Rush to Judgment

Prosecutors in New York City have acknowledged that the rape case against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is about to collapse, as evidence has emerged casting serious doubt of the trustworthiness of his accuser, a hotel maid from Guinea. Investigators from the District Attorney's Office cast doubt on her accusations.

My Gut Reaction: They couldn't have figured this out before they filed the charges?

Analysis: Suspicions about the accuser's credibility arose from inconsistencies in her statements to investigators. For instance, the maid claimed that she emigrated from Guinea due to being raped there, but could find no mention of rape in her application. Furthermore, evidence emerged of her connections to drug dealers.

None of this in itself cast prima facie doubt on her accusations, but the most damning evidence was a recorded phone call between the maid and a prisoner incarcerated for drug trafficking. In the phone call, the maid gushed about the financial advantages of pressing charges against Strauss-Kahn. I may never have been raped, but I think it is a pretty good guess that after a traumatic experience like that, your first thought would not be its financial advantages.

In other words, the maid's a liar.

In light of this, a far more convincing explanation emerges. The maid slept with Strauss-Kahn, a known womanizer, consensually, and decided to get a quick buck by blackmailing him. Somehow, the authorities became aware of her accusations, and when they came to her, she decided to press her advantage by means of criminal charges, failing to realize that with such charges would come an investigation of her background.

This case has further significance when one considers how the American and European media often rush to judgment on rape cases. For instance, Julian Assange has been convicted in the media in spite of the real likelihood that the accusations against him were made by a CIA plant. Even liberal commentators like Katha Pollitt have joined in the lynch mob. Perhaps the Strauss-Kahn case should serve as a reminder of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, especially in cases involving public figures.

Foolishness on Drug Legalization

On CNN.com today, William Bennett has published an alarmist diatribe warning against the "dangers" of drug legalization. He warns that legalization will turn our youth into a mass of drug addicted zombies, leading to increases in crime and psychosis. A new marijuana legalization bill, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, occasioned his alarm.

My Gut Reaction: Perhaps we should ask Mr. Bennett his opinion on the legality of gambling.

Analysis: My mention of Bennett's eight million dollar gambling habit is not merely the ad hominem attack that it may initially seem. Bennett and his allies defended him by saying his gambling hurt no one but himself. A similar argument can be raised in regard to drug use. Although Bennett tries to argue that marijuana use leads inexorably to crime, personal experience suggests otherwise. For instance, members of my family have used marijuana without becoming thieves, rapists, or murderers. The devil's weed indeed.

More broadly, Bill Bennett has no more right to tell people not to use drugs than I have to tell him not to gamble. Following his logic, the state would have the right to tell people not to drink alcohol, not to gamble, and not to eat fatty foods. (Indeed, from a public health perspective, banning the fatty foods would make more sense.)

Bennett wrote the article in tones reminiscent of a nineteenth-century temperance campaigner, complete with a survey of the horrors of a drug treatment facility. Interesting, he ignores a statistic published by NORML, a group in favor of marijuana legalization, and sourced from the federal government, over fifty percent of people admitted to rehab for marijuana had either not used it at all within the past month, or had used it less than three times. These people had not gone into rehab because they had a problem; they did so because they were ordered to by the courts.

Bennett's own use of statistics is rather interesting. He says that less than two percent of enforcement is for simple possession, but only uses the federal statistics, ignoring state and local enforcement, who probably deal with marijuana possession far more often than the feds. The FBI is unlikely to chase after someone for having a joint.

Another statistic that Bennett fails to consider is that we have spent one trillion dollars on the Drug War in the past 40 years, and although we have lower rates of drug use, we are far from eliminating it. Our country no longer has the money to spend on this, unless Bennett and his fellow drug warriors are willing to pay some steep taxes to fund their little crusade.

Nonetheless, Bennett and his cohorts will cry, "The children! What about the children!" Whether someone uses drugs is their own responsibility. I could have gotten a hold of drugs when I was a teenager, but I didn't. This was not because I was afraid of some cop, but because I concluded that drugs are bad for you. The conservatives are all for personal responsibility. Why don't they apply it here?

Intelligence from an Unexpected Source

As Ben Smith reports on his Politico blog, Republican and Tea Party Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky has called for the ending of foreign aid to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, arguing on CNN's Wolf Blitzer that continued American aid would only be "funding an arms race on both sides."

My Gut Reaction: Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Analysis: Rand Paul's statements cannot be construed as support for the Palestinian cause, or even as a condemnation of Israeli policy. Sen. Paul states that he admires Israel as a democracy, and it is clear from his comments that they stem more from an overall drive to lower federal spending.

Nevertheless, this statement raises some interesting questions in regard to United States policy toward Israel, and the current drive toward cutting federal spending. For all the Republicans' vows to lower the deficit, they seem very reluctant to even bring up the possibility of major cuts to defense spending. When we do hear them bring up defense cuts, they are already one's pre-approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Imagine if we had to run education spending cuts by the teachers' union!) Given that most of the aid to Israel falls into the category of military aid, Sen. Paul's comments have potentially broader implications.

Furthermore, Rand Paul lays his finger on an important truth when he notes that we are essentially funding an arms race in the Middle East. Although Sen. Paul makes this point while discussing the Arab nations we fund, it is worth considering how military aid to Israel also perpetuates the Middle East conflict. If the Israeli government did not have the assured backing of the United States and its military resources, Israeli leaders might be more amenable to actually making steps towards peace, such as dismantling settlements.

Jack Kelly: Ideological Contortionist (Warning: Strong Language)

In his column in this Sunday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jack Kelly tries to argue that the real source of violent rhetoric in the United States today is the liberal movement. He tries to link just about every major shooting or terror incident of the past two years to liberal ideology.

My Gut Reaction: According to the website SourceWatch, Kelly makes much of the fact that he served in the Marines and the Special Forces in his official biography. Just goes to show why they're paid to fight, not to think.

Analysis: It's difficult to know where to begin mocking Kelly's article, as it is strewn with statements of varying levels of stupidity. Perhaps we should start with his comments about the program Democracy Now!, which he characterizes as an obscure radio show. As even a cursory look at Democracy Now's website will reveal, it is both a television show and a radio show that plays on 900 stations across the country, making it one of the largest independent media operations in the United States. Not bad for an "obscure left wing radio program."

Things start to get funny when Kelly paints Jared Lee Loughner as a leftist largely based on the fact that he smoked pot and owned a book by Karl Marx. He conveniently omits the fact that Loughner had at least tenuous connections to the group American Renaissance, a white supremacist organization whose founder at one point spoke at Loughner's college. This linkage has been documented by such radical sources as the Department of Homeland Security and the Christian Science Monitor. He also listed Hitler's Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books, another sign of his liberal credentials.

Kelly descends even deeper into comic territory when he attempts to attribute just about every major act of political violence over the past two years to liberalism. The most laugh inducing paragraph in this section is when he depicts James von Brunn, the lunatic who attacked the National Holocaust Museum, as an enemy of conservatism. Never mind the fact that von Brunn was an avowed white supremacist who claimed that President Obama was not an American. Or the fact that he posted on the conservative website Free Republic, which quietly deleted his writings after the shooting. Very liberal guy, Mr. von Brunn.

Kelly then proceeds to shoot his argument in the foot. Having argued against the possibility that violent right wing rhetoric could produce killings, he then claims that criticism of Sarah Palin by figures such as Scott Simon of NPR has resulted in an increase of death threats against Sarah Palin. So violent right wing ranting, complete with gun imagery, is perfectly fine, but even moderate criticism of Republicans by left wingers is an incendiary act.

Just how fucking stupid do you think your readers are, Mr. Kelly?

What Mr. Kelly's argument represents is a thinly veiled concern among right wingers that their own violent calls to action could be turned against them. Even though it is highly unlikely that President Obama or any of the cowards who make up the Democratic leadership would be willing to take a truly hard line with the conservatives over this issue, there is nothing to stop the left wing netroots from adopting the right's rhetorical tactics. What's good for the goose may also be good for the gander.

Coming Home

A Virginia teenager, Gulet Mohamed, has finally returned to the United States after being held in Kuwait for a month due to the fact that he was on the no-fly list. Government officials had apparently placed him on the list because he had visited Yemen and Somalia. Mohamed is of Somali descent, and alleges that he was tortured by Kuwaiti authorities while in that country.

My Gut Reaction: Proud of your allies, President Obama?

Analysis: This seems to be a case of the United States government using foreign allies to carry out interrogations and torture that they would not be able to get away with in this country. As Amnesty International documents in its 2010 Annual Report, the Kuwaiti government itself has admitted to torturing people suspected of involvement in terrorism. Given this background, it seems likely that Mohamed's allegations are true.

I cannot make any judgments about Gulet Mohamed's involvement or lack thereof in terrorism. However, anyone with an ounce of moral decency should acknowledge that the way to deal with terrorism is to investigate and stop it through proven intelligence methods, not to outsource torture to some third world regime we are involved with.

Raid on Dreaming Ant Video

Today, I am going to be posting about a news story that I have an indirect connection to. The video store that I go to, Dreaming Ant Video, was raided yesterday evening, apparently in connection with a false press release that was sent out to mock the Fraternal Order of Police. They seized Dreaming Ant's business computer, as well as the wireless servers of Crazy Mocha, the coffee shop Dreaming Ant is based in.

My Gut Reaction: Don't the police have something more important to do than to pursue vendettas against people who parody or insult them?

Analysis: The phony press release in question had to do with the Jordan Miles case, which involved an honors student who was beaten by the police, leading to allegations of police brutality. The press release contained a false admission of guilt by the FOP, which has supported the officers in the case. The Fraternal Order of Police, in turn, would like to press charges against whoever made the release up, including identity theft.

This is screwed up on a number of fronts. First of all, it is hard to see why Dreaming Ant should have to shut down-they can't really function without a computer to keep track of rentals-just because some idiot used the wireless connection in the coffee shop they're based in to send out a phony press release. This action demonstrates a total lack of proportionality on the part of the Pittsburgh Police Force.

Second, it is difficult to see how sending out a phony press release with a fake letterhead on it constitutes identity theft. This seems more like a case of the Police Department abusing its powers in order to stifle criticism over the Miles case. What this incident calls for is not legal action, but a sound spanking for the idiot who sent it out in the first place. Such legal overreaches make it open to question whether the police department is fully trustworthy.

The best way the Police Department can atone for this is to hand the computer back immediately, and to reimburse Dreaming Ant and Crazy Mocha for any money lost due to loss of business. While they're at it, the police should send me, and every resident of Pittsburgh, a check repaying the tax money expended on this raid.

Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincoln...

As Ben Smith reports on his Politico blog, Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has banned state employees from spending their work time talking on talk radio. His decision, obviously spurred by the Tuscon rampage, argues that state employees giving interviews on talk radio would constitute supporting ratings and profit driven programming.

My Gut Reaction: This is a very stupid idea.

Analysis: What the hell is Governor Chafee thinking??? He's just given the talk radio fanatics the perfect excuse to scream censorship, while also ceding a major section of the mass media to his enemies. This is not the way to act if you want to get anything done or stay in office.

The way to deal with the talk radio bullies is not to run away from them or try to censor them, but to give them a dose of their own medicine. It is not time to flee, but to fight back. The Democratic and Independent public officials of this country should be dragging the Republicans and their talk radio sycophants across the coals right now. It is time to make it clear to these lunatics that they are not going to be tolerated by the thinking people of America.

Grow a pair and start fighting back, Lincoln.

Massacre in Tuscon (Warning: Strong Language)

This past Saturday's massacre in Arizona, which severely wounded Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has sparked a great deal of debate over civil discourse in American politics. This evening's episode of Nightline, although posing as an objective newscast, argued that it was simply a matter of an insane person which had nothing to do with politics. Provocations such as Sarah Palin literally targeting Rep. Giffords in a gun sight in an e-mail and tea partiers holding an anti-Giffords rally in which guns were fired off had nothing to do with it.

My Gut Reaction: Who the fuck are they kidding?

Analysis: This is just another example of the mainstream media being too chicken to take a position on even the simplest of issues, consequently reducing itself to inanities. The conclusion of the 'experts' they had on was that mass murderers are crazed perverts.

Wow!Spree killers are mental cases. I would never of thought of that myself! The question isn't whether someone who engages in this type of activity is a mental case, but what triggers them to act out in a certain direction. And given the level of violent rhetoric that surrounds this Congresswoman, I find it very difficult to believe that there was no correlation.

For me, the solution is not any type of limit on free speech. Rather, liberals and progressives should start to play tit for tat with the Republicans and their pet fanatics in the Tea Party in terms of rhetoric. If the conservatives are going to use inflammatory images and words to rally support, so should we. No more Mr. Nice Guy...

Massacre in Great Britain

Yesterday, in the Cumbria secion of Great Britain, mass shooter Derrick Bird killed twelve people and injured twenty-five more. As the BBC reports,authorities have yet to be able to determine a motive, though reports indicate the shooter had been having familial problems.

My Gut Reaction: Am I the only one who's noticed that Great Britain experiences these events every five or ten years or so, while the United States seems to experience them every few months.

Analysis: It has pretty much been established to everyone who wants to think about it that the wide availability of guns in the United States contributes to the high number of mass shootings and gun violence in our country. The thing that strikes me most about what happened in Britain is how rare these events are over there, particularly as compared to here.

I am not arguing that we immediately implement British style laws banning hand guns. As desirable as ridding America of hand guns may be, that cat is already well out of the bag. It would require massive infringements on civil liberties to confiscate every hand gun in America, such that the cure would in many respects be worse than the disease. Nevertheless, the contrast of the two countries should be spur enough to lead us to consider far tighter regulation of fire arms and enforcement of fire arm laws in this country.

M.I.A. Hits Back

New York Times journalist Lynn Hirschberg published an inflammatory piece in the NYT Weekend Magazine last week on the Tamil pop star M.I.A. Hirschberg, in a piece largely derivative of Tom Wolfe, condemns M.I.A.'s support for armed resistance by oppressed minorities, obsessing at rather boring length over the fact that M.I.A. isn't poor herself.

M.I.A., for her part, has struck back in quite amusing fashion by posting Hirschberg's phone number on her Twitter account, so that Lynn is now spending much of her time fielding requests from M.I.A. fans for the star's phone number.

My Gut Reaction: If Ms. Hirschberg is the best the NYT can do, it is no wonder journalism is on the rocks. The article is basically an overwritten rip-off of Tom Wolfe.

Analysis: When one gets down to it, what really seems to bother Lynn Hirschberg is that M.I.A. retains class loyalties despite now being wealthy. One cannot help but think that Hirschberg, who one cannot help but suspect is at least moderately well to do, is basically pissed off that someone from the upper reaches of her own class might actually ally with the poor. How pathetic.

Misplaced Priorities

A recent blog post by the animal rights group In Defense of Animals (IDA) complains that the nation of Zimbabwe is planning to sell baby elephants to North Korea. In the face of two countries that continually engage in human rights abuses, the most this group can find to complain about is an elephant.

My Gut Reaction: One cannot help but wonder whether IDA, upon learning that Nazi Germany was using the skins of Jewish people to make lamp shades, would not congratulate the Germans for no longer using animal leather.

Analysis: It is worth remembering that Zimbabwe and North Korea are two of the worst human rights offenders in the world today, as can be demonstrated by looking at the 2009 Amnesty International Annual Report. In its section on Zimbabwe, the report characterizes the country as having undergone "an unprecedented wave of state-sponsored human rights violations," pointing to post-election violence and the disappearances of dissidents. Similarly, North Korea faced issues such as executions, prison abuse, and widespread food shortages.

In the face of such atrocities, to focus attention on animals seems short sighted, misguided, even warped. Although one does not want to see animals suffer, in the end the interests of humans must trump those of animals. To do otherwise risks devaluing the lives of humans, rather than advancing the interests of animals.

What is particularly disturbing in this case is that the countries in question are both populated by non-white people. One cannot help but wonder whether the group in question would be so quick to focus on the interests of elephants if the populations of Zimbabwe and North Korea were largely Caucasian. Indeed, many people in Africa have come to have unflattering opinions of the environmental movement, as they believe that many white environmentalists value the life of one elephant over those of one hundred Africans, as Barack Obama reported in his memoir Dreams of My Father.

This is not to claim that the animal rights movement is composed of conscious racists. Most would be horrified at such an accusation, and would never think of themselves in such a way. However, it is worth wondering whether the hidden structures of societal racism could be, however subconsciously, affecting their attitudes, with results they never intended.

Jamaica in Flames

According to BBC News, Jamaican authorities are trying to restore order in the capital city of Kingston after bloody clashes with forces loyal to drug lord Christopher "Dudus" Coke. Among the inhabitants of Kingston slums such as the Tivoli Gardens area, Coke is seen as a Robin Hood figure and defender of the people.

My Gut Reaction: When will we ever learn?

Analysis: This round of violence started when the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Bruce Golding, agreed to extradite Coke to the United States, where he is wanted on charges of running a drug trafficking network. As with Mexico, our attempts to enforce our draconian drug laws have spilled over into outright violence in another country. As the BBC reports, thirty-one people have died in Kingston.

What is it going to take for our government, and the American people in general, to realize that trying to legislate what people put in their bodies only leads to shattered lives? In the United States, this manifests itself in terms of a massive incarceration rate. In the third world, however, blood flows as governments seek to appease the American government and come across as allies in the War on Drugs.

To be fair, not all of the blame lies with the United States government. As Jamaican expatriate blogger The Field Negro points out, Dudus had amassed a great deal of support from the Jamaican government before the extradition order went out by renting out his gang, the Shower Posse, as political hired guns. The ruling party found the guns they used for political enforcement turned against them.

Nevertheless, the American government requested the extradition, and bears a certain level of responsibility for what has happened in Kingston.

The Texas Re-education System

This past week, the education board down in Texas decided to revise their text books in order to make them better reflect their conservative values. These revisions included the dropping of certain historical topics and the substitutions of others. According to an article in the Seattle Times, some choice changes included limiting discussion of Thomas Jefferson because of his secular views and giving greater attention to the views of the Confederacy. Other revisions include replacing the Martin Luther King holiday with Veterans' Day in terms of holidays first graders are taught about. The board rejected suggestions to include mention of Hispanics who died fighting Texas at the Alamo.

My Gut Reaction: Universities are going to have to start requiring remedial courses for any students coming from Texas public schools.

Analysis: The driving figure behind these changes is Don McLeroy, a Christian conservative who wants to edit learning materials to reflect his own Judeo-Christian vision. His goal is to teach students that America was founded on Christian values, ignoring the deistic and secular values of many founding father such as Jefferson. As part of this approach, textbooks will be required to play up clashes between the United States and Islamic countries, depicting these conflicts as battles between Christianity and Islam. McLeroy-a dentist with no educational experience-proudly states he bases his textbook choices on how they discuss Christianity and Israel. One of his most famous quotes is "Someone needs to stand up to these experts!"

Part of this effort will include increased emphasis on conservative figures such as Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation, and Ronald Reagan. While historians such as Eric Foner agree that students should be taught about the conservative movement as one of the major influences on modern history, one wonders whether such a biased curriculum will be accurate. For example, can someone like Don McLeroy be expected to approve textbooks that mention Reagan's role in supporting death squads in Central America, his support of the Afghan groups that grew into the Taliban, the increased rates of homelessness under his government, and the role of economic deregulation started under Reagan that culminated in our current economic crisis?

The effects of this decision are not limited to Texas. Because it is such a large state and market for textbooks, future textbook revisions for the entire nation will inevitably reflect Texas's rules. To make matters worse, California, which usually acts as a counterbalance to Texas due to its more liberal requirements, has put off all new textbook orders until 2014 due to its financial crisis.

Given that the effects of this decision could extend well past the borders of Texas, it is only appropriate that it should be met with a national response. First and foremost, this decision makes a case for national standards for textbooks, in order to prevent fanatics in one state from derailing the educational system. The interaction of different states in determining what goes into text books would prevent one ideology from totally dominating.

Atheists and Agnostics in the White House!

Representatives from the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism participated today in a conference at the White House. As the Center for Inquiry reports, the topics that were discussed with White House officials included preventing religiously motivated abuse of children and ending the preaching of evangelical Christianity in the military, including discrimination against non-Evangelicals.

My Take: It's about frakking time!

Analysis: For too long, secular humanists of all stripes have been denied a prominent place in the American public sphere. Even though some of the Founding Fathers were deists rather than Christians, Christians of various stripes have tried to assume a monopoly on American public discourse. Christians have portrayed arguments and lines of thinking that challenge or reject the commonly held Christian views as a threat to American society.

Luckily, under the Obama administration, there seems to be at least a willingness to listen to explicitly secular viewpoints. Although President Obama has continued some policies that secularists disapprove of, such as the funding of church organizations by the government, there is a greater openness to secularism on the whole. Progess comes in slow steps.

The Future of Republicanism

Andrew Sullivan has a post about a particularly comic young Republican named Ryan Sorba. Sorba's specialty is mixing psuedo-intellectual blather with threats of physical violence against those who disagree with him. He apparently made a big splash at CPAC. Read more here.

A Note to Bishop Tobin: Back Off

This weekend, there unfolded yet another example of interference by the Catholic hierarchy in the political affairs of the United States. This time, the culprit is Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, who is trying to get Rep. Patrick Kennedy, son of Sen. Ted Kennedy, to endorse abortion restrictions in the health care bill. Apparently, as early as 2007, Bishop Tobin attempted to intimidate Rep. Kennedy by asking him to refrain from Communion.

My Gut Reaction: Apparently, Tobin and his fellow bishops believe that major political issues in this country should be settled through the distribution of pieces of tasteless, unleavened bread to our politicians.

Analysis: This type of interference in our political system by the bishops has to stop. They have gone from merely expressing opinions to actively trying to push around politicians through religious means. If the Church wants to be such a force in civil society, perhaps it could do us the favor of contributing to said society-through the payment of taxes.

The Coathanger Amendment

The 2009 Health Care Reform Bill recently passed by Congress contained a rather interesting rider courtesy of Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak. Rep. Stupak attached and successfully passed an amendment to the bill which bars any form of federal funding for abortion through the health care funds. It would not only bar direct funding for abortion, but also any affordability payment to an insurance company that covers abortion.

My Gut Reaction: The DailyKos was right when they termed this amendment "The Coathanger Amendment."

Analysis: This amendment seeks to limit indirectly the rights of women to obtain abortion, and not simply those who apply to the government for assistance. By denying insurance companies eligibility for affordability funds if they cover abortion, essentially creating an incentive not to cover it.

The potential stakes of this issue become apparent when one reads this account of a woman who had to have an abortion twelve weeks into her pregnancy after the fetus died. Had the fetus not been aborted, she would have faced a serious risk of infection or sepsis. Luckily, her insurance company covered abortion. That might not be the case if the government starts providing incentives for companies to not cover abortion.

What is particularly galling about this legislation is that religious leaders, particularly from the Roman Catholic Church, seem to have played a major role in drafting the amendment. The Suburban Guerilla blog reports that the congressmen who drafted the amendment were in talks with representatives of the Catholic Church. (Yet another reason to revoke the Church's tax exempt status.)

Luckily, there is a movement fighting against this amendment. Forty House Democrats have already pledged to vote against any final bill that contains the amendment. Furthermore, there is an online movement to create a new meaning for the word "Stupak," referring to sepsis generated by back alley abortion. You can vote for this new meaning on the Urban Dictionary by clicking here. You may also wish to do searches on Yahoo! under "sepsis stupak" in an effort to get it on their top ten searches list.

A Quote that Summarizes the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Way Forward

From Bradley Burston of Ha'aretz:

"The fears of Israelis are real. The grievances of the Palestinians are just. If both peoples have one trait in common, it is that they cannot be bludgeoned, bribed, or sweet-talked into supporting a policy which favors only one side."

I've Heard of Imperialism Being Wedded to Commerce, But Imperialism Wedded to Sports?

Apparently, next week's Fox NFL pre-game show will be held in Afghanistan, so that the brutality of combat can be melded with the action of sports.

A Bit of Advice from One of Our Israeli Brethren

An article by the Ha'aretz writer Gideon Levy, republished by the Common Dreams website, contains some interesting advice for the United States government. Levy argues that the Obama Administration needs to take a tougher diplomatic line with the Israeli government, suggesting the use of sanctions to end the growth of settlements.

My Gut Reaction: It's kind of pathetic that we need an Israeli commentator to tell us this.

Analysis: As Levy writes, the United States does not allow itself to be treated with the same level of contempt and disregard by any nation other than Israel without serious repercussions. In many cases, the result is the threat of sanctions and or warfare. Even in the cases of close allies along the lines of Israel, such as France or Germany, the reaction tends to be one of dismissal.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of the level of deference our nation gives to Israel is Levy's mention of opinion polls in Israel showing President Obama having an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent. If any other country were publishing approval polls about our leader, the typical American patriot would be frenzied with insulted anger. In the case of Israel, however, this is passed over in silence.

Of course, Gideon Levy should not be taken to represent the mainstream of Israeli opinion. Indeed, he has been called the most radical commentator in Israel. Nevertheless, his opinion is worth considering, particularly as it comes from an outsider looking in.