Today's exchange between President Joe Biden and the increasingly impressive Peter Doocy of Fox News was alarming because Biden appeared not to recall his own nearly disastrous gaffes in Europe -- about the U.S. potentially using chemical weapons in response to Russia's potential use of the same, about U.S. troops going to Ukraine, and about a supposed goal of regime change in Russia. Each of these could launch a World War III-type conflict, and yet Biden said they never happened. Well, that's not all he said: he also said he never walked back the regime change comment (in fact, he did), then he reiterated it, but said it was only a statement of "moral outrage" and not meant as a new policy.
Get that?
Anti-Trump pundits like Bill Kristol were at pains to compare Biden's Warsaw speech, at which the regime change comments were made, to Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin. But Reagan did not ad lib the comments, nor did he walk them back. A better parallel would have been Reagan's 1984 joke, when he was warming up for a radio interview and said: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
He had to walk that one back once it leaked, for obvious reasons. But at least Reagan knew he was joking, even if the Russians couldn't or didn't.
So the question is: can we afford to have a president in office who can't recall what he said, and contradicts himself even as he's trying to correct the record, when the consequences of those public words could have major consequences?
Let's play that old game: what if Trump did it? You already know the answer.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
