In 1993, PLO President Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords, which, at the time, was a major step toward establishing a durable relationship and dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  They too would share the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.  And two years later, Rabin was assassinated by an ultra-orthadox Israeli Jew who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords.

We often hear the term “political courage” in speeches, media broadcasts, etc.  In the United States, this rarely means anything more than courage in the face of a potential drop in the polls, or, at the very worst, an electoral defeat.  But political courage in the Middle East is an entirely different animal.  There it carries its more traditional meaning — courage in the face of death.

As Middle East peace talks once again get underway in Washington it pays to keep this in mind.  If Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas did not have the extremist elements to reckon with at home, peace would be much more obtainable.  I don’t think Netanyahu would baulk at the promise of ceasing the building of new settlements, and maybe even additional concessions regarding Jerusalem, for guaranteed Israeli security and a real recognition of the Jewish state if it weren’t for the radical elements within Israel (i.e., the settlement builders).  Of course, Abbas has his own radical elements on the Palestinian side, most significantly in the form of Hammas.

These radical elements are very much in mind when Abbas and Netanyahu negotiate.  In fact, they are ever present in those conference rooms.  And their guns are held directly to the leaders’ heads.

It’s a useful exercise to try to calculate how much of your annual income ultimately is taken by the government via all the means. Disclaimer: I cannot be held responsible for the likely subsequent uptick in the suicide rate among the vast readership of this fine blog (or blogue).

And away … we … go:

Federal income tax
Federal Medicare tax
Federal Social Security tax
State income tax
Municipal income tax
Property Tax
Capital gains tax
Corporate income tax
Estate tax
State sales tax
Bridge and highway tolls
Bus, subway, and rail fares
Cell phone surcharges
Cable bill surcharges
Drivers license renewal fee
Building permit tax
Cigarette tax
Parking, sanitation, and other fines
Gasoline tax
Luxury taxes
School taxes
Recycling deposits (that nobody ever gets back)

And introducing:
Health insurance tax
Soda taxes
VAT tax

Every dollar (of the countless trillions) spent by the government has to come from somewhere. And ultimately, every dollar comes from you. Yes you. Sitting over there. Squinting at the screen. You know who you are. The Tax Man is coming.

Hide your soda can.

Without a doubt, the President has shifted the rhetoric of the previous administration and has thereby changed the international climate.  His speech in Cairo was historic and demonstrated a real desire to make amends with the Muslim world.  He’s showed an unprecedented willingness to sit and talk with historic enemies.  He’s begun a push toward nuclear disarmament which, if successful, would certainly be deserving of a peace prize.  But almost everyone knows that the President hasn’t accomplished anything truly of substance just yet, although many are confident that he in fact will.

In any event, a peace prize at this stage of the game means several things.  It’s demonstrative of strong international support for the President and should increase his clout on the international stage.  In dealing with the challenges posed by the Middle East and North Korea, this can definitely strengthen his hand.  Perhaps the political fallout will even be beneficial to Obama at home, paving the way for him to push through his domestic agenda.  Nobody should underestimate the power of simple popularity.

But I think there’s a good shot that this could backfire for Mr. Obama.  He’s likely to be scrutinized a lot more as people will expect him to live up to his early accomplishment.  And as if Republicans needed any more ammunition to showcase how little the President has accomplished, they are no doubt going to take full advantage of the genuine shock that the win has generated.  If I was President Obama, I’m not sure I’d want this prize just yet.

A friend of mine just told me that there’s an email being circulated at his job that President Obama is receiving the Cy Young award for throwing out the first pitch at the MLB All-Star Game.  I’m pretty sure that SNL is going to have a field day with this whole thing.

It’s obvious to anyone who has eyes in this country that teabaggers, the 9/12ers, these separatist groups that pretend it’s about policy, they are clearly white identity movements; they are clearly white-power movements.  What they don’t like about the President is that he’s black, or that he’s half black.  What also is shocking is that people keep pretending that this isn’t the case with these people . . . It’s weird that whenever this comes up in conversation, so few people are willing to say that it’s racism . . . What if black people showed up bearing arms at a McCain rally?

First thing’s first: bringing guns to presidential rallies is stupid. Any philosophical point that the gun-toter is trying to make is significantly outweighed by the message of violence toward the president that the gun sends. But bringing race into this seems equally silly.  Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that the guy in this video who brought a gun to an Obama rally is not white.

Second, Garofalo is quick to paint an entire movement with a racist brush – a movement that, on its face, is not about race, but about the philosophical direction of this country.  She’s willing to peer into these peoples’ souls (a la Bush peering into Putin’s) and conclude that they are motivated by a racist agenda; a collective disgust that a black man is President.  But isn’t it possible that these people are motivated by the grievances they actually cite?  Last time I checked, there’s a real ideological divide in this country about the proper role of government and, last time I checked, this divide is as old as the country itself.   Surely the fact that a black man is President shouldn’t turn this centuries old debate into one dominated by race.

Interestingly enough, Garofalo is much more careful about her generalizations when the conversation shifts to Hollywood’s support of Roman Polanski.  After Bill Maher lists some names who have pledged their support for the director and voices his frustration with greater Hollywood over this, Garofalo chimes in as follows:

Hollywood is not this monolith of like-minded people.  Hollywood is not this entity that moves with one mind.

Here, I agree with her 100%.  There’s no reason that the decisions of Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese to support Polanski should rub off on all of Hollywood.  But why can’t she give an equal benefit of the doubt to tea-baggers?  True, some of them might be racist.  But a portion of any mob might be racist, regardless of what they’re preaching.  And, even so, why should the racism of a few rub off on the rest of a group, especially when the grievance they explicitly cite isn’t racist?

Let me explain myself a little more here.  I’m no tea-bagger, 9/12er, or any other member of a partisan/ideological organization.  Nor am I a fan of large demonstrations like the ones we’ve been seeing.  Strategically speaking, they tend to strangle their own causes, no matter how legitimate, by opening themselves up to accusations of craziness, racism, etc. (as evidenced by this post).  But I do think it’s possible to parse through some of the hysteria in these movements and find a legitimate point worth addressing and debating.  And when I hear certain people make accusations of racism in, what seems to be, an effort to discredit anything that the movements stand for, I start to think these people just don’t have a real answer.

There’s a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse… and everybody in the village says, “How wonderful, the boy got a horse.” And the Zen master says, “We’ll see.” Two years later the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, “How terrible.” And the Zen master says, “We’ll see.” Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight … except the boy can’t ’cause his leg’s all messed up.  And everybody in the village says, “How wonderful.” The Zen master says, “We’ll see.”

And on and on it goes.  To add some color to this, I tend to think that the French Revolution is the most consequential event in recent history.  Why?  Well, if it wasn’t for the French Revolution, we wouldn’t have had Napoleon Bonaparate.  And if it wasn’t for Napoleon Bonaparte, we would not have had Napoleon III.  And if it wasn’t for Napoleon III, there may not have been a Franco-Prussian War.  And if it wasn’t for the Franco-Prussian War and its unsustainable peace, France would not have lost the territories of Alsace-Lorraine and there may not have been a World War I.  If it wasn’t for WWI and the crushing defeat and punishment of Germany, Hitler would not have come to power.  And if it wasn’t for Hitler, there would not have been a World War II.  Who knows what the world would look like today if the French didn’t cut off all of those heads almost two and a quarter centuries ago?

The course of history is extraordinarily complex and this is all a bit of an oversimplification.  But I think it’s safe to say that the complete comprehension of potential consequences resulting from such events is beyond human foresight.

“Hitler is defeated! How wonderful!”  We’ll see.  “The Soviet Union is no more!  Communism is defeated!  How wonderful!”  We’ll see.  “Afghanistan and Iraq are flourishing democracies!  How wonderful!”  We’ll see.