Jon Stewart for President
MJ Rosenberg, over at MediaMatters, has a great piece on the Millenial-American relationship to Israel, which is, as he says, typified by the worldview of the host of The Daily Show.
And what is the worldview Stewart conveys? It is skepticism about any and all ideology, a belief that racial and ethnic boundaries between people are just plain dumb, and, above all, that true believers in anything are downright funny.
Not surprisingly, Jon Stewart is Jewish and assertively so. Being a Jew is part of his shtick. But he’s clearly neither religious nor an ethnic chauvinist. As for his politics on Israel, I’d classify him as J Street. And that makes him typical of both the late boomers and their kids.
That is why all the free Birthright trips to Israel aren’t changing anything. And it’s why those cheering young AIPAC-ers do not represent anything.
The generation coming up now tries to think for themselves. And, although no smart kid would ever turn down a free trip to Washington, DC or to any foreign country with a beach, they take the propaganda with a grain of salt. It does not matter that they are told that the Palestinians are responsible for their own problems, these kids don’t buy it.
I feel like it’s a pretty decent description of my generation. When my brother was going on birthright, I sent him a copy of Joe Sacco’s Palestine for another perspective (Rosenberg’s grain ofsalt). My own politics aren’t J Street’s, but I appreciate the work they are doing to widen the acceptable conversation within the US Jewish Community – despite the recent witch-hunting in SF and Boston (I thought those were liberal cities!).
Rosenberg closes on a hopeful note:
Luckily, all is not lost for those of us who do care about Israel. No, the kids are not going to come around to seeing Israel as central in their lives. (It isn’t — they live here.)
But an Israel that establishes peace with the Palestinians, that brings the settlers home, that ends the tyranny of the Orthodox in matters that should be left to civil authorities, will have their support. Not their allegiance — their support.
Full story.
As someone currently living and studying in Israel, in a program to teach Torah in the US, I spend a great deal of time thinking about my future students and their relationship to this place. Where Rosenberg describes the Israel he thinks that American Jews could support, I see my role more as bringing about that reality than waiting patiently for Israel to come around, mostly because I think it won’t. I wonder what can be done to facilitate engagement and a feeling of responsibility, in order to help the “Jewish” state reflect the values we learn from our understanding of Judaism.
The generation coming up now tries to think for themselves.
The implied hubristic conceit of this statement compels me to respond. What– the previous generations are mindless sheep who did not exercise their own powers of critical thinking at all? The notion isn’t even original. “Don’t trust anyone over 30..” was mantra of the Boomers. The Millenials would just add “…unless he has a clever and snarky TV talk show that affirms our belief in our own intellectual and moral superiority.”
The irony here is that I really like John Stewart too…but I am worried about how easy it is to confuse infotainment with true reasoned dialogue. For example the phrase “I’d classify him as J-Street” is almost meaningless, since JStreet is a disparate amalgam that has yet to gel into any real stances beyond only being not-AIPAC.
As for Birthright “not changing anything”–I wonder if we would even be having this conversation without Birthright. I hypothesize that American Jewish Millenials wouldn’t be engaged enough with Israel to even have this conversation.
We would all do better not to be adversarial and dismissive of adults who are either much older or younger than us. The older among us should acknowledge how troubling the flaws of the Israeli state are to the younger, that tzedek, tzedek tidorf is an ongoing process. And the young should remember that it is also a Jewish value to rise before your elders in respect.
What– the previous generations are mindless sheep who did not exercise their own powers of critical thinking at all?
The previous generation saw Israel as beleagured. All the metrics indicate this generation is far less inhibited about critcizing Israel in public and questioning orthodoxies. Which is why Jon Stewart’s humor is actually closer to my views than the starchy defensiveness of most folks.
JStreet is a disparate amalgam that has yet to gel into any real stances beyond only being not-AIPAC
J Street has no policies? Beg pardon?
I hypothesize that American Jewish Millenials wouldn’t be engaged enough with Israel to even have this conversation.
Birthright has sent, what, 200,000 kids to Israel? How many American Jewish youth are there? 2-3 million? Barely 1/12 the population.
The older among us should acknowledge how troubling the flaws of the Israeli state are to the younger, that tzedek, tzedek tidorf is an ongoing process. And the young should remember that it is also a Jewish value to rise before your elders in respect.
Fair. Amen.
Jon Stewart is a prick. People are getting murdered and kidnapped by illegal alien criminals in Arizona and this New York millionaire decides now is the time to crack jokes.
His show is besically about trying to be as cold and indifferent to human suffering as possible as long as those humans aren’t minorities.
His show is besically about trying to be as cold and indifferent to human suffering as possible as long as those humans aren’t minorities.
Yes, white people do have it hard.
“Yes, white people do have it hard.”
Keep spitting in the face of the only non-antisemitic country of the past 2000 years. It shows character.
Well, I do love building character.
formermuslim, if America is the only non-antisemitic country of the past 2000 years, does that include Israel?
Thanks for explaining why I can’t get married by the rabbi of my choice here, why my friend whose mother had an orthodox conversion before she was born isn’t considered Jewish, why women are arrested for engaging in Jewish practice in public…
arie writes:
formermuslim, if America is the only non-antisemitic country of the past 2000 years, does that include Israel?
ESPECIALLY Israel!
The generation coming up now tries to think for themselves
I can never tell if people are serious when they write these sorts of things.
Arie, julie and BZ, don’t try to change the subject. I understand I am sort of seen as a troll here but you acting like morons doesn’t make me look bad.
I originally wrote that I think Jon Stewart is a prick and why. It’s been a day and no-one has been able to come with a substantive argument why he isn’t.
I referred to murders and kidnappping committed by illegal aliens in Arizona and all Julie could come up with was “Yes, white people do have it hard.”
Jon Stewart, the most influential man in America.
formermuslim-
What about the murders and kidnapping committed by HITLER? Your trivializing of the Holocaust disgusts me.
BZ, you do have the option of ignoring me if you don’t want to take me seriously. It’s what I will do with you from now on.
I’m a weak and pathetic debater, but I’ll be baited by formermuslim’s challenge, even though thid is probably not the most appropriate forum.
I live in NM, and I think that AZ’s SB2010 is a terrible piece of reactionary legislation.
A half-day’s drive south of me in Juarez, the violence from the drug cartels’ power maneuvering has resulted in that beleaguered city having more than 2000 murders last year, and this year is on pace to meet or excede that number.
The extent to which that violence spills over has much more to do with drug trafficing than human trafficing. And it has almost nothing to do with the average Jose who takes enormous and self-endangering risks to work in piss-ant jobs north of the border, and hopefully leave behind most of the terrible violence of the cartels.
A law like SB2010 will increase crime because of the mistrust it will create among people who live here and law enforcement–it will intimidate crime witnesses and victims more than perpetrators. This law is what is indifferent to human suffering. I don’t know what jibes John Stewart has made about this law, but I can’t imagine that they even approach the disaster of the reality of this legislation.
Randi, first of all I can tell you’re a decent person. You at least acknowledge the violence in Arizona why the rest of the liberal media and individuals decided that part of the facts will meet with radio silence. So thank you.
But you forget one thing. If an average Jose can cross the border, no if MILLIONS of average Joses can cross the border so can thousands of drug traffickers.
The federal government abdicated it’s responsibility of defending the border and caused this situation. Someone else does take responsibility and all hell breaks loose.
It seems in America if you let a problem fester long it reaches a point where politicians will be able to say, “this problem is too big to solve now. We need to make them citizens”.
Arizona didn’t fall for that “logic”. Good for them.
formermuslim, you’re exactly right that if Jose can cross the border, so can a drug trafficker. The problem is that right now it’s illegal for either of them. If it was legal for Jose to cross the border, then “defending the border” would consists solely of stopping drug traffickers.
If you create a legal avenue to do something, then the only people who’ll continue to do it illegally are the ones who have something to hide.
The problem is that right now it’s illegal for either of them. If it was legal for Jose to cross the border, then “defending the border” would consists solely of stopping drug traffickers
The real problem is that drugs are illegal to begin with. When will that insane policy finally change?
renaissanceboy: They already have something like that. It’s called LEGAL immigration.
Whatever the eventual peace agreement, I’ll be happy when it is finally implemented. Not just for the benefits of peace, which are many, but for the victorious emotions I shall experience.
Specifically, I’ll be dancing around yelling ‘take that you foolish Eretz Yisrael crazies!’ I’ll be waiting for footage of the destruction of outposts and settlements, recent and less recent. I’ll be waiting to capture the movement of the bulldozers and the gnashing of teeth, and thinking – finally!
After more than 40 years of Israel as the more or less willing hostage of messianic settlers, I’m looking forward not ONLY to seeing them forcibly returned to Israel proper, but ALSO to the public drawn out collapse of their world view. Some have threatened to leave Israel in disgust…. B’yemeinu amen.
And that evening, I’ll be tuning in to Jon Stewart, eagerly awaiting his snarky comments devoid of any pity or sympathy for those folks. As almighty Jon would say it ‘I can taste it now…. Mmmmm!’
@formermuslim
Mostly on your side with AZ. Still, it’s overkill. Would have been better to pass legislation that step-by-step depopulated the state of undocumented residents, instead of something drastic that woke up the country.
Like a state payroll tax with massive fraud penalties on employers, where fraud includes incorrect social security numbers. Or a forfeiture law on businesses owned by anyone not in compliance with employment law.
Force advocates for porous borders and immigration quotas that favor Latinos over Africans and Asians to campaign openly in favor of employers breaking the law, instead of granting them the virtue of fighting a police state.
If getting rid of all the illegal Irish and Polish immigrants in New York forces us to target the Mexicans in the southwest first – that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Mostly kidding. Heh.
That’s funny, Jew Guavara. You won’t be spitting in the face of the settlers. You’ll be spitting in the face of the PA and two million Palestinians who want the settlers to stay as Palestinian citizens.
How childish, thinking this is all about you.
You’re so out of your depth. You’re an embarrassment to thinking people.
formermuslim: If the current legal immigration process were as easy as its proponents claim, no one would be immigrating illegally, since, as you’ve said, most are just average Joses.
Shorter FM:
All people suffering under hare-brained economic policies? Pay no heed, look – some brown people!
JS has devoted the MOST attention to the financial crisis, which has affected ALL people INCLUDING whites. But because he doesn’t fall for the anti-Mexican bigotry disguised as populism, he’s somehow a prick?
I’ll let the man speak for himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2YK7pADmWU
renaissanceboy, I think you need to be aware that there are poor people in America. Maybe you are like julie and think all white people are millionaires, so let’s forget about them for a minute.
Let’s focus on the black americans. A lot of them are poor and also non-white so there is no source of confusion.
Do you hate black people? Why else would you want to undercut their prospects in the labor market. Or maybe having seen no progress on their part you just decided to give up and bestow your sympathies on another ethnicity. One that at the moment is not your fellow citizen.
So could you please explain to me, why in the current economic climate, with unemployment at 10%, with California going backrupt thanks to it, you’re so fanatically in favor of immigration? Why in G-d’s name should it be easier?
My own hypothesis is that you believe that being poor in America ,as opposed to Mexico, is an acceptable level of material comfort and anything above is luxury. Subconsciously every pro-immigration enthusiast believes this.
Rennaisanceboy,
The fact is there are laws on the books. Arizona doesn’t control federal immigration law, nor do they have a say over federal enforcement of federal law. Yet, their state has to bear the brunt of policies which we all acknowledge are failed policies, at a tremendous financial and social cost. Do you suggest that the Federal government has acted responsibly? How much longer do you think this insanity should go on?
B.BarNaviL:”JS has devoted the MOST attention to the financial crisis, which has affected ALL people INCLUDING whites. But because he doesn’t fall for the anti-Mexican bigotry disguised as populism, he’s somehow a prick?”
An anti ILLEGAL immigration bill by a state ON the Mexican border will automatically be seen as targeting Mexicans. That’s inevitable.
Same way an anti-terrorism measure for airports will automatically impact muslims and arabs more than others. At least in countries that use logic and common-sense such as hmmm let me think here, there is this country somewhere in the middle-east..forgot it’s name there…
Anonymouse, I absolutely don’t suggest the federal government has acted responsibly. That’s why I support federal immigration overhaul, not state-by-state work. I by no means support the status quo.
formermuslim, the notion that immigrants take jobs away from Americans is just not supported by the data. Furthermore, studies show that legalizing immigrants already here would be a significant economic benefit.
My own hypothesis is that you believe that being poor in America ,as opposed to Mexico, is an acceptable level of material comfort and anything above is luxury. Subconsciously every pro-immigration enthusiast believes this.
Way to generalize and put words in our mouths. This isn’t at all what I believe.
…an anti-terrorism measure for airports will automatically impact muslims and arabs more than others.
Really? Automatically? Because I’d say that’s a function of racial profiling (which is illegal and doesn’t work).
I have read the link you provided about the economic benefits of immigration reform. Here are a few quotes and my comments.
“Comprehensive immigration reform generates an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. Summed over 10 years, this amounts to a cumulative $1.5 trillion in additional GDP. It also boosts wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.”
US GDP is 10 trillion for ONE YEAR. I have read many such reports. They always have to resort to multiplying by 10 years in order to get an impressive sounding number. 150 billion a year in a 10 trillion dollar economy (a year)…it sounds like a round off error. Also, I don’t believe the last sentence. I..just..don’t..
(For the innumerates 150 billion = 150 000 million
10 trillion = 10 000 000 million)
“Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation.”
There is that factor 10 again. What’s left out is that with less people you need less GDP growth. So assuming these people are not lying through their teeth, it’s still meaningless.
“2 Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss.”
Wages would rise for less-skilled natives? G-d forbid! If G-d wanted them rich he would have given them a higher IQ.
The point that that article makes clear is that there’s no significant economic benefit to denying immigrants the ability to enter the job market on the same terms as anyone else. All it does is force them into unregulated and underpaid jobs, creating human rights issues, and allowing companies to take advantage of them.
Other problems of SB 1070 that we haven’t even discussed include how it will limit the extent to which immigrant communities interact with the police for fear of arrest, decreasing cooperation and making police work more difficult. And you still haven’t addressed the issue of racial profiling. The law makes looking like an immigrant a legally actionable cause for searches, arrests, and other police action. Part of what helps maintain individual civil liberties in this country is that the police can’t stop you just because you look like you might be doing something wrong. Looking like an immigrant isn’t probable cause for an investigation into whether or not you’re here illegally.
renaissanceboy: “The point that that article makes clear is that there’s no significant economic benefit to denying immigrants the ability to enter the job market on the same terms as anyone else.”
I just gave you one remember? Here it is again: “2 Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would diminish for higher-skilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss.”
Personally I think the whole study is crap but I am willing to debate you with your own sources. Like in that talmudic story.
Now, how exactly would wages rise for less-skilled workers while there is also “widespread job loss”? Something doesn’t smell right.
The only way to logically reconcile these statements is to assume that the job loss will then be in the higher skilled category.
So yes, screw over less educated citizens so the higher skilled and educated can enjoy a higher standard of living. It’s more difficult for the latter to find jobs, right? The lesser skilled had it coming to them anyway.
I personally am higher skilled by the way, but I am not in the business of making war on the underclass.
“And it’s why those cheering young AIPAC-ers do not represent anything.
The generation coming up now tries to think for themselves.”
Ah ha…. so “cheering young AIPAC-ers” represent nothing. But cheering young J Street-ers represent…..what? More than nothing? Ah yes, I forgot — people who belong to AIPAC don’t think. But people who belong to J Street are thoughtful, questioning and possessed of a deep appreciation of nuance.
Alright, I think I got it now: AIPAC, dumb sheep. J Street, thoughtful and independent. OK, gotta remember that one…
Does self-congratulation get much greasier?
“‘…an anti-terrorism measure for airports will automatically impact muslims and arabs more than others.’
Really? Automatically? Because I’d say that’s a function of racial profiling (which is illegal and doesn’t work).”
Hmmmmm…. If 95%+ of terrorism is being committed by Group K, you don’t believe it makes sense to focus preventive tactics on members of Group K?
What if there was a campaign of anti-black lynching in a certain locality–would it make sense to focus the search for suspects on white males, or should every person of every race, religion, ethnicity and sex be equally investigated?
@formermuslim, the explanation for that is that when you no longer have a segment of the population that either a) works under-the-table and is paid dirt because their employer knows they won’t go to the police or b) takes minimum-wage service jobs because there’s too much hiring discrimination (a problem that won’t be solved solely by immigration reform, and is compounded by ongoing economic problems), wages will increase. Clearly when there are more people competing for the same number of jobs, there will be more unemployed at a given time. So is it worth prioritizing native-born Americans over immigrants in a competition for labor? I’d say not. Furthermore, the study doesn’t take into account job-growth policies such as the American Power Act. The employment rate projections are to my mind the least convincing part of the study either way – they’re the last thing I would base immigration policy on, even if they purportedly support the policy I was proposing. They’re just not that strong an argument because there are too many other factors to take into account.
Eric: I agree completely that it’s no good to write off AIPAC folks as sheep.
However, to your point about “95% of terrorism being committed by Group K”, it’s just false. Look at the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building. Not an Arab. Look at the Christmas Day bomber. Not an Arab. If you looked at the study I linked to, it showed evidence that not only is racial profiling illegal, immoral, and counterproductive (in that it alienates communities which would otherwise be allies), but it just doesn’t produce results.
Claiming that terrorism is like whites lynching blacks is tacitly supporting the notion that terrorism explicitly derives from Islam. Terrorism derives from anger, hatred, and fear. There’s plenty of that to go around. It’s ridiculous to focus on only one group that’s been capable of it in the past when so many other have as well.
renaissanceboy:”Clearly when there are more people competing for the same number of jobs, there will be more unemployed at a given time. So is it worth prioritizing native-born Americans over immigrants in a competition for labor? I’d say not.”
Then why did you bother spelling out all the benefits of immigration for native American citizens? Obviously you’re not interested primarily in their benefit. Was that just a ruse to get native americans to go along with something that’s appearently not in their interest, as you yourself have just shown?
Obviously you’re not interested primarily in their benefit.
Yep. I don’t think that people who happen to have been born on this side of the border are better than people who weren’t. Freedom of movement is an essential human right.
Was that just a ruse to get native americans to go along with something that’s appearently not in their interest, as you yourself have just shown?
In a word, no. The amount of opposition to immigration reform is totally disproportionate to the amount of damage it would do, especially weighed against the human rights issues.
Don’t put words in my mouth: I agree that a larger amount of people looking for work obviously means higher unemployment rates, but that’s doesn’t mean that immigration reform isn’t in the best interest of Americans. Drug smuggling. Human trafficking. These are problems that we could be far better equipped to deal with if we had better immigration policy. Not to mention the larger benefits of increased tax revenues, better compliance with labor laws, and more civilian-law enforcement cooperation.
“Yep. I don’t think that people who happen to have been born on this side of the border are better than people who weren’t. Freedom of movement is an essential human right.”
I will never look at war refugees in the same light.
“Don’t put words in my mouth: I agree that a larger amount of people looking for work obviously means higher unemployment rates, but that’s doesn’t mean that immigration reform isn’t in the best interest of Americans.”
I didn’t put words in your mouth. I spelled out more clearly the logical consequences of your statements. It’s amazing that in the same sentence you can say that immigration is in their best interest and that unemployment will increase and you see no contradiction.
” Drug smuggling. Human trafficking. These are problems that we could be far better equipped to deal with if we had better immigration policy.”
Like closing the border. What do you have against this? They can still come through the legal channels.
” Not to mention the larger benefits of increased tax revenues,”
To pay for unemployment benefits?
“better compliance with labor laws, and more civilian-law enforcement cooperation.”
Create a problem, legislate a solution. Complying with labor laws means, among others, paying people a minimum wage I assume. But this will be all they will be paid,ever, thanks to the flooding of the labor market even if they are legalized.
But I guess above a certain level of material comfort, say minimum wage level, anything above is luxury.
Okay, I’m rapidly losing patience with the argument that I’m somehow trying to two-time middle America. The substance of my argument is that even if an increase in the number of legalized workers means an increase in competition for entry-level employment, opening our borders does much to grant equal rights to an already-present and already-marginalized segment of the population, and, by placing immigrants on a level playing field, puts us in a position to pass progressive social legislation that will affect them as well, rather than leaving them out of the mix as they are now.
You and I just seem to look at the problem differently. I see it as “they’re illegal because legal isn’t a viable option.” You see it as “since they’re illegal, they’re criminals, therefore they shouldn’t be given protection.” I’m obviously not disagreeing on the technicalities of the current status of undocumented immigrants, I just think it’s completely counterproductive (and I’ve already said the reasons why) to perpetuate that status.
“Okay, I’m rapidly losing patience with the argument that I’m somehow trying to two-time middle America.”
Do you even read your own postings? You practically said, “more americans will be unemployed but I don’t care because more immigrants will benefit”. You can lose all the patience you want, that’s what you said.
“The substance of my argument is that even if an increase in the number of legalized workers means an increase in competition for entry-level employment, opening our borders does much to grant equal rights to an already-present and already-marginalized segment of the population,”
My paraphrasing above is even more accurate than I thought. I take nothing back.
” and, by placing immigrants on a level playing field, puts us in a position to pass progressive social legislation that will affect them as well, rather than leaving them out of the mix as they are now.”
I don’t understand the mechanism of cause and effect behind what you’re describing here but if I were a more cynical person I would read that sentence as “by making immigrants Democratic party voters”.
Oh, and California is bankrupt. How did immigration work out for them?
RB,
Personally, I support naturalizing the 10-20 million illegals that are currently in the country. Presumably, they’re employed, somewhere, so they are already contributing to the economy and filling holes in the low skill labor market. More importantly, I think kicking people out of their homes, splitting families and destroying lives is always a bad solution.
However, you have to understand, there are no good solutions here. We’ve tried naturalizing millions of illegals in the past. As long as our border with Mexico is porous, and as long as Mexico is verging on the brink of failure as a state, millions of migrants will attempt to come here. A Mexican friend once said to me that it’s so bad in Mexico that even the trees run across the border.
Without sealing that border, no solution is viable. Legalizing 10 million means nothing when there are 1-3 million people crossing into the US illegal every year. However, doing so is a massive technical and political challenge, given our commitments under NAFTA. With 10-20% of their citizens living in the US and sending back money, it’s not clear if Mexico could survive us sealing the border. A failed state would only multiply the many more problems that exist now with human trafficking, drugs, crime and poverty.
The current situation is in many ways a balance of bad options, an unhealthy, but manageable status quo, which is why you don’t see anyone rushing to fix it. Idealism is fine from the sidelines, but as Bush and now Obama have discovered, pragmatism often wins out.
Arizona doesn’t need scoffing and boycotts, it needs understanding and help from the federal government, and from all of us who haven’t born the financial and social burdens of migration.
Anonymouse, I agree that Arizona needs help from the federal government, but I think the current law is completely counterproductive and prevents any kind of progress from being made to actually deal with the problems that illegal immigration causes.
formermuslim, here’s my final word on the economic side of things.
renaissanceboy,You should read your own sources more closely. From your link:
“Both Griswold and Shierholz acknowledge that some workers may be harmed by an influx of immigrant labor. Griswold writes that “low-skilled immigrants do exert mild downward pressure on the wages of the lowest-paid American workers,” though the overall impact on jobs and the economy is positive. Another economist, George Borjas, an advocate of clamping down on immigration, found that between 1980 and 2000 native-born Americans without a high school education saw their wages decline 7.4 percent because of immigrant labor.”
I’m sure it’ll all be compensated by progressive taxation on the rich.