Liberal pundits are driving me nuts.

[gridlore]

It seems to me that they are deliberately not getting the dance we're doing with the Libyan mission. Yes, we want Qadaffi gone. But for Western forces to go in and overthrow him would be a disaster. We are not loved in the region nor are any European nation. French colonialism in North Africa didn't end until the 1960s. They do not want us racing in and toppling a government. But they do need help.

So after being asked for protection for vulnerable civilian populations from Qadaffi's forces (and his open promises of massacres) the UN crafted a very cleverly-worded resolution. It established a no-fly zone and allowed attacks on any Libyan forces which could threaten a civilian population. Which is all of them. And if the RAF and the Armée de l'Air wipe out a Libyan mechanized division, that's one less division for the rebels to face. And if US strikes destroy a command and control bunker as part of the destruction of Lybia's air defense network, and that bunker also was being used to coordinate army movements, oh well. It's just a happy coincidence that the UNSC Resolution is worded in such a way that enforcing it provides massive aid to the rebels seeking to oust Qadaffi.

Here's another way to look at it. Several years ago Kiri and I attended the Callahanicon Annex at the lovely and talented eleri's place. The bulk of the attendees were staying at a hotel several miles away. Among these attendees was arib. Ari is a devout, observant Jew, and the first night of the Annex was Friday. In case you didn't know, there is a huge list of things that he is not allowed to do on the Sabbath. He is also forbidden to ask others to do these things for him. One of these things is drive a car, meaning he also couldn't ask for a ride. He was staying at the hotel. This meant a walk of several miles on dark country roads. But there was a solution. If a car door happened to be open, he could of course sit in the car. And if the car happened to be going to the hotel, so much the better! The letter of the law was followed, and a desired result was achieved.

That's what's happening in Libya. We're not overthrowing Qadaffi, we're protecting civilians from a murderous dictator. It just happens that this protection is going to make life so much easier for the rebels. Just a happy coincidence. So when Qadaffi is lynched, it will be by his own people, and the forces that take Tripoli will be waving the old Libyan monarchist flag. Sort of the way the French paved the way for us scrappy Americans to kick Conrwallis' wig at Yorktown.

Comments

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

The problem is the whole idea of defining yourself by a party and not what people do.

The Democrats spent the entire Bush Administration--or so it seems--defining themselves as Not Republicans instead of a party sharing a basic, common set of ideals. While the Republicans had power--or at least the perception of it--the differences in the sub-groups of Democrats wasn't really that evident. One illustration of it is sub-groups of Democrats who are pro-gay marriage and the somewhat religious elements in the Black and Hispanic parts of the Democratic party. The on-going battles for recognition of gay marriage seem to alternately be empowered by and be disappointed by the Democratic Party.

Because Democrats were responding instead of initiating and the responses were primarily "whatever politically blocks the Republicans", the differences weren't noticeable. Obama capitalized on this by either consciously feeding his Party what they wanted to hear or actually being naive enough to believe a lot of what his Party seemed to want to hear.

(Case in point: Guantanamo and ending the war in Afghanistan.)

Now, with the political reality driving the bus and the fact the Democrats are/were being the ones forced to initiate action, the simple "We aren't Republicans" strategy falls apart and the Democrats are being faced with the facts what they thought was a common set of Democrat ideals (i.e. their own) either isn't or doesn't fit the real world situation.

That is why the Democratic Party is starting to eat itself. The Republicans had and are having their own dilemma with the Tea Party. The thing about them is they resolved/are resolving most of it based on idealistic grounds and functional grounds. Basically "What ideals are we okay with?" and "What can we actually, legally do?" and--as a result--are coming up with potential "solutions" based on ideals at the state and congressional levels that they might otherwise have never been willing or able to try. However, they seem to be only focusing on what's doable and shared and choosing not to define themselves completely. This seems to let them have a "big tent" approach where you get a functional coalition even among sub-groups that disagree on many other ideals. Perhaps it's also why the Republicans seem to be succeeding more on gaining bipartisan support for many of their policies and why the surviving "Blue Dog Democrats" seem to be frequent targets for cooperation.

In many ways, this ongoing Republican/Tea Party conflict is a chance at renewing the learning process on the Republican side based on ideals which--in many cases--are not necessarily shared with anyone else.

The Democrats--if they maintain power--are going to have to do something similar. They are going to have to rectify the major differences in ideals between their sub-groups or risk fragmenting and possibly marginalization. Historically, they seem to have handled it by intensive appealing to the "center" and reliance on old loyalties (like under Clinton), but with the Republican/Tea Party shifting some of the fight into the decentralized State governments, a true, undivided center may not even exist in function.

So--like the Republican/Tea Party process--the Democratic party and the moral dilemmas presented to it from the continued economic problems and international situation should be interesting to watch...

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

However, if you assume that the rebels are a CIA plot, as I'm sure rather a lot of people do, the whole protecting civilians things becomes a nudge nudge wink wink excuse for providing air cover for your proxy combatants...

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

That sort of Talmudic reasoning wouldn't fly at most GM's tables, esp when it leads to things like tying a wire around a neighborhood so that it is all one structure where the neighbors can do "at home" activities in their common home with extensive paved courtyard.

I recall reading that some of the ultra-orthodox rabbis have taken a break from demonizing the Internet and started decrying these sort of exploits, including the Sabbath elevator, which is the timer-activated vertical equivalent of your friend Ari's fortunate happening upon an open, waiting cab.

Gentiles Arguing Jewish Minutae Is GO!

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

But as long as the timer is set before the Sabbath, it would fall under the same exemption as "cooking a meal to be eaten on the Sabbath, knowing that the work is being done for the Sabbath, but since it doesn't actually fall on the Sabbath it's OK"

Considering the Eruv dates back to at least Roman times, I don't see the UO getting much traction. It's just to embedded in the cultural mindset. At best, they can try to get it back to referring only to places enclosed by walls.

Re: Gentiles Arguing Jewish Minutae Is GO!

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

A far as I can tell, Gentile discussion of The Law and its interpretation is encouraged in so far as it is to spread accurate information rather than a pretext for denigration. The Mosaic Law is also apparently unique in that unlike every other "Chosen Ones" arrangement, it gives progressively less freedoms and privileges to the successively more authoritative groups of the righteous among the not, Hebrews over Gentiles, husbands over wives, the learned over the unlearned, the priesthood over the laiety, until you get to the anointed, learned, holy guys who can't even step on crack in the sidewalk.

Re: Gentiles Arguing Jewish Minutae Is GO!

[arib.livejournal.com]

As always, two Jews=three opinions.

Many Orthodox Jews are comfortable with the concept of a Sabbath elevator, many aren't. (Majority consensus seems to be that it'd be perfectly alright for someone who is elderly/infirm/handicapped to use it to go up and down as much as necessary, but a healthy person should take the stairs, unless we're talking about a really tall building.

Eruv is by far a much more accepted thing. As gridlore said, it's been around for much longer. People who don't hold by the validity of an eruv tend to object more to specific minutiae (how the demarcation is made, along with other disqualifying factors like population living in the area [too big a population and you can't use an eruv no matter what] or geographical boundaries [an eruv can't cross a river, you can't put an entire island in an eruv]) rather than the actual eruv itself.

(Further, I'm not sure I'd do now what I did then, at least not with a little more thought. But that's just me.)

Re: Gentiles Arguing Jewish Minutae Is GO!

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

I understand there's an important element of discipline in doing things according to the letter of the law, and the practice of Eruv doesn't shock my conscience or anything like that, but it still seems counterproductive to me to ban labor-saving devices like elevators and baby carriages in order to prevent "work" from being done. Strict adherence to form despite transgressing intent gives sophists not unlike myself license to twist rules to their selfish ends. In extreme cases you can get the likes of the student who assassinated Rabin after convincing himself it was not only permissible but required.

[claidheamhmor]

The example you quote, of the trip from the hotel - I really think that it's going against the spirit of the restriction, while keeping to the letter. I know Orthodox Jews who are not allowed to turn lights on by using a light switch, so they installed motion-sensitive lights...