In any case, Jews are news, and when the news seems bad, Jews are blamed—everywhere and always—from the Black Plague to crises in the global economy & international terrorism.
It would be best for us to unify, it would be best for the world to support that unification directly rather than clubbing us as helping the goose to lay golden eggs is a smarter policy than killing it. Smashing a loose, flickering bulb will not just black-out the bulb, but the whole room. This is why anti-Semitism is known as “the Socialism of Fools.” It starts with the Jews, but never ends there.
Are we Jews really responsible though, or just wronged? By Jewish Law we are responsible. If one just passes an uncovered pit in the public thoroughfare that the person didn’t dig, the person is not responsible for any damage to say, an ox that stumbles into it. However, if one decides to be noble and board up the pit—but subsequently decides to take the boards back, then that person is now liable for future damage. The boards are our ancient, national commitment to be a role model of mutually responsible unity.
*****Approximately three years after Nathan and Alyza Lewin filed the Bryan v. Moore amicus curiae brief — a notable event in itself — another notable event took place. A kosher dinner was held to honor the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law (NIJL). The dinner was attended by 200 people, including Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia. Nathan and Alyza Lewin also attended.
The arrival of Moses introduced a new phase in the development of the Israeli nation. Self-centeredness and alienation increased in the world around them as it did in them. At the time of Moses, Israel had amassed such a level of disunity that they needed a new method if they were to unite above it. They were also far more Hebrews than the tribe that went into Egypt. By Moses’ time there were three million of them, far too many to be taught the way Abraham had taught his students.
While it is impossible to rule out the sudden appearance of new ideologies or previously unrecognized contradictions in liberal societies, then, the present world seems to confirm that the fundamental principles of sociopolitical organization have not advanced terribly far since 1806. Many of the wars and revolutions fought since that time have been undertaken in the name of ideologies which claimed to be more advanced than liberalism, but whose pretensions were ultimately unmasked by history. In the meantime, they have helped to spread the universal homogenous state to the point where it could have a significant effect on the overall character of international relations.
WHAT HAS happened in the four years since Gorbachev's coming to power is a revolutionary assault on the most fundamental institutions and principles of Stalinism, and their replacement by other principles which do not amount to liberalism per se but whose only connecting thread is liberalism. This is most evident in the economic sphere, where the reform economists around Gorbachev have become steadily more radical in their support for free markets, to the point where some like Nikolai Shmelev do not mind being compared in public to Milton Friedman. There is a virtual consensus among the currently dominant school of Soviet economists now that central planning and the command system of allocation are the root cause of economic inefficiency, and that if the Soviet system is ever to heal itself, it must permit free and decentralized decision-making with respect to investment, labor, and prices. After a couple of initial years of ideological confusion, these principles have finally been incorporated into policy with the promulgation of new laws on enterprise autonomy, cooperatives, and finally in 1988 on lease arrangements and family farming. There are, of course, a number of fatal flaws in the current implementation of the reform, most notably the absence of a thoroughgoing price reform. But the problem is no longer a conceptual one: Gorbachev and his lieutenants seem to understand the economic logic of marketization well enough, but like the leaders of a Third World country facing the IMF, are afraid of the social consequences of ending consumer subsidies and other forms of dependence on the state sector.
Found by family. Ted’s and his wife made the link. (Ted’s sister-in-law, a professor of philosophy, thought it seemed similar to a 23-page essay Ted sent her husband.) When the FBI raided his cabin, they found a live bomb and knew they had their man, leading to the plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. David received a from the FBI and donated the bulk of it to victims’ families.
Until recently, Japan’s history since World War II was told as an inspiring fable of success. According to this story, Japan pulled itself out of the physical devastation, spiritual bankruptcy, and abject defeat of 1945 through wise leadership, hard work, and a partnership with the United States. It became one of the world’s richest, most stable, and most widely respected industrial democracies. Historians now realize that this narrative does not capture Japan’s postwar experience. What once seemed like a buoyant path of growth and recovery, termed a “miracle” by some patronizing Western observers, is now seen as a more nuanced story. Japan experienced downturns as well as booms, discord as well as consensus, and serious problems as well as elegant solutions. This short essay charts the history of Japan from the end of the war to the present day. It sketches the rapid and profound changes the Japanese people have enjoyed, endured, and embraced over the past 60 years.
"Twenty years ago to–night," said the man, "I dined here at 'Big Joe' Brady's with Jimmy Wells, my best chum, and the finest chap in the world. He and I were raised here in New York, just like two brothers, together. I was eighteen and Jimmy was twenty. The next morning I was to start for the West to make my fortune. You couldn't have dragged Jimmy out of New York; he thought it was the only place on earth. Well, we agreed that night that we would meet here again exactly twenty years from that date and time, no matter what our conditions might be or from what distance we might have to come. We figured that in twenty years each of us ought to have our destiny worked out and our fortunes made, whatever they were going to be."
According to Malcolm Neaum, the producer of a TV documentary on Newton:
"He spent something like 50 years and wrote 4,500 pages trying to predict when the end of the world was coming.
In the past century, there have been two major challenges to liberalism, those of fascism and of communism. The former saw the political weakness, materialism, anomie, and lack of community of the West as fundamental contradictions in liberal societies that could only be resolved by a strong state that forged a new "people" on the basis of national exclusiveness. Fascism was destroyed as a living ideology by World War II. This was a defeat, of course, on a very material level, but it amounted to a defeat of the idea as well. What destroyed fascism as an idea was not universal moral revulsion against it, since plenty of people were willing to endorse the idea as long as it seemed the wave of the future, but its lack of success. After the war, it seemed to most people that German fascism as well as its other European and Asian variants were bound to self-destruct. There was no material reason why new fascist movements could not have sprung up again after the war in other locales, but for the fact that expansionist ultranationalism, with its promise of unending conflict leading to disastrous military defeat, had completely lost its appeal. The ruins of the Reich chancellery as well as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed this ideology on the level of consciousness as well as materially, and all of the pro-fascist movements spawned by the German and Japanese examples like the Peronist movement in Argentina or Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army withered after the war.
What sets this story apart from so many of the lackluster flicks of this genre is how the story reflects some classic themes. One is directly from the kind of work done by mythologist Joseph Campbell. He helped to define the aspects needed for the story of a hero. Many of these essential elements are to be found here. A hero typically has to meet a mentor of some sort and they set out on an epic journey that will test his mettle in every imaginable way. Here the role of mentor is nicely filled by the character of Michael. He is on the same basic predicament as Sarah but is a bit savvier as to how to get by in the new world. Sarah is driven by the most basic and primitive force that can affect a person; maternal instinct. A woman will risk everything to ensure the safety of the child she is carrying. Sarah has the most unselfish motive possible; another hallmark of the classic hero. According to experts like Campbell such a hero has to arise from extremely humble origins. The scenes with Sarahs early life bring this point home. This is more than just a dark look at a possible future. So many post apocalyptic flicks just try to scare the audience with a dystopian view of what is now on the horizon. Torres has turned this concept on its end and made a film that celebrates the resiliency of the human spirit. No matter how rough it gets Sarah pushes on with only the most meager glimmer of hope to keep her going.