You know, back in ancient Greece, the rich funded all the major public works and considered it a great honor. They bragged about their contributions, competed on who contributed more and had their names inscribed on the buildings that they've funded. And those names can still be found today, so a little bit of gold that, really, made no difference to the rich individual, but made a whole lot of difference to their society ensured that, in some way, the memory of these people lives on. I wonder what would happen if the 0.01% of those who have the 95% of money in this country contributed, voluntarily and proudly, a small chunk of change towards social welfare programs instead of sneering at the "scum" who can't pull themselves out of poverty. If they'd built a hospital in the Ninth Ward, for example, and funded free health care for a year for Katrina victims without voicing suspicion that "some people" would take advantage of this generocity, they could proudly inscribe their family name on the facade, and rightly so. A truly civilized society is the one where the fortunate compete for the privilege of using their fortune to help the UNfortunate. Twenty-five centuries ago, the Greeks got it. Twenty-five centuries later, Americans don't get it. That's a damn shame.

I'm assuming that the people in the White House (the President excepted) are actually a relatively smart bunch. By "smart", I do not necessarily mean "competent", but they most likely know the facts when they see them. Therefore, I'm not at all convinced that they indeed are so blood-thirsty that they want to institute torture simply for the fun of it. Also, I'm sure they know that torture doesn't really yield good results when it comes to intelligence. So. Why are they fighting for it like this?

I suspect it's because torture is simply a specific-case expression of a more general struggle: for power. I'm not breaking new ground here: everyone and their pet squirrel knows that this Vice President wants the Executive to wield absolute power and is making startling progress in that direction. If Congress and the Judiciary allows torture, they will allow anything else. I would imagine that "anything else" (e.g. martial law, state-controlled press, persecution of "thought-crime") would look a lot more palatable next to outright torture. This is the defining battle of civilizations, ladies and gentlemen: between free democratic government outlined in our Constitution and the autocratic tyranny of the Imperial Presidency.

This battle is ridiculous and terrifying at the same time. Ridiculous because it's hard to believe that the *President of the United States* would be so brazenly advocating torture. He would cause a lot less stir worldwide if he suddenly reinstituted execution by guillotine. It's terrifying because, against all common sense, a great proportion of Americans (including those in power) are actually *on his side*!

Remember the "world is backwards" joke ca. 2003? "The greatest golfer is black, the greatest rapper is white, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war." Well, we can add two more things to that: "Terrorists are helping rebuild bombed-out cities, while Bush acts like Saddam Hussein!"

You know, we Jews should be frightened of this latest fashion of using allegations of anti-Semitism as a smear tactic. This sends a message to Americans: when someone cries "anti-Semitism", they're most likely trying to gain something on the political arena. First, voting against Joe Lieberman in the primaries was anti-Semitic. Now, mentioning that Allen has some vague Jewish roots is anti-Semitic. What's next on the anti-Semitic agenda? Pointing out Israel's strategic blunders? Actually liking the Mad Max movies? Thinking that some parts of the Daily Show are not funny?

The scary part is, when people seize on the delicate and painful topic of anti-Semitism (or defamation of any kind) as a political tool, then very soon everyone becomes jaded and cynical when ACTUAL defamation occurs. Imagine, in 2008, an honest-to-goodness anti-Semitic attempt to smear Russ Feingold during his Presidential campaign. By then, most people would just say: "Yeah yeah yeah. Heard this before. Blah blah, anti-Semitic, blah blah. Just shut up already, you sissy, and go print out fliers or something."

Now mind you, outright racial slurring a-la "macaca" is bad stuff. And it's obvious to everyone with more than two neurons in their ganglion that Allen is simply trying to turn the tables and claim that now HE is the victim of horrible racial discrimination. (By the way, this makes me sick. I'm not a practicing Jew, but by G-d, Allen is just as Jewish as I'm a cowboy. Uh... as much as HE is a cowboy.) Nevertheless, it's freaky to see how, not just in this case, the charge of anti-Semitism is used (often by Jews themselves!) to achieve political gains. Every maneuver like this hastens the day when gentiles become tired of our outrage about every single little thing... and THAT will be the beginning of another holocaust.

So. Jews. Please, do us all a favor: bitch about anti-Semitism ONLY when it really happens. Oh. And please, someone with access to a major newspaper write a column attacking Allen's charge of "anti-Semitism" as complete and utter bullshit. Preferably someone Jewish. Tom Friedman, I'm looking at you!

The "real" cause for celebration is not yet. We'll pop open a bubbly when and ONLY when the Democrats do three very important things: 1. actually take control of one of the houses of Congress, or better yet, both; 2. grow a pair and actually stand up to the administration; 3. finally and without question put a stop to the un-American activities that are in progress and reverse the un-American actions that have been perpetrated by the administration.

Then and ONLY then we can celebrate. Not yet.

Quick, quick, someone do a poll: how many Americans would now believe that Mark Foley is a Democrat? If there's even 1% such out there... okay, then Republicans: here's your exit strategy!