home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! Why Most Kids Are Left Behind In a radical probe of the functions of US education, Rich Gibson and E. Wayne Ross define the role of schools and of the bipartisan "No Child Left Behind" law in a rotting, militarized, imperial system. How educators should resist. Alexander Cockburn on why and how Wall Street and the Feds finished off Eliot Spitzer. Eamonn McCann on hiow the bel tolled for Ian Paisley. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great holiday presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
|
Today's Stories April 1, 2008 Jeff Leys March 31, 2008 Mike Whitney Mats Svensson Paul Rockwell Paul Craig Roberts Patrick Cockburn Peter Dale Scott Alfredo Molano Peter Morici Uri Avnery Michael Simmons Betsy Roberts
/ Karen Orr Phyllis Pollack Website of
the Day
Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Christopher Brauchli William Blum Robert Fantina John Ross Allison Kilkenny Nelson P. Valdés Suzanne Baroud Richard Rhames Christopher Fons Carl Finamore Eamonn McCann Missy Beattie Fred Gardner Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 28, 2008 Saul Landau Alan Farago Peter Morici Andy Worthington Felice Pace Peter Montague Dave Lindorff March 27, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Binoy Kampmark Joanne Mariner Norman Solomon William S. Lind John V. Walsh Robert Weissman Ron Jacobs Ralph Nader David Macaray John Borowski Website of
the Day
March 26, 2008 Stan Cox Sharon Smith Anita Sinha / Jill Tauber Matt Vidal William S. Lind Joe Mowrey Dave Lindorff Ray McGovern Justin Smith Sam Husseini Martha Rosenberg Michael Dickinson Website of the Day
March 25, 2008 Ishmael Reed Corey D. B.
Walker Linn Washington Jr. Alan Farago Vijay Prashad Joshua Frank Ralph Nader David Rovics Peter Morici Dave Zirin David Krieger Website of
the Day March 24, 2008 Jeffrey St.
Clair Peter Morici Uri Avnery Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts George Ciccariello-Maher Stephen Lendman Christopher
Brauchli Cat Woods Stacey Warde Dave Lindorff Website of
the Day
March 22 / 23, 2008 Ralph Nader Nicole Colson James Petras Laura Carlsen Greg Moses Andy Worthington Michael Dickinson John Ross Missy Comley Beattie David Michael
Green Ramzy Baroud Martha Rosenberg Paul Watson Isabella Kenfield James Murren Jacob Hornberger Kathlyn Stone Seth Sandronsky Kim Nicolini Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 21, 2008 Marleen Martin Peter Montague Saul Landau Anis Hamadeh Jacob Hornberger Khalil Nakhleh Adam Isacson Kenneth Couesbouc Madis Senner Monica Benderman Website of the Day March 20, 2008 Damien Millet
/ Mike Whitney John Ross Dave Lindorff Wajahat Ali Jill Nagle Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dan La Botz Robert Weissman Stella Dallas
/ Website of the Day
March 19, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Robert Fisk Jeff Taylor Ed Ruggero Ron Jacobs Christopher
Fons Sherwood Ross Cynthia McKinney Joshua Frank Robert Weissman Walter Brasch Yifat Susskind Andrew Wimmer Website of
the Day
March 18, 2008 David Price Paul Craig
Roberts Tim Wise Patrick Cockburn Conn Hallinan James T. Phillips Uri Avnery David Macaray Marjorie Cohn Peter Zinn Dan La Botz Monica Benderman
March 17, 2008 Pam Martens Sasan Fayazmanesh Nelson P. Valdés Peter Morici Wajahat Ali Ronnie Cummins Shaun Harkin Ali Khan Robert Jensen P. Sainath Greg Moses Dr. Susan Block Website of the Day
March 15 / 16, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Ralph Nader Robert Pollin Diane Christian Wajahat Ali Tom Wright
/ Alan Farago Greg Moses Michael Hudson Martha Rosenberg John Goekler Uzma Aslam
Khan Oren Ben-Dor David Underhill Fred Gardner David Michael
Green Rev. William E. Alberts Gail Dines David Yearsley Chris Clarke Poets' Basement Website of
the Day
March 14, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Don Santina
Patrick Cockburn
Tim Rinne Robert Fantina
Saul Landau
David Macaray
Franklin Lamb
Michael Neumann
March 13, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Mike Whitney
Assaf Kfoury
Andy Worthington Adam Federman
March 12, 2008 Dave Lindorff
R.F. Blader
Yonatan Mendel
Jonathan Cook
Bill and Kathy
Christison James J. Brittain
Ron Jacobs
March 11, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Ed O'Loughlin
Ramzy Baroud Kathy Christison
China Hand John Joslin
Mike Averko
Ben Rosenfeld
Thierry Paquot
March 10, 2008 Uri Avnery
Col. Dan Smith
R.F. Blader
Michael Neumann
Bob Fitrakis
and Harvey Wasserman James J. Brittain
Missy Comley
Beattie March 8-9, 2008 Weekend Edition JoAnn Wypijewski
Mike Whitney
Peter Morici
Ralph Nader
Jonathan Cook
Steve Niva
Bill and Kathy
Christison Hervé
Do Alto and Franck Poupeau Eric Walberg
Scott Johnson
Mark Scaramella
Bill Clinton Poet's Basement
Website of
the Weekend March 7, 2008 Patrick Cockburn
Robin Blackburn
Saul Landau
Binoy Kampmark
Chris Floyd
Andy Worthington Will Potter March 6, 2008
March 6, 2008 Vincent Navarro Forrest Hylton Peter Morici George Ciccariello-Maher John Ross Jacob Hornberger Paul Watson Dan Bacher Website of the Day
March 5, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Joanne Mariner Fidel Castro Christopher
Brauchli Steven Sherman Dave Lindorff James Murren Adam Engel Website of Day
March 4, 2008 Wajahat Ali William Blum Bill Quigley Ralph Nader Patrick Irelan James J. Brittain
/ Norman Solomon Jacob Hornberger Andy Worthington Mike Averko Website of the Day
March 3, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Alan Farago Richard Gott Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts Robert Weissman Uri Avnery Martha Rosenberg Eva Liddell Michael Donnelly Website of the Day
![]()
![]()
Subscribe Online
|
Apri1 1, 2008 Grumblings from the Noise MachineWoolly MametBy MICHAEL J. SMITH With a great deal more self-importance than St Paul ever showed about his transition, David Mamet recently announced his conversion to conservatism, in the downmarket pages of the Village Voice. After hearing this earthshaking news, I went and rummaged on my shelves for the copy that a waggish friend recently gave me of Mamet's little book, The Wicked Son, which appeared a couple of years ago. It's a very remarkable piece of work and really should have received more notice than it did. Actually-existing Jewry hasn't gotten such a con-brio drubbing since the late Meir Kahane went up into the bosom of Abraham. Mamet's starting point is the good old axiom of radical, innate, ineluctable goyish depravity: "The world hates the Jews. The world always [has] and will continue to do so." This notion of an ineluctable antipathy between Jews and Gentiles was an important element in the case for Zionism in its early days. The argument was grounded then in the theory of race. In more recent years the notion of "race" has become less respectable, and talk about unbridgeable racial differences is frowned upon in good society --especially after that unfortunate Third Reich thing. So for a good chunk of the twentieth century, the axiom of ineluctable antipathy got shelved. But we started to hear about it again, if memory serves, sometime in the 1980s. At the time it looked like a waggon-circling response to the rising tide of intermarriage--a phenomenon which might have suggested, to the unenlightened imagination, the reverse of antipathy. Since the racial theorizing that originally sustained the notion was still unacceptable, and no new explanation for it was suggested, it hung rather awkwardly in the air, a postulate motivated neither by immediate evidence nor by a larger theory about human society. Still, unmotivated and implausible as it is, the postulate has proven useful. The relentless campaign to legitimize the state of Israel has lately leaned on it very heavily--the point being that no matter how comfortable, and prosperous, and at-home Jews may seem to be in New York, or Miami, or Los Angeles, nevertheless there beats in every Gentile breast the heart of a Cossack. And so the homeland away from home may someday come in handy. Not that you would ever want to go there unless you had to--but you might have to. These shgutzim, you never know. Re-making--yet again--the relentlessly-made "case for Israel" is part of Mamet's purpose. He's very keen on Israel, though I don't believe things have quite gotten so bad for him, what with the Pulitzer Prize and all, that he's had to go there, or even ever entertained the idea. Still, he strongly approves, and thinks anybody who doesn't must hate the Jews:
Of course, we've heard all this a million times before; reading it in Mamet's energetic words is altogether too much like reading Alan Dershowitz would be, if some malicious genie had gifted Alan with a lively prose style. "The size of Vermont!" Sheer genius. West Bank settlers in Uzis and Birkenstocks, tending their spotted cattle and maple-sugaring in the Levantine spring--it's enough to bring Norman Rockwell back from the dead. The prose is so entertaining that one feels pedantic in asking questions like: what does it mean to say "the Arab world?" Assuming arguendo that this phrase means something, and that there's someone somewhere who can speak for "the Arab world", or negotiate on its behalf -- in what sense, exactly, has anything been offered to it? "Peace", Mamet says--but peace on what terms? And what does this gaseous notion of an "Arab world" have to do with the highly local politics of Mamet's lovable little Vermont-sized democracy? Would it not be more to the point to ask what has been offered the unmentionable Palestinians--the people of whom Golda Meir famously said "there's no such thing?" Of course it's unfair to Mamet to ask such questions of him. He's not a politician, or a historian. He's a guy in show business. Like a lot of guys in show business--Woody Allen and Mel Brooks come to mind -- Mamet is funnier when he talks about Jews than Gentiles. Consider such passages as this (Mamet has a bee in his bonnet about the fact that Jews, for reasons surely not far to seek, tend to favor gun control):
Whew! I don't think the guy will be getting any more Pulies. Attacking the Times--and NPR! It's like that scene in Dr Strangelove where Bat Guano warns Lionel Mandrake, "Fella, you're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company." But mad as he is at the Times, and NPR, Mamet is mostly mad at the Jews. All around him, his landsmen, being intelligent people, are marrying the girls and guys they like, without regard to race or religion. And more and more often, they are declining to buy literal or figurative Israel bonds. They are coming to be Jews in much the same way their neighbors are Unitarians or yogis or yachtsmen. That is to say, their Jewishness belongs to the personal sphere. It is not a sign of radical demarcation from the world around them. They have for the most part no interest in being Hebrew-speaking Amish. And this drives Mamet crazy. The Jews Mamet depicts in his book are downright anti-Semites, full of self-hate and slavishly eager to please Gentiles. But unless Mamet knows a very different class of Jews from those I know, this is sheer fantasy. Why is Mamet indulging in it? If David Mamet were an institution, it would be easier to understand. Shtetl institutions wouldn't exist without the shtetl, and so those institutions, and the people who staff them, have an interest in keeping the shtetl walls high and strong. This effect is particularly noticeable when it comes to the Israel lobby, where in recent years a strange reversal of purpose has taken place. There was a time when the Israel lobby existed for the sake of Israel, but it wouldn't be altogether wrong to say that now, Israel exists for the sake of the lobby. The lobby has become uniquely powerful and successful. It has catapulted its leading figures into the role of kingmakers -- and king-breakers--in American politics. But then, increase of appetite will grow by what it feeds on, as another well-known playwright once observed. It is in the nature of such power to be a wasting asset; new victories must be continually won--and therefore, new battles continually sought. This is one of the reasons why the lobby has come to be identified with the most chauvinist and maximalist elements in the Israeli political spectrum: the lobby must keep making ever more, and more extravagant, demands, in order to keep its own wheels turning. Moderate goals offer little scope for further self-aggrandizement, but totally insane goals--hey, if you can sell those, then you're a force to be reckoned with. As the sociologist Chaim Waxman has noted, "Many ... organizations now need Israel to legitimate their existence. Although these organizations may have been established for the purpose of enhancing and strengthening Israel, today Israel is vital for their continued viability." The same holds for the Bloody Shirt of anti-Semitism; Jonathan Woocher of the Jewish Education Service of North America writes, "We have seen the emergence of a whole new industry in America ... monitoring and purporting to fight anti-Semitism .... It is (sadly) not uncommon to see organizations jockeying for position to determine who among them is 'toughest' in fighting anti-Semitism." Even Thomas Friedman observed, "It's as if these organizations can only thrive if they have an enemy, someone to fight." (All these references come from John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's indispensable book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.) So if our friend David Mamet were the executive director of the American Jewish Committee--a position roughly comparable to Mayor of what's left of the American shtetl--his anxiety would be understandable. But he's not. He's a guy in show business. Whence this chip on his shoulder? Of course Mamet has done very well in life by mining a certain vein of interesting and vivid material, dating from times and places when landsman-hood mattered a lot. But surely that's not his worry. He can't possibly imagine this vanished, or at any rate fast-vanishing, world of hermetic tribes and clans has lost its power to fascinate. Just look at how people followed The Sopranos. No, let's give Mamet his due. He's not worried about his livelihood. It's hard to convey the carpet-chewing emotional intensity of this strange little book, but Mamet seems really committed, on a deep personal level, to his topic. It's not, as they say in The Godfather, "just business." Are we seeing here an instance of the deep, perverse love that Americans have for a grievance? Do other cultures feel so strongly as we do that if you're not owed an apology--by somebody or other-- you hardly exist? Perhaps Mamet is not being ultra-Jewish but ultra-American, indulging in our canting, whiny way of shoving to the head of the line: me first, I've been more badly treated. Or maybe it's a harmonic convergence of some craziness of Mamet's own, untraceable outside of the psychoanalytic sanctum, and the institutional needs mentioned earlier. Institutions don't necessarily make people crazy, but they're very good at finding the people whose craziness suits their purposes--and providing a bully pulpit for points of view that, if aired without institutional sanction -- at a cocktail party, say -- would send any hearers quickly off to circulate. But strange as Mamet's views are, and stranger still the wild-eyed rhetoric he couches them in -- the strangest thing about this book is a dog that doesn't bark. Mamet is conducting this supposedly en-famille conversation with his landsmen in public, and at the top of his voice. He's saying very mean things about us dangerous goyim --in our hearing! To our very face! How are we expected to react? Now Gentiles aren't a group--just a pseudo-category encoding a negation. We're the set of humans who are not elements of the set of Jews. There's no Gentile history to celebrate, no Gentile food to cook, no Gentile pride to bristle, no Gentile lobby to swing into action. But even so, as individuals, we Gentiles all fall under the shadow of Mamet's condemnation. We're all supposed to be potential Cossacks. We're all individually insulted by Mamet's fundamental axiom. And if you prick me, do I not bleed? If someone wrote an essay claiming, say, that Asians were worse drivers than the other peoples of the earth, wouldn't he expect to get some flak about it--even though "Asian" is the same kind of empty category as "Gentile"? And yet Mamet apparently does not expect us goyim--us hate-filled pogromists-in-waiting--to get riled at his disobliging expressions. If he were as scared of us as he claims, wouldn't he be a little less blithe about twisting our collective tail? On the contrary: he clearly expects that we will butt out. Mamet's is a book which is in some way about us, at least by implication; but even though the conversation he wants to start is conducted in our hearing, we're expected to act like furniture. Surely one must conclude that this is all... theater. Mamet is striking an attitude, chewing the scenery, shivering in fear of a specter who is, really, just a stage effect--some phosphorescent paint, a bit of cheesecloth, a blacklight to give the whole flimsy construct a creepy, uncanny glow. In fact Mamet no more expects us to talk back--or saddle up -- than Hamlet expects Yorick's skull to start cracking jokes. Does Mamet have a real purpose? Does he truly want his readers to go to their homes--or their supposed homeland -- after the show, looking fearfully over their shoulders? Or does he only want to excite them, give them a frisson, make them feel they've experienced something unique and special, let them revel in the victim's role without any of the actual disagreeable consequences -- and then collect his meed of applause? There's something in the frenetic hamminess of the performance that suggests we're on the right track with this analysis. But that raises the further question: Who enjoys reading this stuff? Who's buying tickets to the show? Presumably the audience is not those Hellenized Jews, with their Gentile spouses, whom Mamet excoriates. Or no, maybe that's too simple. People are complex creatures. A little trip through Mamet's mind might be a bit like a walk on the wild side. You wouldn't want to live there--it's like Israel, that way -- but it is sort of exciting to visit, once in a while. And then, too, even if you're pretty Hellenized, you may feel a little funny, a little ambivalent about it. Is this the way you really want to go? Don't you lose as well as gain? Those guys in Fiddler On The Roof seem to have a life that's so rich, so charged with meaning. Seems a shame to give up all that. Personally, Gentile though I am, I feel sympathetic to this ambivalence. It's too bad that the best word we have for this feeling is "nostalgia." The feeling deserves to be taken more seriously and given a more respectful name. It's not just a matter of wishing that cars still had tailfins. If you consider the past to be a package deal, as we reasonably must, then you will probably agree that we wouldn't want to go back there, even if we could. Bach and Couperin are wonderful, and it's a damn shame nobody's writing music like that nowadays, but we wouldn't want to be ruled by the Hohenzollerns and the Bourbons. [Speak for yourself, Smith! Back to Franz-Josef, I say! AC] This is the decision that Mamet's detested Hellenized Jews, reasonably, have made. Tevye may be sympathetic, and likable, but few people nowadays want to live as he did--and truth to tell, few would want to see all that much of him, either, if he were still around. If Mamet's audience still want to keep a foot, or a toe, in Tevye's old world, I'm the last person to blame them. But increasingly, they're doing so without a bogus, anachronistic Mametian sense of persecution and embattlement. Mamet, for whatever quirky personal reason, needs his fury; it keeps him warm, or something. And the mighty noise machine of what has come to be called "the Israel lobby" gives him a context for views that might otherwise seem little short of lunacy. But when Caliban looks in the mirror of his fellow-congregants at his shul, he increasingly sees a face that looks nothing like his own snarling countenance. And he rages. Michael J. Smith lives in New York and wages Quixotic
war against the Democratic Party on his blog, stopmebeforeivoteagain.org.
![]()
|
How the Press Led the US into War ![]() Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! ![]() Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz ![]() Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal ![]() Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn ![]() ![]() ![]() Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |