not rich. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2010 per capita income was $40,584 nationwide. Even affluent states like New York and California are at $48,821 and $43,104 respectively. While Massachusetts (at $51,552) and Maryland ($49,025) which have even higher income numbers can’t guarantee the good life for all its residents.

The Census Bureau also reports that 42 percent of households in the U.S. have dual incomes which would account for the high percentage of Americans in the middle class and upper middle class. The Census Bureau also reports that as of its 2006 statistics (which will show higher numbers for 2010 and beyond) only the top 25 percent of households earned in excess of $77,500. Further refining this, the top five percent of households earned $167,000 or better; the top one percent had incomes exceeding $350,000, so, clearly, those earning a million dollars a year or more are a very rare breed.

On the tax front it seems that the bigger earners are paying a heavy chunk of U.S. income taxes. For 2009, the top one percent paid 36.73 percent of all federal income taxes. The top five percent were carrying 58.66 percent of the tax burden and the top 10 percent were bearing almost 71 percent of the tax load. So 10 percent of Americans are paying more than 70 percent of the taxes.

According to 2006 Census figures, the top 10 percent of households earn $118,200 or more whereas the top 10 percent of individual earners were at the $75,000-plus level and only 5.63 percent of individuals were exceeding $100K. So what constitutes the “wealthy”? It is really the guy in New York or San Francisco who earns $100,000 a year?

There has always been a top five percent and a top one percent in the U.S. In any free market capitalist society there are always going to be some folks who do exceedingly better than others.

Part of getting into the top five percent or higher is a combination of hard work, education, talent, pluck and luck. And not everyone is going to get there. The percentage of high school and college athletes who get into professional sports is miniscule and these athletes are on the whole very well compensated deep into the top one percent. Very few pretty girls will become a super model or appear in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

There are very few aspiring broadcast journalists or actors who will make it onto the big networks and fewer yet who will be in Hollywood’s top 100. and believe it or not, there are very few people working on Wall Street who will crack the finance stratosphere.

The tenth of the Ten Commandments reads as follows from the King James Version of the Bible: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, one of the key definitions of “covet” (and meant in the biblical sense) is “to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately.” Because coveting leads to resentment.

The authors of the Bible put the prohibition on coveting into the top 10 because jealousy of those who have more than you can be both self-destructive and damaging to society as a whole. There will always be someone you know who earns more, has a bigger house, drives a better car, wears better clothes or takes better vacations. There is no way to assure equal money and equal stuff for everyone. They tried that in the 20^th Century. It was called Communism and Socialism and as George Orwell wrote, still “some pigs were more equal than others” which is why it failed.

Yet we currently have a political environment where the term “income inequality” is being bandied about prolifically with the intention of arousing the resentment of the masses against all those who’ve done well for themselves. What American equality has always stood for first and foremost has been equality before the law, equality in voting, equality of opportunity (a country where anyone can become President, for example) and surely equality in education to the greatest extent possible.

What is not guaranteed in life are equal outcomes for one’s life and career efforts and as a consequence, equal incomes. That’s why the Declaration of Independence only guarantees the right to pursue happiness, not happiness itself. Life isn’t fair. We don’t always get what we want or what we deserve. Government has to provide a climate of equal opportunity for all to excel but ought not be fomenting resentment against those who have succeeded or succeeded spectacularly. Government needs to have an impartial, non-discriminatory playing field that doesn’t discriminate or vilify any of its citizens, including those who’ve done well.