By Steve Levy, on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET When it was announced that President Obama was going to be visiting Israel I thought it timely to forward my humble suggestion as to how we can have a breakthrough in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. How about buying from the Palestinians the land they once lived on and is now the state of Israel.
For the last several decades, negotiators had tried to curb the violence by seeking a two-state solution. Israel would claim a hands-off policy to a neighboring Palestinian State while the Palestinians would simultaneously acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.
The reason this proposal never moved forward is because it did not get to the root of the anger that lies beneath this controversy. In order to fashion a lasting peace, we first have to look back to the manner in which the conflict erupted upon the founding of Israel in 1948.
There were four major players in this scenario: the United Nations, the British, the Jewish people and the Palestinians. It is hard to say that any one of these entities was the bad guy. Millions of Jews who were uprooted by Nazi tyranny were, after World War II, in a state of shock with no home and needing to regroup. The U.N., with the best of intentions, looked to provide these dispersed Jewish populations with a singular homeland where they could grieve for their dead and start anew. The British would retreat from its colony after having tried unsuccessfully to fashion a Jewish homeland since the 1917 Balfour Declaration. It was a magnanimous gesture. The only problem is that they created the new nation of Israel on land that many Palestinians had called their own. Palestinians were actually uprooted and forced to flee the area. So, one can see the burning hostility that would boil within the Palestinian people.
 By the same token, it is hard to expect the Jewish population at this point to have rejected this offer to control their own destiny through their own government. The problem comes in when some inject into the argument that one people has more of a God given right to the land than another. I can’t imagine the person on the losing end of that argument feeling very good about themselves.
The Jewish people were merely trying to survive in peace. They were not seeking to conquer their neighbors or to hurt anyone. On the other hand, an angry Palestinian population that was kicked off their land, was feeling a sense of humiliation. They have mistakenly concentrated their anger upon the Jewish population and have vowed revenge. Thus we had attacks on Israel in 1967 and again in 1973.
More recently, Israelis have been bombarded with haphazard shellings from over their border. The restraint shown by the Israeli people is incredible. I doubt that Americans would be so restrained if we were being bombed every day from a bordering state. A foreign power attacked our buildings once and we rightfully responded with an overwhelming military fury.
Many Arab leaders, who are despots in their own right, have used anti-Semitism as a way to create a nationalistic jingoism to distract their poverty stricken constituents from the leaders’ evil ways. Their schools teach their children to despise Jews are the Devil. Is it any wonder that these younger generations grow up with such hatred toward the Jewish people.
But Israel, America and others seeking the long-term survival of Israel must understand the humiliation and the frustration that many of these generations have harbored – in part due to the repression that they face through occupation, and even more so from the fact that they were kicked off of their land without any compensation.
What if the U.N. would have been more sensitive to the Palestinian people who were displaced back in 1948? What if instead of kicking them off their land, they offered to buy their land? Israel could have been created without the resentment and the humiliation that came about. Perhaps it’s not too late for that type of justice. Perhaps the way to finally create lasting peace in this area is to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and that the Palestinians who were displaced have a right to compensation for the land they lost.
So, instead of us wasting billions of dollars in federal aid to thankless powers such as Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan, perhaps our money would be better spent in a one-time payment to the Palestinians for the land that was previously taken from them. The compensation would go far beyond helping people in poverty; it would create a sense of justice for those who feel they were wronged. Only when that sense of resentment is eradicated from the situation, will there be peace of mind for the Palestinian population and peace for all the region that lasts.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET My latest athletic injury story….
I strained my calf muscle on Wednesday and had to ice it most of that evening and some the next day.
Here’s how it happened.
 “So, late Wednesday afternoon I left my office and walked down the three stairs out the back door.”
That’s it. That’s the whole story. Nothing else happened. No rugby match. No extreme sports. No cross-fit workout. No heroic game winning score. I injured myself walking down three steps.
But after several days of convalescence I seem to be recovering fully and should be able to ascend and descend stairs again by early next week!!!
By Jonathan Miller, on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM ET  Click here to review/purchase The nation’s most exciting new publishing imprint — The Recovering Politician Books — has just released its second title, following the international sensation, Jonathan Miller’s The Liberal Case for Israel:
John Y. Brown, III’s Musings from the Middle.
If the title sounds familiar, well d’uh — it is a collection of essays first published at The Recovering Politician — and some bonus new essays as well by our modern day Will Rogers — former Kentucky Secretary of State John Y. Brown, III. Our readers know that John is often insightful, usually clever, and always hilarious.
I loved the book — giving it three thumbs up.
But don’t trust me: Check out the first review of the book at Amazon.com:
I have not read this book yet but did write it. I don’t proof read so, I really can’t say that I have read it even while writing it. I do, sometimes, go back and read some of the posts in this collection after the get posted on the Recovering Politician blog I write for. So, I guess, in that sense I have read a little of this book.All I can say is that the posts I have read after they got posted, some of them were pretty good. As for the others I didn’t read, I tried to make them worth while but can’t comment any more than that. And I apologize for the spelling and grammatical lapses that come from not proof-reading. If you learn nothing else from this eBook, I hope you at least learn the value of proofing and editing.
And at most, I hope you chuckle a few times and say to yourself, “I can relate,” or “Maybe I’m not so weird after all if this guy thinks that way too,” or maybe “Wow, perhaps both of us –because we think like this –are really weird and everybody else is normal’ (although I hope this last thought doesn’t happen as often as the one I wished before it).
And if you have this last thought a lot more often than the one before it, don’t feel bad. I have a friend here in Louisville (whose name I won’t mention), who has these kind of thoughts too. So, really, there’s more than just two of us. There’s at least three. (His name is John Bell and he’s been a friend since high school. Sorry, John.)
I originally planned to write 5 reviews and give myself 5 stars in each review. Of course, that would require setting up 4 fake accounts and making up 4 fake names. And I’m not sure how to set up fake accounts and making up fake names takes more time than I want to give it. So, I’m just going to give this one real pseudo-review. And give myself 3 1/2 stars. My conscience –coupled with laziness–always seems to undermine my bigger plans.
Full disclosure: I rounded up to 4 stars.
And if you liked the review, you will love the book. Purchase by clicking here for only $4.95, while supplies (electrons) last.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Nothing—no act, no decree, no decisive action— is more powerful or empowering. ….
Than the act of forgiveness.
It allows the forgiver to free both the forgiven and the forgiver (him or herself) from the tension created by the particular matter at hand.
And creates an environment –and begins a habit–for each to forgive themselves more generally.
No single act frees so many from such oppressive misery so swiftly and completely. Nothing is more powerful
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Aging and heroism. (Or Worse than Kryptonite)
Did you ever have one of those days where you get called on for a dramatic heroic act that will save the day, but as you step into the phone booth to change into your Superman costume, your mind goes blank and you literally can’t recall for a several seconds if you are Superman or Batman?
And then, after regaining your composure, start to really regret being Superman and grumble to yourself, “This s**t is getting old. They never ask the guy in the office next to me to do this sort of stuff. In fact, he’s at lunch now with the COO. That’s just so wrong! Next week I am going to say something about it.”
And then, as you are taking your time changing–it now takes 5-7 min to change at age 49– you get in a shouting match with some 19 year old who needs to use the phone, who calls you “Lame.” And that really ticks you off and you threaten to keep your street clothes on and not do your heroic deed until some older adult pulls the 19 year old aside and gives him his cell phone for his call?
And then as you are tying your cape, you realize you have love handles pushing out either side of the spandex Superman top. And you are just hoping you can avoid flying and let the cape cover your sides today? Or at least fly at an angle where others won’t notice and comment?
And you make a note to wear sunglasses in the future because you are embarrassed how you look in the Superman costume?
And then, finally, after waiting until now one is looking, you try to burst out of the phone booth but the phone booth door is jammed? You shake and jiggle it. And even do so strenuously but realize that even with your super powers, at this age, you aren’t strong enough to force open the door by yourself?
And so you get the attention of the 19 year old who you had a shouting match with and is now finished with his cell phone call and ask him nicely if he’d try to open the phone booth door from the outside? And apologize for losing your cool as he is smiling smugly to himself and opens the phone booth door for you with two fingers using his left hand?
And then you forget where you are and what you are doing and ask the 19 year old if he still has the cell phone he borrowed so you can check with Google Maps for directions? But he doesn’t have it, of course, because he’s given it back to the stranger who was trying to protect your feelings?
And you walk off dejected? But see a coffee shop and decide to get a latte and a pastry. But after you order remember you are in your Superman costume and forget to bring any money with you? And you want to point out that your Superman and this should really be on the house given all your done for the community over the years —and about to do today? But you decide that discretion is the better part of courage. And apologize and promise to come back later that day (after your super hero mission is complete, but you don’t say this….just thinking this to yourself)?
And after getting lectured by the manager about how he’s just trying to run a business and shouldn’t have to deal with “people like you” you walk out the door and even though you can’t remember where you parked and don’t have your keys anyway after the phone booth change, you are secretly pleased with yourself and feel like you FINALLY caught a break today because you at least got a free latte and pastry?
And make a gentle mental note to yourself that when you send your Superman costume to the cleaners this time to have them take it out two inches in the waist. Again.
If you answer yes, well, you are not alone. Me too!
By Artur Davis, on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET “When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”
It is unlikely that any major American political figure would say anything like the statement above: to be sure, its terms would seem much too opaque to trust to the dissection of the press or the blogosphere. But its skepticism about liberty for its own sake would be even more disturbing than its loftiness. For example, a Democrat would find the implications dangerously ambiguous for the socially libertarian philosophy that flourishes on the left. A Republican would see any caveat about the value of freedom as potentially at odds with the right’s propensity for describing freedom as the commodity most at risk from Barack Obama’s brand of liberalism.
Then, for good measure, consider these two quotations:
“Faced with the tragic situation of persistent poverty which afflicts so many people in our world, how can we fail to see that the quest for profit at any cost and the lack of effective responsible concern for the common good have concentrated immense resources in the hands of a few while the rest of humanity suffers in poverty and neglect. Our goal should not be the benefit of a privileged few, but rather the improvement of the living conditions of all.”
“The promotion of the culture of life should be the highest priority in our societies…If the right to life is not defended decisively as a condition for all other rights of the person, all other references to human rights remain deceitful and illusory.”
If the initial quotation seems unusual terrain for an American candidate, it is literally impossible to imagine in our political culture that the last two quotations could come from the same source. A wrenching description of economic inequality would be the province of an Obama style liberal who would never venture into the sensibilities of the pro-life movement, while it would be just as implausible that a social conservative would spend time blasting the wealth gap.
All three of these quotations happen to be words uttered, and echoed constantly, by Pope John Paul II, the pontiff whom a substantial number of Catholics would be happy to recreate in the form of Benedict’s successor. Of course, they (combined with the equally unlikely blend in our campaigns of entrenched opposition to both gay unions and militarism) are also the established positions of every single contender for the papacy in the coming weeks.
This amalgamation of viewpoints that American politics renders incompatible calls to mind a recent column by the New York Times’ Ross Douthat. He argues that the decline in the ranks of American Catholics prefigured the disappearance of Catholicism as a domestic electoral force. It’s an indisputable point that can be enlarged into a broader set of observations: first, rather than being just a symptom of that decline, the fact that the elements of Catholic orthodoxy are such an imponderable mix to American voters has contributed to its weakening.
 Arguably, today’s versions of the left and right tend to be organized around mutually reinforcing bogeymen. Liberals regard social conservatism as a species of the exclusionary policies that they associate with Republican free market rhetoric. The right links the dependency that it fears from big government liberalism with the permissiveness of a rights-based culture. Viewed from either lens, the Vatican mix of Tony Perkins and Elizabeth Warren sounds weird and contradictory, and American Catholics steeped in the ecosphere of the modern left and right must see Catholicism as just as irrelevant to politics as church doctrine against divorce and contraception is to their sex lives.
Second, I generally agree with Douthat’s point (and Rick Santorum’s intuition) that a socially conservative, populist toned coalition, what he calls the “Catholic synthesis”, would actually resonate with a considerable swath of the electorate. It’s a conclusion worth pondering for liberals whose presidential victories in recent years haven’t lifted the ranks of self identified liberals much beyond 25 percent, and who have written off appealing to downscale white southerners who lean populist on economics but right on social issues. The same goes for social conservatives who are unable to make inroads in territory that ought to be friendlier, like the Hispanic parishes and black churches where Bible based social policy and economic redistribution are typical sermon material.
The point is not that either camp might plausibly trade its economic and social guideposts, much less that a candidate could ever fund or organize a race that adopted wholesale the Catholic vision: but in the persistent gridlock that is contemporary politics, Democrats and Republicans missed chances to consolidate their victories with overt movement toward the traditions they currently ignore. I’m considerably more skeptical than Douthat about a comprehensive worldview emerging but there is ample space for both camps to expand by assuming more modesty about their ideological certainties.
Democrats need not become official skeptics of gay equality or abortion to acknowledge the legitimacy and the continuing public appeal of notions of morality that conflict with their own views; or to admit that personal freedom detached from responsibility is corrosive; or to show much greater tolerance for the proposition that, say, abortions based on gender or occurring in the third trimester are morally indefensible.
Republicans need not morph into class warriors to show greater sensitivity to the fact that free markets do sometimes leave behind human wreckage, and that some of the losers are morally upright people whose responsibility still hasn’t kept them afloat.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Catholicism and the American Middle
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Random, scattered and not very deep –and sometimes ridiculous —thoughts.
If people from “past lives” really exist, what do they do all day? Except wait for one of us to try to talk to them? That’s got to drive them bonkers –if you are one of those past lives people. Especially if you have (had) ADD and are not being treated with meds.
Do they watch reality TV shows like us “current lives” folks? And if they do, do they watch reality TV starring only “past lives” people of do they tune in to the same shows we watch?
If it’s the latter, I think it would be nice to have a few “past lives” characters show up in some popular new TV series.
And maybe even have at least one series—a sitcom—about a loveable, endearing past lives family. Sort of a “Modern Family” but set in the late Depression era–and in the show (a story reference within the story) there will be yet another “past lives” family with their own storyline from the 1890s.
This could really work!
By Jason Atkinson, on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 9:15 AM ET Chasing Brown Trout with Ken Burkholder, Jim Root and Jason Atkinson in Oregon’s other time zone.
Spring Skwala from Jason Atkinson & Flying A Films on Vimeo.
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Quentin Crisp
My introduction to foreign doctors and how the language barrier can have serious consequences ––but also teach important life lessons.
When I was 19 years old I moved to Los Angeles, CA to attend the University of Southern California (USC), famous at the time for football more than academics, but I was shooting for the stars academically and it was the best college I could get in at that time. albeit on probation. Sure, I was excited about attending a big name school like USC, but I was a lot more excited about living in the City of Angels, Los Angeles, California.
I didn’t know much about LA and was just excited to be a kid from KY moving into the big city and trying to fit in. My first few weeks out there I watched David Letterman ever night on my rented television and one night he interviewed and exotic and eccentric writer named Quentin Crisp who commented about the differences in LA and NY City. Crisp said, almost verbatim, “Los Angeles is an endless sunny paradise where everyone is beautiful and rich and awards grow on trees. But if you want to rule the world, you have to live in NY.” Heaven knows why I remember that quote, but it stuck with me and I never quite looked at LA the same after that. Clearly, it was a “beautiful people” town and although I wasn’t really cut out for that, I wanted to try to blend in and hopefully not stick out.
My first week as I was moving in, a female student from UCLA with the guys helping me move my furniture, made conversation with me and then asked her female friend to come over with her to talk to me. I was nervous and excited —but ultimately disappointed when I realized why she summoned her friend. “Oh my God, listen to him talk. Say something. He’s got the most country accent. Say something. Anything.” They then asked where I was from and I told them Kentucky. “Is that a state?” she asked. I said, “No, Kentucky was a small city in Nashville, which was a state next to the state of Tennessee.” No one laughed so I finally explained the joke. And no one laughed again. Although I was asked to repeat parts of it for the accent affect alone.
I went to the beach a lot the first few weeks. I didn’t surf or even know how to hang out at the beach like other guys in LA my age, so I tried to up my game by using something called “Sun In” to lighten my hair making it blonder and more L.A.-ish. It worked well the first day. And second day. The third day, I rubbed it in like shampoo. And it turned my hair what I suppose is a very intense shade of blonde. But most people would just call it orange. Fortunately for me, orange hair wasn’t as out of place in LA as it would have been back home in Lexington or Louisville. I just went with it and was told it would eventually grow out and that “It wasn’t obviously orange. Just from certain angles.” In other words, from some very narrow angles, I may look a little like a blonde surfer dude. But from most other angles I looked like a Southerner who had just moved to LA and tried to bleach his hair blonde but failed and accidentally dyed it orange.
Read the rest of…
John Y’s Musings from the Middle: A Kentuckian in LaLa Land
By Artur Davis, on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET Chris Christie has conservative admirers left, and I’m hardly the only one. The Christie following on the right includes much of the audience that heard him at the Reagan Library in 2011, delivering what stands then and now as the sharpest, best rhetorical critique of Barack Obama’s contribution to Washington’s divided ways.
It takes in social conservatives who know the isolation of living inside hostile lines in the Northeast, and who have relished a voice that defends unborn life and opposes same sex marriage and can do so without resorting to condescension or seeming stuck in a time warp.
The camp also includes critics of what public sector unions have done to bloat state budgets, and what teachers unions have done to make teaching the least accountable public service, and who recognize that Christie has tamed both forces in a state where they traditionally make politicians cower.
I will claim conflict of interest on the question of whether Christie ought to speak at the upcoming CPAC event (full disclosure, I am one of what an MSNBC reporter called the developmental league of lesser talents who will speak at the convention: it’s a chance to hone our meager skills before a small intimate gathering!) But the broader question of whether Christie helps strengthen the Republican coalition is not really close. While lacking Mitt Romney’s capacity to write a $3800 check, I’ll cast the same vote in favor of Christie’s relevance and his potential.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Defending Christie
|
|
