Follow by Email

Monday, May 23, 2011

Explaining Obama on Israel

Back in college I was assigned a new advisor every semester it seems.  In my third semester I went to see my newest advisor, a rather gruff old man who proceeded to review my class choices and then signed off on them.  When he was done he said to me, “Last semester your advisor was professor so and so, and the semester before that your advisor was professor so and so, and this time you were switched to me.  That makes sense, right?”  It didn’t make any sense to me but being a timid 18-year old and slightly afraid of this grouchy man I decided it was best to agree with him so I said, “Right.”  He sat back and said, “Then you explain it to me, because I don’t understand it at all.”  I think I mumbled something unintelligible and then hurried out of there, praying that the school would be true to form and give me yet another advisor next semester.

All my stories have a point (I promise), and the point here is that sometimes when things don’t appear to make any sense it’s because they just don’t - period.  With that in mind let’s look at the facts involved in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, particularly as it pertains to borders and the “right of return:”

·         The present-day borders of Israel are based on territories Israel captured in a war instigated against them in a combined effort by its hostile neighbors, along with changes negotiated later on.   In what many consider a marvel of military prowess, Israel repelled its attackers and advanced its borders in the process.

·         The natural consequence of instigating a war is that you risk losing something – such as land.  When we allow countries who provoke war to suffer the negative consequences of their actions we reinforce their apprehension about engaging in such behavior going forward.  Therefore, common sense dictates that those losses should stand.

·         As President Netanyahu advised Mr. Obama in their televised meeting the other day, after the war Israel took in all of the Israeli refugees of the war, yet the Arab states declined to take in the Palestinian refugees. 

·         In spite of their land gains, Israel remains a tiny country with a relatively small population surrounded by larger and far more populous hostile nations.

·         The Palestinians, lead by Hamas, are openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the Israeli people and they have demonstrated by their actions that they have no sincere interest in peace.

·         It has now been 44 years since the war occurred and the borders of Israel were redefined by their victory.  Most of the people who are considered “displaced” were probably children or not even born when these events occurred.

·         To ask Israel to “return” land to the Palestinians would, in addition to reducing the buffer zone between them and their hostile neighbors, displace Israelis.

Base upon these facts, is it reasonable to ask, or in Obama’s case – insist – that Israel renew its peace negotiations with the Palestinians using the 1967 borders as a starting point?  To do so would clearly mean that in order for Israel to preserve the territory it now enjoys ANY AND ALL concessions would have to be theirs.  The Palestinians have nothing to lose and can only gain.  That makes sense, right?

Being a bit older and wiser now I’m not afraid to loudly say, “NO.”  It makes no sense at all. 
And what I’ve learned over the years is that whenever you add up the facts and can only logically and/or morally reach one conclusion, the Left will advocate precisely the opposite. 


That’s the 64 million-dollar question, my friends.

The answer is what I have said before and will no doubt say again and again because it cannot be stressed enough:  Leftists/progressives/liberals – whatever you like to call them – are psychologically immature.  That is not tongue-in-cheek and it’s not intended to be dismissive.  Indeed, it’s the very reason that I perceive the Left to be the biggest danger to this nation and to this world.

Allow me to explain.

If you observe the behavior of children, generally speaking you will see that they are motivated by (1) the need to feed and nurture their egos; (2) the desire for attention; (3) na├»ve idealism about people and about the world; (4) the need to assert their independence by rebelling against authority.   And let me add that children are also often characterized by an under-developed sense of conscience, a lack of awareness and/or caring as to how their behaviors impact others. 

Exhibit A is the behavior of so many high school and college-aged kids.   While they often look like adults in size and appearance, they generally behave quite differently because they still lack psychological maturity.  It is no coincidence that these groups can be known for their lack of impulse control or that they enjoy attracting attention to themselves by holding “sit-ins” or engaging in violence for “causes” that they often don’t even understand.

Just as there are people who mature at a very young age, there are those who mature quite late or who never really mature at all.  These are today’s liberals or recovering liberals.  While motivations like ego and idealism are understandable and usually manageable in children, they are a menace to society when they compel adults, especially those who hold positions of power in government.

So let’s look at Obama’s actions with respect to Israel and see if it fits my theory.  We already know, based on the facts listed above, that it makes no logical or moral sense that we should ask our friend and ally to bow to the demands of the Palestinians and other anti-Israel forces (i.e. the U.N.).  Secondly, it is the nature of children to erroneously assume that to be the champion of the “underdog” makes one a hero, regardless of whether or not the underdog is in the right.  Obama clearly wishes to see himself, and more importantly wants the world to see him, as the hero to the poor underdog Palestinians.  This is what nurtures his ego.  Third, by taking the side of the Palestinians in opposition to the conventional conservative position Obama is rebelling against the proverbial parent, or “the establishment,” if you will.  And as any parent knows, children love nothing more than to demonstrate the superiority of their youthful intellect over the boring wisdom of their parents. 

So that’s my theory, folks.  Obama is reversing U.S. policy towards Israel because, in a nutshell, he’s a child.  It is a child’s mentality that compelled him to announce the closing of Guantanamo – in opposition to conservative policy and to the applause of his adoring fans on the Left – until his lack of forethought came back to bite him as it typically does to children.  And it is a child’s mentality that makes him believe that it’s okay to lie to the people he serves and pretend that Obamacare is anything other than a vehicle for wealth transfer, and that coerced wealth transfers are morally acceptable because they make things “fair.”  Indeed, it is a child’s mentality to believe in the “free lunch,” the notion that the government can spend a nation into prosperity. 

But, I digress…

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Move Over, Henry Kissinger, it's Sean Penn's Turn to Speak

Call me the strange one but I can never recall a time in my life when I was watching an important issue or event unfold in the news only to find myself thinking, “Hmmm.  I wonder what Brad Pitt has to say on this subject?"  On the contrary, when it comes to national policy or, say, the interpretation of the Constitution, it simply never occurs to me to be curious about Rosie O’Donnell’s opinion.

It is one of my many great pet peeves in life when celebrities use their celebrity status – acquired through such noble and esteemed endeavors as acting, singing and ball playing -  in order to exploit a captive audience and broadcast their opinions on topics completely unrelated to their areas of “expertise.” By a wide margin these celebrities tend to lean left in their political views, and needless to say I have some theories as to why that is.

Once again I’m going to invoke a past blog essay I wrote theorizing that the liberal mindset stems from a lack of mental maturity.  Liberals, in fact, exhibit many behaviors that we most often associate with children, and this is demonstrably true in the case of many celebrities.  Generally speaking I think it’s fair to say that people who gravitate to the entertainment business enjoy and seek out attention more so than the average person does; they are inordinately driven to satisfy their egos (Charlie Sheen comes to mind), which is why, I surmise, so many feel the need to impose their influence on us politically so they can demonstrate to us how much smarter or more altruistic they are than us average folks, and this brings me to one trait in particular common among this bunch and that is their flippancy when it comes to cheating. 

Cheating, you say?  Why, CW, how does that come into play here?

Well we know from watching leftists in all walks of life that cheating is par for their course.  Whether it’s Acorn instigating voter fraud, local politicians refusing to enforce illegal immigration laws, democrat congressional leaders trying to insulate their members against consequences for improper behavior, or the constant lies they tell – they cheat.  So why should we be surprised when liberal celebrities insert themselves into debates where access is typically reserved to people whose legitimacy was earned either through elections or as a result of being bona fide experts on the subject at hand?   We should not be surprised, is the answer.

Recently I read the book “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen.  It was written in a time and place when it was openly acknowledged that your assets and income dictated your status in society and automatically entitled you to certain respect (as opposed to now where we pretend that it doesn’t).  In one scene a ‘Lady’ of vast wealth and property presumes to inflict her opinions upon all who come across her path, weighing in on every small detail of how they should live their lives.  It’s quite ironic to me that our celebrity liberals, who would undoubtedly decry this Lady’s sense of entitlement based solely upon wealth and class, see no parallels with their own elitist behavior. 

I don't care what Lady Gaga thinks about the illegal immigration fight in Arizona.  I don't care how George Clooney feels about Iraq.  It greatly offends me when people like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity invite actors and singers on their shows to opine on or debate matters of national importance.  In fact, I stopped watching Hannity a long time ago partly for that reason.  Furthermore, if I were a celebrity invited on one of these shows I would decline, and I would suggest that, since there apparently are no relevant qualifications for justifying one’s presence there, they should give my spot to any average person off the street.