I am an avid reader of Newsweek. As my father, of blessed memory, told me, he had a subscription to Newsweek "because they are less anti-semitic than 'Time Magazine'."
One of the best weekly features of Newsweek is the "My Turn" column, written by a different reader on a different topic each week. These are not commissioned pieces. They are unsolicited musings by "regular folk" submitted to the weekly magazine. I imagine that they get thousands each year, from which they select just 50.
I have often fantasized about my getting to write one. I have many thoughts in my head for articles and many topics that are of interest to me, from comedy, to politics, to entertainment, to libertarianism, etc. But if I had one shot at it, I'd probably want to write about the hypocrisy of the anti-semite and how difficult it is to be a Jew - any Jew, but in particular an Orthodox religious Zionist - in the world today.
To be sure, Jews today have a great deal of freedom in many countries to practice our religion freely. We have doors open to us - in the professions, in business, in politics - like never before. We have had, in this country alone, an Orthodox Jewish candidate for Vice President of the United States, an Orthodox Jewish Attorney General and an incoming White House Chief of Staff who belongs to an Orthodox synagogue.
And yet...
Rabbi Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League, who was assassinated by a Muslim terrorist, once said that there are two kinds of non-Jews: Those who have shown their anti-semitism rather openly, and those who have not shown it - yet.
While that cynicism may be an exaggeration - for there are certainly righteous Jew-lovers among the non-Jews in the world - he had an interesting point. When there is trouble in the world, it still is "blame the Jew" time. (In case you don't remember, Mel Gibson said that the Jews started every war. Jews are being blamed for the financial industry meltdown. Despite what I wrote in my blog (below) that Madoff should make the anti-semites dance for joy since he stole mostly from Jews, there's plenty of anti-semitism coming out of that incident, etc.)
And when a Jew - read: Israel - stands up to defend itself and protect its citizens in a way that ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH WOULD if it were in the same situation, the world attacks Israel.
Imagine for a moment if some Canadian terror organization was lobbing 80-100 mortars and rockets into the populated areas of Niagara Falls (on the American side) and Buffalo on a daily basis, killing innocent citizens, maiming children, scaring the population of those cities, causing the schools to shut down, etc. and the terrorists were acting without any attempt by the Canadian government to prevent it.
Or if it was France attacked from across the border in Belgium. Or Italy from Austria.
I'll tell you what they wouldn't do. They wouldn't let it go on for 2 years... or 2 months... or 2 weeks... without responding. They might let it go on for a few days, demand that the government stop it, and say that if the foreign government won't stop it, they will.
And there would not be a measured response, whatever the hell that is. (I want to know what the world thinks Israel should do? If Hamas terrorists lob 80 mortars into Israel, would a measured response be for Israel to lob 80 mortars into civilian areas of Gaza?)
What America, or France or Italy would do is bomb the hell out of the terrorists hideouts on that foreign side of the border, destroying homes and killing its citizenry if, as Hamas has done, they have hidden the rocket launchers behind trees of residences, in playgrounds of schools and on the rooftops of mosques and hospitals.
Every time Israel has defended itself since the 6 Day War, they've been vilified and pilloried in the press, in the United Nations, in the court of (world) public opinion, by heads of virtually every state (except the U.S. and one or two others), and it has never made one iota of difference if the response was subdued, controlled, measured, with an enormous care for humanitarian concerns and prevention of collateral damage - often costing more Israeli lives - or if it was an all out, "let's end this thing quickly" type of attack. No matter what, Israel is wrong.
If anything, I've always condemned Israeli leadership for being too meek, for too much restraint, for not hitting back hard enough, and, most of all, for caring too much about world opinion, as if the world will ever look favorably on Israel.
The current attack on Gaza - with its intention on protecting its citizenry from terrorist attack - is completely just and righteous, despite what the immoral, hypocritical and anti-semitic world says.
And it is about time Israel does the right thing for its citizens rather than care about what those who wish them into extinction think.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Ultimate Sign You Are Old
I started losing my hair at about 27 years of age. It wasn't taken as "good news," but it didn't make me crazy either. I fully expected it, even anticipated it. I would joke - and pray - that I only wished that when I truly got old, I'd have enough left to turn grey.
I get up a few times a night for the last three years to pee. That's pretty much a sign that you've reached old age. But that didn't depress me either.
Yes, and I've had that colonoscopy. It's a bit embarrassing to go through (not the colonoscopy itself, for which I was under general anesthesia as Dave Barry noted below, but for the prerequisite doctor's exam in the office, which is... don't ask!), but not the end of the world.
I've got a tire around the middle, the sagging skin, I can't run a layup, I get winded after a flight of stairs, I have taken high blood pressure medication, I have bi-focals, when I pick up a stray ball on my lawn, the neighbor's kid says, "Thanks, Gramps," etc., etc., etc. none of which pleases me, and none of which really upsets me.
But I came home screaming and crying last week.
The barber - without even asking - trimmed my eyebrows!
I don't even understand how the hell that happened! What would make them grow normally for 56 years and then in my 57th year, cause them to grow like weeds so suddenly, that - for the first time in my life! - they would need to be trimmed?! And it was so obvious that my brows were growing out of control, that the barber didn't EVEN ASK ME IF I WANTED THEM TRIMMED! He just took a comb to them andcut them down to size.
I think it was the was most painful cut since my bris (circumcision)!
I admit that I suffer from/enjoy a lot a bit of "Peter Pan syndrome." Not the full-fledged version where an adult male, say, in his 30's never gets a job, can never commit to a serious relationship with a woman and never moves out of his parents home. I more or less have the version where I'm married, have kids and grandkids, have a job, but love to go on a carousel - even if I'm not with my grandkids. My motto is, "I may grow old, but I'll never grow up."
But I never anticipated getting my brows trimmed. I'm gonna have to rethink this growing old thing.
I get up a few times a night for the last three years to pee. That's pretty much a sign that you've reached old age. But that didn't depress me either.
Yes, and I've had that colonoscopy. It's a bit embarrassing to go through (not the colonoscopy itself, for which I was under general anesthesia as Dave Barry noted below, but for the prerequisite doctor's exam in the office, which is... don't ask!), but not the end of the world.
I've got a tire around the middle, the sagging skin, I can't run a layup, I get winded after a flight of stairs, I have taken high blood pressure medication, I have bi-focals, when I pick up a stray ball on my lawn, the neighbor's kid says, "Thanks, Gramps," etc., etc., etc. none of which pleases me, and none of which really upsets me.
But I came home screaming and crying last week.
The barber - without even asking - trimmed my eyebrows!
I don't even understand how the hell that happened! What would make them grow normally for 56 years and then in my 57th year, cause them to grow like weeds so suddenly, that - for the first time in my life! - they would need to be trimmed?! And it was so obvious that my brows were growing out of control, that the barber didn't EVEN ASK ME IF I WANTED THEM TRIMMED! He just took a comb to them and
I think it was the was most painful cut since my bris (circumcision)!
I admit that I suffer from/enjoy a lot a bit of "Peter Pan syndrome." Not the full-fledged version where an adult male, say, in his 30's never gets a job, can never commit to a serious relationship with a woman and never moves out of his parents home. I more or less have the version where I'm married, have kids and grandkids, have a job, but love to go on a carousel - even if I'm not with my grandkids. My motto is, "I may grow old, but I'll never grow up."
But I never anticipated getting my brows trimmed. I'm gonna have to rethink this growing old thing.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Madoff Scandal: Will it cause a rise in Anti-Semitism?
Well, we're back to that age old question: Good for the Jews or bad for the Jews? Clearly the Madoff Scandal is NOT good for the Jews. So we have to refine our question to make it apply to this particular case: Bad for the Jews or Awful for the Jews? And will it cause a significant rise in anti-semitism?
The chilul Hashem (desecration of God's name - or bad p.r. the story will create) is definitely there and the great loss of funds to both wealthy and poor Jews, Jewish organizations and charitable philanthropies, etc. is/will be devastating (two foundations have already shuttered, Yeshiva University lost $110 MILLION, etc.), but the one "saving grace," if one can say that, is that Madoff (the Jew) stole mostly Jewish money. While I am terribly sympathetic to everyone who lost money in this debacle, Jew or non-Jew, wealthy or poor, individual or organization, etc., I imagine that the non-Jews who are anti-semites are going to be rather more gleeful than angry. (Anti-semitism, of course, will rise anyway.) Jewish greed begat Jewish financial catastrophe.
Lastly, I don't understand Madoff at all. Most of the guys who get caught in this kind of a crooked deal are (1) slick operators with smaller scams in their backgrounds, building up to the "big scam" and/or (2) they start out legit and then find themselves getting caught up in covering losses with some sort of scam scheme. Madoff had a STELLAR BACKGROUND and reputation, was a president of NASDAQ, etc. AND TELLS HIS KIDS IT WAS A PONZI SCHEME from DAY ONE?!?! It makes no sense to me...
The chilul Hashem (desecration of God's name - or bad p.r. the story will create) is definitely there and the great loss of funds to both wealthy and poor Jews, Jewish organizations and charitable philanthropies, etc. is/will be devastating (two foundations have already shuttered, Yeshiva University lost $110 MILLION, etc.), but the one "saving grace," if one can say that, is that Madoff (the Jew) stole mostly Jewish money. While I am terribly sympathetic to everyone who lost money in this debacle, Jew or non-Jew, wealthy or poor, individual or organization, etc., I imagine that the non-Jews who are anti-semites are going to be rather more gleeful than angry. (Anti-semitism, of course, will rise anyway.) Jewish greed begat Jewish financial catastrophe.
Lastly, I don't understand Madoff at all. Most of the guys who get caught in this kind of a crooked deal are (1) slick operators with smaller scams in their backgrounds, building up to the "big scam" and/or (2) they start out legit and then find themselves getting caught up in covering losses with some sort of scam scheme. Madoff had a STELLAR BACKGROUND and reputation, was a president of NASDAQ, etc. AND TELLS HIS KIDS IT WAS A PONZI SCHEME from DAY ONE?!?! It makes no sense to me...
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Answers to Comments...
In this posting, I'd like to address two comments made in response to my blogposts.
A comment on my last post about Obama being a teflon candidate created by the media, a reader wrote:
"Your guy lost. Get over it. The same 'liberal media' pushed the Whitewater story for years when there was nothing there, and never questioned the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. You also make it sound like Obama always attended the church and Wright always made these rants every week for twenty years - not likely. I can't believe that you have never sat through a sermon/drasha where some outrageous statements were made and didn't bother to walk out. I know I have. Bottom line - Obama won because the incumbent party screwed up royally for the past eight years, and his opponent was a crotchety old man who picked a bimbo as his running mate."
Before I nitpick the points I disagree with, let me start off by saying that, overall, I agree with the comment. This part is true: The incumbent President did screw up royally the past eight years, and Obama's Republican opponent was a crotchety old man, who was not up to the challenge Obama presented. Sarah Palin, as air-headed as she seemed, is far from a bimbo, although I admit that the media portrayed her that way. It was a bold, dramatic move to name her as his running mate, and it, clearly, backfired.
Certainly, the better campaigner won, maybe even the better candidate.
And I already wrote that I'm not depressed, upset or moving to Canada just because Obama won. I wish him well and I am optimistic about our - America's - future.
But that doesn't mean I can't analyze and look back on how this election happened to play out the way it did. The liberal media itself made fun of their adoration and idol-worship of Barack Obama. (See the SNL skit in which hard questions were posed to 'Hillary Clinton,' she didn't know the answer, the moderator gave her the answer and then asked the same question of 'Barack Obama.') The idea that he had no legislative initiatives in two (now four) years in the Senate, are not my words. They came from either Chris Mathews or the late Tim Russert (I just don't remember which). So I think its fair game to look back and express my opinions - supported by fact - as to how this man got elected.
Truth be told, I do not recall that the liberal media pushed the Whitewater story for years when there was nothing there. I remember conservative talk radio pushing that story when there was nothing there, and the liberal media reporting on it from time-to-time, as there was some twist in the investigation that they deemed newsworthy. But for argument's sake, let's say the liberal media did harp on that story. That doesn't surprise me. From time to time they do turn on their own. I'm not sure of their motives, although I suspect they may be different in each situation. I believe that sometimes they turn sour on one of their own, sometimes they report negatively about a liberal politician out of true journalistic fairness, and sometimes, they feel coerced or embarrassed by alternate media (e.g., talk radio, internet) into reporting negatively about one of their own.
As far as the liberal media not questioning the President in the run-up to the war on Iraq, there's a lot of lies and history revisionism about that era. The absolute truth is that the Congress and the President had the same (faulty) intelligence reports about Sadam having WMD. The Congress - the Democrats in Congress - believed its sources as did the President. To this day we have no idea why they were wrong. Did someone deliberately plant misinformation in order to make the war happen - and if so, who? Or was it simply faulty intelligence, a well-intentioned honest mistake? No one knows. But Congress confirmed the President's reports from its own sources.
Finally, about Reverend Wright and Obama knowing - or not knowing - what he said, how often the Reverend was controversial and spewed radically anti-American or anti-semitic rhetoric, and about walking or not walking out of his church. Look, you or and I may not walk out of a Rabbi who says something we don't like or agree with. But then again, you and I are not running for the Presidency of the United States. Furthermore, according to reports, even if this rhetoric was not an every week occurrence, it was a recurring theme of the Reverend. If your Rabbi espoused anti-Israel rhetoric numerous times over the course of several years as a recurring theme I guarantee that you would not continue as a member of that synagogue. Some of Wrights repeated and recurring comments were so outrageous - even if, as he claims, they were taken out of context, that Obama should have found another church in which to pray. I do hold him responsible for his silence and for staying.
To be sure, there are more reasons that Obama won than just the liberal media. And that media, for all its power and influence, which I absolutely believe it flexed extremely well in this election cycle, is not always successful. (Say what you will about "W" stealing the election in 2000 from Al Gore, if the liberal media had succeeded then as they did now, Gore would not have needed Florida to win - and lost his home state of Tennessee!) Witness the fact that until this election, 5 of the last 7 elections for President were won by the Republicans. (And certainly, in the Internet/New Media era, the influence of the old liberal media - the 3 big papers, the three big networks and the two big newsweeklies - are certainly on their decline.)
Nevertheless, I believe they made Obama into a celebrity, a star, and a savior/"messiah." There are millions of people - despite what exit polls will tell you - voted for him "just because" and have no idea what he stands for or why (other than "change"). And just because he won and my guy lost doesn't mean I can't criticize how and why he won or criticize his decisions and applaud the choices he's made that I think are good.
(By the way, I used to be a big fan of talk radio, but I don't get to listen that often anymore. I am not looking to parrot them, nor do I have any clue what they are saying at any given moment.)
On my suggested solution to the Michael Vick/Plaxico Burress situation, a reader wrote to me off the blog: "You're a communist!" Of course, I am not. (My political philosophy is actually closer to libertarian.) And nothing in my blog suggested I was - I was not taking any money AWAY from anyone nor was I limiting what they could earn - OR EVEN SPEND! - I was just putting in some watchdogs to protect their money and make sure they don't get into trouble by spending it on things that are ILLEGAL! The funny thing is, most of these contracts have some variety on a "morality clause" which allows the teams to cancel their payments to the players should they wind up in serious trouble with the law. (Both the Falcons and the Giants cancelled their contracts with Vick and Burress and stopped paying them millions of dollars.) It is a bit ironic but the teams are protected from the players bad acts but the players are not protected from themselves. We have laws to protect the interest of minors, of the elderly and of legally determined incompetents; I am just extending this concept to these young men, legally of majority age, who just seem to wind up "blinded by the light." It is for their own good that they and their money be watched. (Remember, I said they could buy anything they wanted so long as it is legal.) But I know it won't happen, even if the league and the unions could make it happen, if they wanted to.
A comment on my last post about Obama being a teflon candidate created by the media, a reader wrote:
"Your guy lost. Get over it. The same 'liberal media' pushed the Whitewater story for years when there was nothing there, and never questioned the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. You also make it sound like Obama always attended the church and Wright always made these rants every week for twenty years - not likely. I can't believe that you have never sat through a sermon/drasha where some outrageous statements were made and didn't bother to walk out. I know I have. Bottom line - Obama won because the incumbent party screwed up royally for the past eight years, and his opponent was a crotchety old man who picked a bimbo as his running mate."
Before I nitpick the points I disagree with, let me start off by saying that, overall, I agree with the comment. This part is true: The incumbent President did screw up royally the past eight years, and Obama's Republican opponent was a crotchety old man, who was not up to the challenge Obama presented. Sarah Palin, as air-headed as she seemed, is far from a bimbo, although I admit that the media portrayed her that way. It was a bold, dramatic move to name her as his running mate, and it, clearly, backfired.
Certainly, the better campaigner won, maybe even the better candidate.
And I already wrote that I'm not depressed, upset or moving to Canada just because Obama won. I wish him well and I am optimistic about our - America's - future.
But that doesn't mean I can't analyze and look back on how this election happened to play out the way it did. The liberal media itself made fun of their adoration and idol-worship of Barack Obama. (See the SNL skit in which hard questions were posed to 'Hillary Clinton,' she didn't know the answer, the moderator gave her the answer and then asked the same question of 'Barack Obama.') The idea that he had no legislative initiatives in two (now four) years in the Senate, are not my words. They came from either Chris Mathews or the late Tim Russert (I just don't remember which). So I think its fair game to look back and express my opinions - supported by fact - as to how this man got elected.
Truth be told, I do not recall that the liberal media pushed the Whitewater story for years when there was nothing there. I remember conservative talk radio pushing that story when there was nothing there, and the liberal media reporting on it from time-to-time, as there was some twist in the investigation that they deemed newsworthy. But for argument's sake, let's say the liberal media did harp on that story. That doesn't surprise me. From time to time they do turn on their own. I'm not sure of their motives, although I suspect they may be different in each situation. I believe that sometimes they turn sour on one of their own, sometimes they report negatively about a liberal politician out of true journalistic fairness, and sometimes, they feel coerced or embarrassed by alternate media (e.g., talk radio, internet) into reporting negatively about one of their own.
As far as the liberal media not questioning the President in the run-up to the war on Iraq, there's a lot of lies and history revisionism about that era. The absolute truth is that the Congress and the President had the same (faulty) intelligence reports about Sadam having WMD. The Congress - the Democrats in Congress - believed its sources as did the President. To this day we have no idea why they were wrong. Did someone deliberately plant misinformation in order to make the war happen - and if so, who? Or was it simply faulty intelligence, a well-intentioned honest mistake? No one knows. But Congress confirmed the President's reports from its own sources.
Finally, about Reverend Wright and Obama knowing - or not knowing - what he said, how often the Reverend was controversial and spewed radically anti-American or anti-semitic rhetoric, and about walking or not walking out of his church. Look, you or and I may not walk out of a Rabbi who says something we don't like or agree with. But then again, you and I are not running for the Presidency of the United States. Furthermore, according to reports, even if this rhetoric was not an every week occurrence, it was a recurring theme of the Reverend. If your Rabbi espoused anti-Israel rhetoric numerous times over the course of several years as a recurring theme I guarantee that you would not continue as a member of that synagogue. Some of Wrights repeated and recurring comments were so outrageous - even if, as he claims, they were taken out of context, that Obama should have found another church in which to pray. I do hold him responsible for his silence and for staying.
To be sure, there are more reasons that Obama won than just the liberal media. And that media, for all its power and influence, which I absolutely believe it flexed extremely well in this election cycle, is not always successful. (Say what you will about "W" stealing the election in 2000 from Al Gore, if the liberal media had succeeded then as they did now, Gore would not have needed Florida to win - and lost his home state of Tennessee!) Witness the fact that until this election, 5 of the last 7 elections for President were won by the Republicans. (And certainly, in the Internet/New Media era, the influence of the old liberal media - the 3 big papers, the three big networks and the two big newsweeklies - are certainly on their decline.)
Nevertheless, I believe they made Obama into a celebrity, a star, and a savior/"messiah." There are millions of people - despite what exit polls will tell you - voted for him "just because" and have no idea what he stands for or why (other than "change"). And just because he won and my guy lost doesn't mean I can't criticize how and why he won or criticize his decisions and applaud the choices he's made that I think are good.
(By the way, I used to be a big fan of talk radio, but I don't get to listen that often anymore. I am not looking to parrot them, nor do I have any clue what they are saying at any given moment.)
On my suggested solution to the Michael Vick/Plaxico Burress situation, a reader wrote to me off the blog: "You're a communist!" Of course, I am not. (My political philosophy is actually closer to libertarian.) And nothing in my blog suggested I was - I was not taking any money AWAY from anyone nor was I limiting what they could earn - OR EVEN SPEND! - I was just putting in some watchdogs to protect their money and make sure they don't get into trouble by spending it on things that are ILLEGAL! The funny thing is, most of these contracts have some variety on a "morality clause" which allows the teams to cancel their payments to the players should they wind up in serious trouble with the law. (Both the Falcons and the Giants cancelled their contracts with Vick and Burress and stopped paying them millions of dollars.) It is a bit ironic but the teams are protected from the players bad acts but the players are not protected from themselves. We have laws to protect the interest of minors, of the elderly and of legally determined incompetents; I am just extending this concept to these young men, legally of majority age, who just seem to wind up "blinded by the light." It is for their own good that they and their money be watched. (Remember, I said they could buy anything they wanted so long as it is legal.) But I know it won't happen, even if the league and the unions could make it happen, if they wanted to.
On Plaxico Buress, Michael Vick and Jayson Williams, et al: How to Cure a Headline-Grabbing "National" Illness
When those "lucky" enough to survive the Holocaust were liberated, most of their bodies were emaciated, looking like skeltons hung in some Biology lab. Many had not had more than a bite of dried old bread and a sip of water each day, for months or even years.
Upon liberation the well-intentioned allied armies - looking at these horrible ghosts - opened their hearts and offered whatever food they had to those poor souls. Some, too weak to feed themselves, were fed slowly and regained their health. Others who were not to weak to feed themselves, indulged themselves slowly and revived.
But there were others who could not resist the temptation to gorge themselves, to eat a lot and try to make up a bit for the years of deprivation. Many of those, sadly, ate themselves sick and died. The irony: Hitler's torture and food deprivation didn't kill them; the allies kindness and generosity did.
What does this have to do with the sad state today of the numerous sports stars finding themselves in trouble with the law, with drugs, with guns, with animal cruelty? Everything.
Most of these stars, not just African-Americans, but White-Caucasian and Hispanic, come from destitute families, difficult, if not broken, homes, run-down neighborhoods, and all of a sudden they find themselves with millions of dollars, adored by millions of fans and told by their agents that they are supermen, worth even more and More and MORE. They'd been groomed and raised on the dream that their ticket out of poverty was professional sports. (Forget that only a handful of those who have the dream actually make it and there are millions who dream the dream but never realize it. Their plight is a whole 'nother story.) Like the Holocaust survivors, they suddenly exit from a life of deprivation through a door leading them to a feast, a table where everything they could ever desire - big homes, expensive cars, fast women, bling, guns, drugs, etc. - is available to them. Although they know that this income will not be coming in forever, on the day they receive their first big check of 10 or 20 million dollars they know that no matter what they buy, THEY CANNOT SPEND IT ALL! There is always more money and more money and more money than they can possibly spend.
And this gets them into all sorts of trouble.
In 1935 a child actor star, Jackie Coogan, came of age. He turned 21. He had earned in his career until then, which started at the age of 3, a remarkable, if not astounding, sum of $4 million. When he turned 21 he had found out, however, that his mother and stepfather had spent most of his money on heroin and cocaine. What was left was a paltry $252,000 of which the court awarded him, after a lengthy legal battle, half or $126,000.
But his legacy was the "Coogan Bill," an act of the California legislature, designed to protect the interests of child actors.
This country needs a "Plaxico Burress-Michael Vick-Jayson Williams, et al, Bill."
Here's what it should contain:
1. Any NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB player earning more than $3 million a year must hire a personal valet to be his companion and watchdog at all time. He must be with him 24 hours a day. Hire unemployed social workers and give them a respectable salary - say, $100,000/year plus expenses - train him to be able to detect deception, drug use, etc. There will be guidelines, of course, as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. And a way of reporting problems to a higher level central commision sitting in the commissioner's office of each sport to intervene when the valet cannot control the situation.
2. All their money must be managed by a FIRM of money managers that guarantees the safety of the money left with them, and doles it out, like an allowance, for specific needs and purchases, and will make the purchases themselves, paying the vendors directly. Monies will be invested for retirement after sports so that they will have what to live on, rather than burn it all off in the few years they are making it. The sports star will still be able to buy a house for himself, and another for his momma, and cars, etc., but will not have so much walking around money that he can easily score as much cocaine as he wants, or to buy guns, or fighting dogs.
(The reason for a firm, rather than an individual money manager is that too many of these celebrities - sports, Hollywood, recording stars - hire individuals whom they trust only to find that they were wiped out by their money managers. These money managers, with degrees and certifications, often find that although they are making, say, $250,000/year on salary and commissions, their greed and the temptation of "borrowing" $10 or $20 million is too great. Even a smart guy, like Barry Manilow, who was the single most popular singer of the 1970's and 1980's, woke up one day in the 1990's to find himself completely broke.)
Clearly, this is what is needed, and makes sense, in order to save these ballplayers from themselves. Had such an act been in place, adopted by the major sports and their unions, (along with drug testing,) at least two of the three (if not all three of the) stars in the name of the bill would not be in jail or facing jail time, nor would they find themselves heading back to the poverty they came from. (Vick is already destitute and Burress is heading there.)
Of course, such an act will never be put in place. The leagues themselves don't have the guts, and even if they did, the unions would block it. And then there's the ACLU and civil rights. You can't force an adult the way you can a child. And these stars, despite their horribly childish and immature behavior, are over 21.
And I think there are many adults - in the leagues' head offices, among the journalists and certainly among the fans - who have a perverse sort of glee when these stories come out. As much as the average fan doesn't want to see the Giants lose their shot at the Super Bowl because of Burress' shooting himself in the thigh, there is a sense of envy by the pure slob who is barely eeking out a living and paying his mortgage, of these stars who are getting paid obscene sums of money to PLAY A GAME!, for God's sake! A GAME I PLAY ON SUNDAY FOR FREE! I think many fans, simply because of their envy, actually relish these stories of guys who had it all and blew it all.
But until the league, unions, players, fans, journalists, etc. change their attitudes, we'll be seeing more headlines of the Burress, Vick and Williams-type, I'm afraid. And, in the end, that is just terribly sad.
Upon liberation the well-intentioned allied armies - looking at these horrible ghosts - opened their hearts and offered whatever food they had to those poor souls. Some, too weak to feed themselves, were fed slowly and regained their health. Others who were not to weak to feed themselves, indulged themselves slowly and revived.
But there were others who could not resist the temptation to gorge themselves, to eat a lot and try to make up a bit for the years of deprivation. Many of those, sadly, ate themselves sick and died. The irony: Hitler's torture and food deprivation didn't kill them; the allies kindness and generosity did.
What does this have to do with the sad state today of the numerous sports stars finding themselves in trouble with the law, with drugs, with guns, with animal cruelty? Everything.
Most of these stars, not just African-Americans, but White-Caucasian and Hispanic, come from destitute families, difficult, if not broken, homes, run-down neighborhoods, and all of a sudden they find themselves with millions of dollars, adored by millions of fans and told by their agents that they are supermen, worth even more and More and MORE. They'd been groomed and raised on the dream that their ticket out of poverty was professional sports. (Forget that only a handful of those who have the dream actually make it and there are millions who dream the dream but never realize it. Their plight is a whole 'nother story.) Like the Holocaust survivors, they suddenly exit from a life of deprivation through a door leading them to a feast, a table where everything they could ever desire - big homes, expensive cars, fast women, bling, guns, drugs, etc. - is available to them. Although they know that this income will not be coming in forever, on the day they receive their first big check of 10 or 20 million dollars they know that no matter what they buy, THEY CANNOT SPEND IT ALL! There is always more money and more money and more money than they can possibly spend.
And this gets them into all sorts of trouble.
In 1935 a child actor star, Jackie Coogan, came of age. He turned 21. He had earned in his career until then, which started at the age of 3, a remarkable, if not astounding, sum of $4 million. When he turned 21 he had found out, however, that his mother and stepfather had spent most of his money on heroin and cocaine. What was left was a paltry $252,000 of which the court awarded him, after a lengthy legal battle, half or $126,000.
But his legacy was the "Coogan Bill," an act of the California legislature, designed to protect the interests of child actors.
This country needs a "Plaxico Burress-Michael Vick-Jayson Williams, et al, Bill."
Here's what it should contain:
1. Any NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB player earning more than $3 million a year must hire a personal valet to be his companion and watchdog at all time. He must be with him 24 hours a day. Hire unemployed social workers and give them a respectable salary - say, $100,000/year plus expenses - train him to be able to detect deception, drug use, etc. There will be guidelines, of course, as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. And a way of reporting problems to a higher level central commision sitting in the commissioner's office of each sport to intervene when the valet cannot control the situation.
2. All their money must be managed by a FIRM of money managers that guarantees the safety of the money left with them, and doles it out, like an allowance, for specific needs and purchases, and will make the purchases themselves, paying the vendors directly. Monies will be invested for retirement after sports so that they will have what to live on, rather than burn it all off in the few years they are making it. The sports star will still be able to buy a house for himself, and another for his momma, and cars, etc., but will not have so much walking around money that he can easily score as much cocaine as he wants, or to buy guns, or fighting dogs.
(The reason for a firm, rather than an individual money manager is that too many of these celebrities - sports, Hollywood, recording stars - hire individuals whom they trust only to find that they were wiped out by their money managers. These money managers, with degrees and certifications, often find that although they are making, say, $250,000/year on salary and commissions, their greed and the temptation of "borrowing" $10 or $20 million is too great. Even a smart guy, like Barry Manilow, who was the single most popular singer of the 1970's and 1980's, woke up one day in the 1990's to find himself completely broke.)
Clearly, this is what is needed, and makes sense, in order to save these ballplayers from themselves. Had such an act been in place, adopted by the major sports and their unions, (along with drug testing,) at least two of the three (if not all three of the) stars in the name of the bill would not be in jail or facing jail time, nor would they find themselves heading back to the poverty they came from. (Vick is already destitute and Burress is heading there.)
Of course, such an act will never be put in place. The leagues themselves don't have the guts, and even if they did, the unions would block it. And then there's the ACLU and civil rights. You can't force an adult the way you can a child. And these stars, despite their horribly childish and immature behavior, are over 21.
And I think there are many adults - in the leagues' head offices, among the journalists and certainly among the fans - who have a perverse sort of glee when these stories come out. As much as the average fan doesn't want to see the Giants lose their shot at the Super Bowl because of Burress' shooting himself in the thigh, there is a sense of envy by the pure slob who is barely eeking out a living and paying his mortgage, of these stars who are getting paid obscene sums of money to PLAY A GAME!, for God's sake! A GAME I PLAY ON SUNDAY FOR FREE! I think many fans, simply because of their envy, actually relish these stories of guys who had it all and blew it all.
But until the league, unions, players, fans, journalists, etc. change their attitudes, we'll be seeing more headlines of the Burress, Vick and Williams-type, I'm afraid. And, in the end, that is just terribly sad.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Barack Obama and the Press: The Media Creates A Teflon Candidate and Elects Him
Patricia Schroeder, then a Democratic Congresswoman from Colorado, said in 1983 of then-President Reagan, “After carefully watching Ronald Reagan, I can see he's attempting a great breakthrough in political technology. He has been perfecting the Teflon-coated presidency. He sees to it that nothing sticks to him. He is responsible for nothing.”
From that remark, Ronald Reagan became known as "the Teflon President." And although there were a few downturns in his popularity, the truth is that very little bad news stuck to him and he ended his presidency with the highest approval ratings of any president since FDR.
I truly believe that there is a very large left-wing (read: super liberal) media in America that has a lot of power - far more than they deserve - and has flexed it more successfully in this past election cycle than ever before in history. This media is primarily represented by the big national newspapers - the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the like - almost all of broadcast TV and the cable news channels (except Fox), the two big newsweekly magazines - Newsweek and Time - and some well-known websites. To be honest, the right has its representatives in each of these media categories - the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, US News and World Report - but these media categories are still dominated by the 'Goliaths' of the left and the opposition is represented by much more dimunative 'Davids' on the right. To be sure, this metaphor falls apart at this point because these 'Davids' have not been able to slay the 'Goliaths.'
There is a somewhat more even playing field in the Internet, and one place that the right actually dominates: talk radio.
In this election cycle, there was no one factor that contributed to the ultimate success of Barack Obama more than the left-wing media. They created him, they supported him, they promoted him, they made you feel guilty if you didn't want to vote for him, they annointed him 'the one' (thanks to Oprah Winfrey), they named him 'the savior,' and, most importantly, they forgave him for ALL his sins, big and small. Whereas Reagan earned the Teflon himself by his charm and skills as 'The Great Communicator,' the media created and handed Obama the Teflon coating.
It didn't matter that he had no national experience and no executive experience and, in fact, had been in the Senate LESS THAN TWO YEARS before he announced he was running for President and LESS THAN FOUR YEARS before he was actually elected. It didn't matter that he had NO LEGISLATIVE INIATIVES in his almost four years in the Senate to speak of. It didn't matter that initially he hardly had any plans to fix anything "wrong" with America other than withdraw from Iraq and the buzzword of "CHANGE."
With all that, the Press made you believe he was not just the best man for the job but that he was brilliantly qualified, had vast experience, had great ideas, etc.
But, most of all, when there was something he really should have been held accountable for, he wasn't. And chief among those 'sins,' was the Reverend Wright debacle. How Obama could sit in that church for 20 years, hear the most reprehensible talk about Jews, Israel, and America - especially, "Some say 'God Bless America'..., [but] I say 'God Damn America!' ," and not leave in protest, is beyond me.
For sure, John McCain was meek in making this an issue, in going after Obama for the statements of Reverend Wright. (After a parallel incident a number of years ago, when Farakhan stooge Khalid Mohammed made similar anti-semitic and anti-American comments at Keane College in New Jersey, a great American said that he holds "all of black leadership in America responsible." When questioned how they could be responsible for what someone else said, he answered, "I don't hold them responsible for what he said. I hold them responsible for their silence!" *)
But the press was an accomplice in allowing Obama off the hook. Why didn't he repudiate those statements when they were made? How does that show wisdom, patriotism, principle, bravery, and leadership? Why did he break with Wright only MONTHS after there was pressure put on him to do so? These are all valid questions that never got answered fully by Obama - because he has no answer for them! But they were never really asked by a liberal press that wanted to see Obama win and were not going to ask him any tough questions.
The left-wing media created, supported and protected Obama and got him elected. They gave him his Teflon armor.
The question now is: How long will they let him wear it before they take it back?
(* That great American quoted above in the Khalid Mohammed incident was none other than Howard Stern.)
From that remark, Ronald Reagan became known as "the Teflon President." And although there were a few downturns in his popularity, the truth is that very little bad news stuck to him and he ended his presidency with the highest approval ratings of any president since FDR.
I truly believe that there is a very large left-wing (read: super liberal) media in America that has a lot of power - far more than they deserve - and has flexed it more successfully in this past election cycle than ever before in history. This media is primarily represented by the big national newspapers - the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and the like - almost all of broadcast TV and the cable news channels (except Fox), the two big newsweekly magazines - Newsweek and Time - and some well-known websites. To be honest, the right has its representatives in each of these media categories - the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, US News and World Report - but these media categories are still dominated by the 'Goliaths' of the left and the opposition is represented by much more dimunative 'Davids' on the right. To be sure, this metaphor falls apart at this point because these 'Davids' have not been able to slay the 'Goliaths.'
There is a somewhat more even playing field in the Internet, and one place that the right actually dominates: talk radio.
In this election cycle, there was no one factor that contributed to the ultimate success of Barack Obama more than the left-wing media. They created him, they supported him, they promoted him, they made you feel guilty if you didn't want to vote for him, they annointed him 'the one' (thanks to Oprah Winfrey), they named him 'the savior,' and, most importantly, they forgave him for ALL his sins, big and small. Whereas Reagan earned the Teflon himself by his charm and skills as 'The Great Communicator,' the media created and handed Obama the Teflon coating.
It didn't matter that he had no national experience and no executive experience and, in fact, had been in the Senate LESS THAN TWO YEARS before he announced he was running for President and LESS THAN FOUR YEARS before he was actually elected. It didn't matter that he had NO LEGISLATIVE INIATIVES in his almost four years in the Senate to speak of. It didn't matter that initially he hardly had any plans to fix anything "wrong" with America other than withdraw from Iraq and the buzzword of "CHANGE."
With all that, the Press made you believe he was not just the best man for the job but that he was brilliantly qualified, had vast experience, had great ideas, etc.
But, most of all, when there was something he really should have been held accountable for, he wasn't. And chief among those 'sins,' was the Reverend Wright debacle. How Obama could sit in that church for 20 years, hear the most reprehensible talk about Jews, Israel, and America - especially, "Some say 'God Bless America'..., [but] I say 'God Damn America!' ," and not leave in protest, is beyond me.
For sure, John McCain was meek in making this an issue, in going after Obama for the statements of Reverend Wright. (After a parallel incident a number of years ago, when Farakhan stooge Khalid Mohammed made similar anti-semitic and anti-American comments at Keane College in New Jersey, a great American said that he holds "all of black leadership in America responsible." When questioned how they could be responsible for what someone else said, he answered, "I don't hold them responsible for what he said. I hold them responsible for their silence!" *)
But the press was an accomplice in allowing Obama off the hook. Why didn't he repudiate those statements when they were made? How does that show wisdom, patriotism, principle, bravery, and leadership? Why did he break with Wright only MONTHS after there was pressure put on him to do so? These are all valid questions that never got answered fully by Obama - because he has no answer for them! But they were never really asked by a liberal press that wanted to see Obama win and were not going to ask him any tough questions.
The left-wing media created, supported and protected Obama and got him elected. They gave him his Teflon armor.
The question now is: How long will they let him wear it before they take it back?
(* That great American quoted above in the Khalid Mohammed incident was none other than Howard Stern.)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Michael Mukasey and Me
November 21, 2008, Washington, D.C. -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey is in good condition after collapsing Thursday night while giving a speech in Washington.
Doctors kept him overnight for further observation, and he was released early Friday.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department say that doctor's report Mukasey's vitals are strong, and it appears the 67 year old had a fainting spell brought on by working long hours...
99.9% of all Americans and probably 90% of all Orthodox Jews do not know that Michael Mukasey is the first Orthodox Jew ever to serve in the Cabinet of the President of the United States. Yes, he is Sabbath Observant and eats only kosher food.
And I myself probably wouldn't know this about him, were it not for the fact that he once saved my sorry ass from going to jail.
About 5 years ago, in the fall of either 2003 or 2004, I was second seat at a civil trial in the federal court of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. The case was before Justice Constance Baker Motley, a (once) legendary figure in jurisprudence.
Constance Baker Motley was a law clerk for the chief counsel for the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall, when they brought Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950's. She had a distinguished career of her own as a civil rights attorney. She argued 10 cases on her own before the Supreme Court of the United States, but she wasn't all that good at it - she only won NINE!
She was the first Black woman appointed to the Federal bench, which is an appointment for life. And therein lay our problem.
She was 83 years old when we appeared before her. In pre-trial conferences we had told her that we - both attorneys for the plaintiff - were Orthodox Jews and that we would not be able to attend afternoon sessions on Fridays in November. She said that she understood and that the trial would be held 4 1/2 days each week. We were thrilled.
However, she had already started to lose a little bit off her fastball due to age. The rule in the federal courts is that you need to retire yourself from the bench; except for gross misconduct, you cannot be fired or retired against your will. Judge Motley refused to retire. She got a lighter load and achieved "senior judge" status (reduced trial hours). Eventually, it became a bit difficult for her to remember everything that had been said or agreed to in a trial. She made no major errors that could lead to something that objectively could be called "a miscarriage of justice." But as she was losing it more and more - and we were witness to a number of such incidents during our trial - things were getting weirder and weirder - and the Chief Administrative judge was assigning her "lighter and lighter" cases.
On the day that trial started, she empaneled a jury and announced to the jury that the trial would be in session five full days, including Fridays till 5 p.m. This was going to be impossible for us - the two lawyers for plaintiff - as we lived over an hour away and the Sabbath started at about 4:20 those weeks. We asked for a sidebar where we reminded her of the pre-trial deal. She said she didn't remember it and would not agree to it! She said that the trial would be in session on Friday afternoon and if we were not there for any reason, she'd find us in contempt and throw us in jail (at the end of the trial).
This was NOT good news and we clearly needed some outside help getting her to "see the light." The irony was not lost on us that here was one of the best known CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEYS in the nation discriminating against two Orthodox Jews! It was wild.
Chaim Book, the lead attorney on this trial, sent me out to the telephones on a break to call Avi Moskowitz, senior partner in the firm, to get him to figure out what to do. Avi immediately said he would call Chief Administrative Judge, Michael Mukasey - who Avi knew - to get him to intervene on our behalf with the Judge. I, naively but innocently, asked Avi why he thought Mukasey might be more sympathetic to our plight that was Judge Motley. He said, "because Mukasey himself won't be in the building when she throws you in jail. He's shomer shabbos (sabbath observant), too!"
Avi called Mukasey who called Motley, but Motley refused to budge. She said it wasn't Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur, and therefore she did not understand the problem. (I find it hard to believe that she NEVER KNEW about the Sabbath coming weekly; I believe she just simply 'forgot.') When Friday rolled around and she announced the lunch break, we packed up all our trial papers and gave our client (who wasn't Jewish) a script to read. Basically, before the jury was brought in for the afternoon session, he asked to address the Court (the Judge) and told her that he had no representation by counsel and could not proceed with the trial. She agreed, called in the jury, announced an early weekend break without additional comment and sent everyone home.
When we arrived on Monday morning, she admonished us and told us that what we did on Friday was unforgivable, that we were in contempt of court, that she would deal with us after the trial was over and that she would not let this incident prejudice her against us or our client.
We again beseeched Judge Mukasey to intervene on our behalf and reportedly he did. We heard nothing back from him, however, and when the trial ended, Judge Motley said nothing about us being in contempt. We don't know to this day if Mukasey prevailed in his argument with her or if she simply dropped the matter on her own - or forgot about it.
About a year later, Judge Motley passed away while sitting on a trial. (Not literally in the courthouse, but while she was in the middle of presiding over a trial.) She died, so to speak, with her boots on. I commented to friends and colleagues that after she died she was still presiding over trials, but was just taking a lighter load.
To whatever extent Michael Mukasey helped keep us out of jail, I am grateful for his efforts, was very proud of his appointment as AG, and am glad to hear that he seems to have fully recovered from whatever caused him to faint.
Doctors kept him overnight for further observation, and he was released early Friday.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department say that doctor's report Mukasey's vitals are strong, and it appears the 67 year old had a fainting spell brought on by working long hours...
99.9% of all Americans and probably 90% of all Orthodox Jews do not know that Michael Mukasey is the first Orthodox Jew ever to serve in the Cabinet of the President of the United States. Yes, he is Sabbath Observant and eats only kosher food.
And I myself probably wouldn't know this about him, were it not for the fact that he once saved my sorry ass from going to jail.
About 5 years ago, in the fall of either 2003 or 2004, I was second seat at a civil trial in the federal court of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. The case was before Justice Constance Baker Motley, a (once) legendary figure in jurisprudence.
Constance Baker Motley was a law clerk for the chief counsel for the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall, when they brought Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950's. She had a distinguished career of her own as a civil rights attorney. She argued 10 cases on her own before the Supreme Court of the United States, but she wasn't all that good at it - she only won NINE!
She was the first Black woman appointed to the Federal bench, which is an appointment for life. And therein lay our problem.
She was 83 years old when we appeared before her. In pre-trial conferences we had told her that we - both attorneys for the plaintiff - were Orthodox Jews and that we would not be able to attend afternoon sessions on Fridays in November. She said that she understood and that the trial would be held 4 1/2 days each week. We were thrilled.
However, she had already started to lose a little bit off her fastball due to age. The rule in the federal courts is that you need to retire yourself from the bench; except for gross misconduct, you cannot be fired or retired against your will. Judge Motley refused to retire. She got a lighter load and achieved "senior judge" status (reduced trial hours). Eventually, it became a bit difficult for her to remember everything that had been said or agreed to in a trial. She made no major errors that could lead to something that objectively could be called "a miscarriage of justice." But as she was losing it more and more - and we were witness to a number of such incidents during our trial - things were getting weirder and weirder - and the Chief Administrative judge was assigning her "lighter and lighter" cases.
On the day that trial started, she empaneled a jury and announced to the jury that the trial would be in session five full days, including Fridays till 5 p.m. This was going to be impossible for us - the two lawyers for plaintiff - as we lived over an hour away and the Sabbath started at about 4:20 those weeks. We asked for a sidebar where we reminded her of the pre-trial deal. She said she didn't remember it and would not agree to it! She said that the trial would be in session on Friday afternoon and if we were not there for any reason, she'd find us in contempt and throw us in jail (at the end of the trial).
This was NOT good news and we clearly needed some outside help getting her to "see the light." The irony was not lost on us that here was one of the best known CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEYS in the nation discriminating against two Orthodox Jews! It was wild.
Chaim Book, the lead attorney on this trial, sent me out to the telephones on a break to call Avi Moskowitz, senior partner in the firm, to get him to figure out what to do. Avi immediately said he would call Chief Administrative Judge, Michael Mukasey - who Avi knew - to get him to intervene on our behalf with the Judge. I, naively but innocently, asked Avi why he thought Mukasey might be more sympathetic to our plight that was Judge Motley. He said, "because Mukasey himself won't be in the building when she throws you in jail. He's shomer shabbos (sabbath observant), too!"
Avi called Mukasey who called Motley, but Motley refused to budge. She said it wasn't Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur, and therefore she did not understand the problem. (I find it hard to believe that she NEVER KNEW about the Sabbath coming weekly; I believe she just simply 'forgot.') When Friday rolled around and she announced the lunch break, we packed up all our trial papers and gave our client (who wasn't Jewish) a script to read. Basically, before the jury was brought in for the afternoon session, he asked to address the Court (the Judge) and told her that he had no representation by counsel and could not proceed with the trial. She agreed, called in the jury, announced an early weekend break without additional comment and sent everyone home.
When we arrived on Monday morning, she admonished us and told us that what we did on Friday was unforgivable, that we were in contempt of court, that she would deal with us after the trial was over and that she would not let this incident prejudice her against us or our client.
We again beseeched Judge Mukasey to intervene on our behalf and reportedly he did. We heard nothing back from him, however, and when the trial ended, Judge Motley said nothing about us being in contempt. We don't know to this day if Mukasey prevailed in his argument with her or if she simply dropped the matter on her own - or forgot about it.
About a year later, Judge Motley passed away while sitting on a trial. (Not literally in the courthouse, but while she was in the middle of presiding over a trial.) She died, so to speak, with her boots on. I commented to friends and colleagues that after she died she was still presiding over trials, but was just taking a lighter load.
To whatever extent Michael Mukasey helped keep us out of jail, I am grateful for his efforts, was very proud of his appointment as AG, and am glad to hear that he seems to have fully recovered from whatever caused him to faint.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Guest Columnist: Dave Barry - "A Journey into My Colon"
This blog will not be just about politics. It will be about other things as well. I'm just on an Obama obsession right now, and I need to get all my thoughts out about him.
But for a change of pace, here is one of the funniest pieces I ever read from one of the funniest columnists in America EVER, Dave Barry. This is an excerpt actually of a longer piece in which he wrote about his younger brother being diagnosed with colon cancer and that news terminating his own procrastination of getting a colonoscopy. Of course, he begins and ends his article with a plea for EVERYONE to get one. This is the middle part of the article.
Here's DAVE:
*****************************************
I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy. A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through Minneapolis . Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner. I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn't really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, quote, "HE'S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!"
I left Andy's office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called "MoviPrep," which comes in a box large enough to hold a microwave oven. I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America 's enemies.
I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous. Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation. In accordance with my instructions, I didn't eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basically water, only with less flavor. Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep. You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 gallons.) Then you have to drink the whole jug. This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes - and here I am being kind - like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.
The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, "a loose, watery bowel movement may result." This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.
MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don't want to be too graphic, here, but: Have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch? This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt. You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurting violently. You eliminate everything. And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet.
After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep. The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic. I was very nervous. Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurtage. I was thinking, "What if I spurt on Andy?" How do you apologize to a friend for something like that? Flowers would not be enough.
At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garments designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more naked than when you are actually naked.
Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand. Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down. Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep. At first I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of this is, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bathroom, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode. You would have no choice but to burn your house.
When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist. I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere. I was seriously nervous at this point. Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand. There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was "Dancing Queen" by ABBA. I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, "Dancing Queen" had to be the least appropriate.
"You want me to turn it up?" said Andy, from somewhere behind me. "Ha ha," I said. And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade. If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.
I have no idea. Really. I slept through it. One moment, ABBA was yelling "Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine," and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood. Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt. I felt excellent. I felt even more excellent when Andy told me that It was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors. I have never been prouder of an internal organ.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humor columnist for the Miami Herald.
******************************************
On the subject of Colonoscopies...
Colonoscopies are no joke, but these comments during the exam were quite humorous..... A physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:
1. "Take it easy, Doc. You're boldly going where no man has gone before!"
2. "Find Amelia Earhart yet?"
3. "Can you hear me NOW?"
4. "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
5. "You know, in Arkansas , we're now legally married."
6. "Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?"
7. "You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out..."
8. "Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!"
9. "If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!"
10. "Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity."
11. "You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?"
12. "God, now I know why I am not gay."
And the best one of all...
13. "Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?"
But for a change of pace, here is one of the funniest pieces I ever read from one of the funniest columnists in America EVER, Dave Barry. This is an excerpt actually of a longer piece in which he wrote about his younger brother being diagnosed with colon cancer and that news terminating his own procrastination of getting a colonoscopy. Of course, he begins and ends his article with a plea for EVERYONE to get one. This is the middle part of the article.
Here's DAVE:
*****************************************
I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy. A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through Minneapolis . Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner. I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn't really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, quote, "HE'S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!"
I left Andy's office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called "MoviPrep," which comes in a box large enough to hold a microwave oven. I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America 's enemies.
I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous. Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation. In accordance with my instructions, I didn't eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basically water, only with less flavor. Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep. You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 gallons.) Then you have to drink the whole jug. This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes - and here I am being kind - like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.
The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, "a loose, watery bowel movement may result." This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.
MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don't want to be too graphic, here, but: Have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch? This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt. You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurting violently. You eliminate everything. And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet.
After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep. The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic. I was very nervous. Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurtage. I was thinking, "What if I spurt on Andy?" How do you apologize to a friend for something like that? Flowers would not be enough.
At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garments designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more naked than when you are actually naked.
Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand. Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down. Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep. At first I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of this is, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bathroom, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode. You would have no choice but to burn your house.
When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist. I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere. I was seriously nervous at this point. Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand. There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was "Dancing Queen" by ABBA. I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, "Dancing Queen" had to be the least appropriate.
"You want me to turn it up?" said Andy, from somewhere behind me. "Ha ha," I said. And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade. If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.
I have no idea. Really. I slept through it. One moment, ABBA was yelling "Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine," and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood. Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt. I felt excellent. I felt even more excellent when Andy told me that It was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors. I have never been prouder of an internal organ.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humor columnist for the Miami Herald.
******************************************
On the subject of Colonoscopies...
Colonoscopies are no joke, but these comments during the exam were quite humorous..... A physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:
1. "Take it easy, Doc. You're boldly going where no man has gone before!"
2. "Find Amelia Earhart yet?"
3. "Can you hear me NOW?"
4. "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
5. "You know, in Arkansas , we're now legally married."
6. "Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?"
7. "You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out..."
8. "Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!"
9. "If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!"
10. "Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity."
11. "You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?"
12. "God, now I know why I am not gay."
And the best one of all...
13. "Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?"
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Greatest Lesson I Ever Learned
[Blogger’s Note: I guess I’ve been a pretty bad blogger. I’m new at this but I’ve received a lot of complaints – justified – that I started my blog with a lot of hoopla and fanfare and then – after about 4 postings – didn’t post again for over a week. I assume successful bloggers blog with some regularity – every day or every week – and I certainly hope to post in the future 2-4 pieces a week. I have to learn to write shorter pieces more often so it doesn’t take so much time.
That said, this is a real cool essay, IMHO.]
There are two lessons I learned at different ages that I consider the greatest lessons of my life. The second one I learned in my early thirties and that is that some problems have no solution. Not that they don’t have a good solution, or an easy solution, but that they don’t have ANY solution whatsoever. An unsolvable problem. And I’m not talking about someone with an incurable disease. That I had already known about. I just thought that every problem had some solution, but that is not always true. And I considered it a sign of maturity to learn and accept that some problems have no solution. They just are problems and will always remain problems. (If a problem you think is unsolvable gets solved, it means it wasn’t really an unsolvable problem, but other unsolvable problems will continue to exist and continue to prove that there are problems with no solution.)
The single greatest lesson of life that I learned was one I learned in 1981 at a training class in computer support given at IBM. The instructor was Dave Mollen, a fascinating gentleman and a brilliant trainer. I am forever indebted to him for this lesson. Here it is:
There is a formula for Satisfaction:
Satisfaction = Realization / Expectation
Let me explain by example. Say your 14-year-old kid asks for cash for his birthday present, and is expecting $50. If you give him $50, his realization is $50, his expectation was $50, $50/$50= 1; he is satisfied because you (the gift) met his expectation. If you give him $100 he is DOUBLY satisfied (100/50=2) and if you give him $25 he is only HALF satisfied (25/50= ½) which is the same as disappointed.
The formula is rather cool in and of itself. But it is NOT the lesson. Here it comes.
Say that you’re the father and you KNOW your kid is expecting $50 and you KNOW you want to give him $25. That means you know you will disappoint him – UNLESS YOU GIVE MORE THAT YOU WANT TO by upping your gift to $50.
But you’d be WRONG. What people forget that is that you can satisfy your kid without upping the gift, by instead LOWERING HIS EXPECTATION. What people forget, says Dave Mollen, is that you not only control the Realization but that you CAN ALSO CONTROL THE EXPECTATION. Tell your kid a few days before his birthday how tough things are in business these days. How your stock portfolio went plummeting in values. Talk about your massive bills that need to be paid. Remind your son that six months earlier you chipped in half for his new Ipod even though there was no occasion. In his mind, as he hears these things, the Expectation meter starts clicking – backwards: $50… $45… $40… If you’re lucky it may not even stop at $25; it may even go down to $20! In which case when you give him $25 on his birthday, you look like a freakin’ hero!
This is not a great secret. Good negotiators and mediators know this and use this ploy all the time. Union leaders always promise the world to their members BEFORE they enter into contract talks. Then, as they go into the room, they lower expectations by saying how tough it is going to be to win any concessions from management.
Buy a product advertised on TV – or on QVC. It’s no doubt, “THE GREATEST – EVER!” They have raised your expectations TO GET YOU TO BUY IT. But once you’ve bought it, open the box and read the User Manual: It won’t do this, it won’t do that, it can’t be expected to work under these conditions, etc. They are controlling your expectations.
The problem – or challenge – is that even people who practice this art professionally forget that it applies to almost EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE. People who are in advertising, forget to apply it to the relationships with their spouse, with their parents, with their children, with their colleagues, with their softball league teammates, etc.
And it applies to politics, as well. And President-elect Obama is a MASTER of this lesson.
More on how it applies to Barack Obama in a future posting.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
2nd Appointment: David Axelrod!
David Axelrod has agreed to accept the position of Senior Advisor to the President, according to reports.
He is Jewish, raised in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
That's two-for-two.
I got two calls today, saying the same thing: It doesn't look so much like Obama is trying to put together a staff, as it seems he's trying to put together a MINYAN!*
(* A quorum of ten Jews needed to hold a prayer service.)
He is Jewish, raised in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
That's two-for-two.
I got two calls today, saying the same thing: It doesn't look so much like Obama is trying to put together a staff, as it seems he's trying to put together a MINYAN!*
(* A quorum of ten Jews needed to hold a prayer service.)
Obama’s Choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff: Good for the Jews?
Yesterday, Liverpool was playing Madrid in soccer (European football). My officemate, who follows this because he's a Brit, was upset because Liverpool was behind in the game. (He was surreptitiously following it on the Internet at work.) I had only one question: Was this good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?
While it's an old joke, the truth is that Jews living in the diaspora, in lands where we are a minority among the non-Jews, tend – or tended – to see everything through the prism of that question, especially the latest in news and politics: Will this help or hurt our standing in this country? Will this be a cause for more acceptance or more anti-semitism?
I’d like to think that our generation has matured in its priorities - certainly many of us do not vote for a president only because of his position (real or imagined) on Israel. But although we are also concerned about the economy, global warming, etc. - we still tend to come back in the end to that ultimate question: Good for the Jews or bad?
I did not vote for Barack Obama. But I chose to do so not because of all the e-mails I received claiming, falsely, that he is a Muslim, anti-American, unpatriotic, a non-citizen of the United States, that his Harvard education was paid for by Arabs who support terrorism, etc. I did not vote for him because I do not believe that his policies and politics are good for America – and me.
To be honest, I also was nervous about his stance on the Middle East. While I believe he will continue the 60 year tradition of support of Israel, there is SUPPORT and there is support. I believe that his naïve approach to Middle East diplomacy – his statement that he would meet with lunatic Iranian President Ahmadinejad, without any pre-conditions, is dangerous to AMERICAN interests in the Gulf.
All that said, I tend overall to be an optimist. Yes, there are times I get down, but they are few and far between. I generally see cloudy, rainy days as good for the flowers and trees, rather than tough on my commute.
And I also tend to get emotional, choked-up and teary-eyed at the drop of a hat. (My wife likes to call me “a little girl” at those times, whether or not I’m wearing my jumper.)
And so, as I watched television around midnight on Tuesday night, my eyes welled up a bit in tears. I was overcome by the historic significance of the moment. I was moved by the tears of the half million people gathered to congratulate our 44th President. Maybe – just maybe – Obama’s election was a good thing for America, I thought, maybe he would rise to the occasion and lead us well. Maybe he would surround himself with good advisors, with a staff that will temper the rhetoric with reason. Maybe, like all Presidents do, he will realize that despite his campaign promises, he must move towards the middle in order to get anything done. (For sure, this will disappoint and anger his most fervent supporters, but more on that in a later rant.)
And I went to bed a bit less disappointed, and a lot more calm and even optimistic.
And when I awoke on Wednesday morning, things got even better.
Rahm Emanuel is a name that was, until Wednesday, unfamiliar to 99% of America and probably 95% of American Jews. But as a political junkie, I not only knew who he was, I have been following his career for two years now and consider myself a bit of a fan.
I will dispense with the majority of his resume, which is fascinating, and focus on a few of the highlights that I consider more salient. Rahm Emanuel is a member of a very prominent and important family. His father, Benjamin, is a pediatrician; his brother, Ezekiel, is a noted oncologist and bioethicist; his other brother Ari, is a powerful and famous talent agent and the inspiration for the Jeremy Pivens character, Ari Gold, in “Entourage;” and he has a younger sister, Shoshana (occupation unknown).
Rahm has been variously described as a committed Jew, an Orthodox Jew and an observant Jew, although his level of shmiras hamitzvos (adherence to Jewish law) is unknown. He has also been described as belonging to an Orthodox synagogue in Chicago and a Conservative synagogue. He attended a Jewish Day School, the same one his three children, Zacharia, Ilana and Leah, attend today.
His political career is nothing short of spectacular. He worked in Bill Clinton’s campaign for the White House in 1991, and served him in the White House from 1993 to 1998. He was elected to the House in 2002 and became so well-liked and so respected as a political strategist and organizer, that he was named the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005. He was extremely successful in that position and has been the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House since the election of 2006. As a fellow Chicagoan and fellow Democrat, he has acted as an advisor to Obama throughout his campaign. On Tuesday night he handily won re-election to the House only moments before being offered – and, apparently, accepting – the position of Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama in the White House.
The significance of the position – and the symbolism of this being the very first appointment to his staff – cannot be overstated. Rahm Emanuel will be asked to help select the rest of the team – from cabinet positions, to advisors, to senior staff members. As Chief of Staff, he will have the president’s ear and advise him in determining policy, priorities, strategy and message.
Rahm’s Jewish heritage and family history speaks well of his interests and values. His father was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun. Shortly after joining the Clinton campaign, Emanuel left to volunteer as a civilian volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Gulf War, serving in one of Israel's northern bases, rust-proofing brakes. His commitment and ties to Israel seem very strong. (Rumors spread on the internet that he has dual citizenship and served in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) turned out to be false and promoted by anti-semites looking to question his loyalty to America.)
It appears that his family name, which seems Sefardic, was really Auerbach until changed to honor an uncle, Emanuel, who died in defense of the Jewish population in Palestine in 1933. His mother’s maiden name is Smulevitz, giving him two prominent Ashkenazic family names as his genetic make-up. Those two last names are also associated with two of the most prominent Rabbis of our time, although Benjamin Emanuel has reportedly said that he is not related to either of those rabbinic luminaries.
In any case, if it is true that he has accepted Obama’s offer, the first Black President in the United States will have a Jewish Zionist as his Chief of Staff, not too shabby a position for either minority to have achieved, and a revival of sorts of the partnership that Jews and Blacks formed in the 1950’s and 1960’s in the civil rights movement, but had deteriorated, of late, into a strained relationship.
How much influence Emanuel will have on the President and how he wields his power, remains to be seen. As a friend said to me this morning, “Let’s hope he doesn’t turn out to be a Casper Weinberger.” Yes, some Jews in office/power bend over backwards to show how un-Jewish they are. But I don’t think Rahm Emanuel is that kind of person, although only time will tell. I remain an optimist.
If there was elation, as was rumored, in the Arab/Muslim world on Tuesday night over Obama’s election, in the belief that (as was the headline in Avriani, a mainstream daily newspaper in Greece,) “The anticipated victory of Obama in the U.S. elections signals the end of Jewish domination,” the mood should have changed with the announcement of Emanuel’s appointment.
In the end, let’s hope (and pray) that Emanuel’s appointment – and the entirety of President Obama’s administration and tenure – turn out to be good for the Jews, good for America and good for the World.
While it's an old joke, the truth is that Jews living in the diaspora, in lands where we are a minority among the non-Jews, tend – or tended – to see everything through the prism of that question, especially the latest in news and politics: Will this help or hurt our standing in this country? Will this be a cause for more acceptance or more anti-semitism?
I’d like to think that our generation has matured in its priorities - certainly many of us do not vote for a president only because of his position (real or imagined) on Israel. But although we are also concerned about the economy, global warming, etc. - we still tend to come back in the end to that ultimate question: Good for the Jews or bad?
I did not vote for Barack Obama. But I chose to do so not because of all the e-mails I received claiming, falsely, that he is a Muslim, anti-American, unpatriotic, a non-citizen of the United States, that his Harvard education was paid for by Arabs who support terrorism, etc. I did not vote for him because I do not believe that his policies and politics are good for America – and me.
To be honest, I also was nervous about his stance on the Middle East. While I believe he will continue the 60 year tradition of support of Israel, there is SUPPORT and there is support. I believe that his naïve approach to Middle East diplomacy – his statement that he would meet with lunatic Iranian President Ahmadinejad, without any pre-conditions, is dangerous to AMERICAN interests in the Gulf.
All that said, I tend overall to be an optimist. Yes, there are times I get down, but they are few and far between. I generally see cloudy, rainy days as good for the flowers and trees, rather than tough on my commute.
And I also tend to get emotional, choked-up and teary-eyed at the drop of a hat. (My wife likes to call me “a little girl” at those times, whether or not I’m wearing my jumper.)
And so, as I watched television around midnight on Tuesday night, my eyes welled up a bit in tears. I was overcome by the historic significance of the moment. I was moved by the tears of the half million people gathered to congratulate our 44th President. Maybe – just maybe – Obama’s election was a good thing for America, I thought, maybe he would rise to the occasion and lead us well. Maybe he would surround himself with good advisors, with a staff that will temper the rhetoric with reason. Maybe, like all Presidents do, he will realize that despite his campaign promises, he must move towards the middle in order to get anything done. (For sure, this will disappoint and anger his most fervent supporters, but more on that in a later rant.)
And I went to bed a bit less disappointed, and a lot more calm and even optimistic.
And when I awoke on Wednesday morning, things got even better.
Rahm Emanuel is a name that was, until Wednesday, unfamiliar to 99% of America and probably 95% of American Jews. But as a political junkie, I not only knew who he was, I have been following his career for two years now and consider myself a bit of a fan.
I will dispense with the majority of his resume, which is fascinating, and focus on a few of the highlights that I consider more salient. Rahm Emanuel is a member of a very prominent and important family. His father, Benjamin, is a pediatrician; his brother, Ezekiel, is a noted oncologist and bioethicist; his other brother Ari, is a powerful and famous talent agent and the inspiration for the Jeremy Pivens character, Ari Gold, in “Entourage;” and he has a younger sister, Shoshana (occupation unknown).
Rahm has been variously described as a committed Jew, an Orthodox Jew and an observant Jew, although his level of shmiras hamitzvos (adherence to Jewish law) is unknown. He has also been described as belonging to an Orthodox synagogue in Chicago and a Conservative synagogue. He attended a Jewish Day School, the same one his three children, Zacharia, Ilana and Leah, attend today.
His political career is nothing short of spectacular. He worked in Bill Clinton’s campaign for the White House in 1991, and served him in the White House from 1993 to 1998. He was elected to the House in 2002 and became so well-liked and so respected as a political strategist and organizer, that he was named the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005. He was extremely successful in that position and has been the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House since the election of 2006. As a fellow Chicagoan and fellow Democrat, he has acted as an advisor to Obama throughout his campaign. On Tuesday night he handily won re-election to the House only moments before being offered – and, apparently, accepting – the position of Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama in the White House.
The significance of the position – and the symbolism of this being the very first appointment to his staff – cannot be overstated. Rahm Emanuel will be asked to help select the rest of the team – from cabinet positions, to advisors, to senior staff members. As Chief of Staff, he will have the president’s ear and advise him in determining policy, priorities, strategy and message.
Rahm’s Jewish heritage and family history speaks well of his interests and values. His father was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun. Shortly after joining the Clinton campaign, Emanuel left to volunteer as a civilian volunteer in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Gulf War, serving in one of Israel's northern bases, rust-proofing brakes. His commitment and ties to Israel seem very strong. (Rumors spread on the internet that he has dual citizenship and served in the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) turned out to be false and promoted by anti-semites looking to question his loyalty to America.)
It appears that his family name, which seems Sefardic, was really Auerbach until changed to honor an uncle, Emanuel, who died in defense of the Jewish population in Palestine in 1933. His mother’s maiden name is Smulevitz, giving him two prominent Ashkenazic family names as his genetic make-up. Those two last names are also associated with two of the most prominent Rabbis of our time, although Benjamin Emanuel has reportedly said that he is not related to either of those rabbinic luminaries.
In any case, if it is true that he has accepted Obama’s offer, the first Black President in the United States will have a Jewish Zionist as his Chief of Staff, not too shabby a position for either minority to have achieved, and a revival of sorts of the partnership that Jews and Blacks formed in the 1950’s and 1960’s in the civil rights movement, but had deteriorated, of late, into a strained relationship.
How much influence Emanuel will have on the President and how he wields his power, remains to be seen. As a friend said to me this morning, “Let’s hope he doesn’t turn out to be a Casper Weinberger.” Yes, some Jews in office/power bend over backwards to show how un-Jewish they are. But I don’t think Rahm Emanuel is that kind of person, although only time will tell. I remain an optimist.
If there was elation, as was rumored, in the Arab/Muslim world on Tuesday night over Obama’s election, in the belief that (as was the headline in Avriani, a mainstream daily newspaper in Greece,) “The anticipated victory of Obama in the U.S. elections signals the end of Jewish domination,” the mood should have changed with the announcement of Emanuel’s appointment.
In the end, let’s hope (and pray) that Emanuel’s appointment – and the entirety of President Obama’s administration and tenure – turn out to be good for the Jews, good for America and good for the World.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I Guess I was Wrong...
As my father, God rest his soul, once said after the 1962 Mets got trounced in one of the typical drubbings that they suffered: "At least it was close... till the first pitch."
I'm not going to analyze the numbers; there will be plenty of other professionals who will do that. But I will have some more to say about our next President in the next few days.
Right now it's time for bed. And I wish our President-elect well. God bless America.
I'm not going to analyze the numbers; there will be plenty of other professionals who will do that. But I will have some more to say about our next President in the next few days.
Right now it's time for bed. And I wish our President-elect well. God bless America.
Why (and How) McCain will Win the Election Today
Since Thursday, I have been predicting a McCain victory today, and here’s why:
1. Although the polls are showing about a 48%-43% lead by Obama (with some polls saying his lead is actually bigger than that) the truth is that those are national polls, and Obama’s lead in some of the key swing and battleground states is actually closer than that. The national polls are actually skewed by virtue of the fact that Obama’s lead in big populous states like New York and California is greater than 55-45. That means in smaller and key states, the numbers are much closer. In many states Obama’s lead is within the margin of error.
2. In many of the battleground states, the number of undecided voters is estimated as between 6-10%. I believe that that number is grossly understated. (People are embarrassed to say that after all this campaigning they are still undecided.) It is probably closer to 8-14%. Undecideds typically cast their vote conservatively. That does not mean for politically conservatives; that means for the more mainstream candidate. McCain will get the lion’s share of these votes.
3. Racism is still a factor in America, and in particular in our electoral process, even if it shouldn’t be. More importantly, it is a factor in our polling process. Studies show that in an election between a white candidate and a candidate of color about 5% of those polled who say they will vote for the person of color actually pull the lever for the other candidate. But that occurs in smaller, more “intimate” elections like those for city council and state assembly. I believe that due to all the hoopla about Obama’s candidacy and the sensitive issue of race in this election, 8-12% of those polled are lying to pollsters afraid or embarrassed to say they are not voting for Obama. That will be a MAJOR factor in the difference between the polls of the last few days and the exit polls in particular, on one side and the actually tallied results on the other. Expect major differences and major surprises.
4. Momentum is breaking towards McCain. Last Monday, 8 days before the election, Yahoo Politics, which has been doing a fair job of keeping up with the electoral map, had 366 electoral votes in those states solidly behind Obama and leaning towards Obama. On Thursday it was down to 333. Yesterday it was 316. Although admittedly there’s still a lot more to erase to get Obama below 270, combine the momentum factor with the undecideds and those lying to pollsters, and you have an upset in the making.
Of course, even in McCain wins today, it will be in the electoral vote and not in the popular vote. Expect then a major push by leading Democrats (including Hillary and Bill) to plead with electoral delegates to change their vote to “reflect the will of the people,” which will ultimately be unsuccessful but will bring a greater call – in a Democrat-controlled House and Senate – to abolish the electoral college.
But we have a long way to go to get there.
I know I’m going out on a limb here, but I absolutely believe a McCain victory is not only possible, but really will happen. If I turn out to be right, I will look like a prophet. If I’m wrong, I’ll just hope you’ll forget.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Hypocrisy, Lies and Videotape at the L.A. Times
The L.A. Times is in possession of a videotape of a 2003 event – variously characterized as a “banquet,” as a farewell party, as a tribute, and by the Times itself as a “celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics” – all in honor of a friend and frequent dinner companion of Barack Obama, Palestinian scholar, Rashid Khalidi, who was leaving Chicago for a job in New York.
About this tape only one thing is certain: Its release will not help Barack Obama get elected on Tuesday. As a matter of fact, it could hurt him in critical states.
The L.A. Times admits it is in possession of this tape but refuses to release it, despite demands that it do so by John McCain, Sarah Palin and others. Simplified, the arguments boil down to this: Those demanding its release accuse the Times of throwing away the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed, while the Times says they are ethically bound to abide by a promise to a confidential source not to share the video.
In an article in the Times dated October 30, 2008, James Rainey, an L.A. Times staff writer, quotes several journalism professors, authorities on journalistic values and ethics, all of whom side with the Times in their decision, some of which say that it is not a good idea to enter into such agreements [to begin with].
Besides noting the obnoxious habit of the media – and its obvious hypocrisy - of picking and choosing between values in conflict as it suits them, it is worthwhile to consider – and I admit, in the absence of knowing who the mysterious confidential source is, speculate – as to the motive of the source and exactly what the agreement between the source and the media is.
Let’s examine the timing of the release of the video. It appears that the confidential source notified the Times of, or provided the Times with, the video sometime in the end of March or beginning of April of this year. The original article, by Peter Wallsten, a staff writer at the Times, was dated April 10, 2008.
In early February, Hillary Clinton had won the California primary and over the course of the next two months the race for the Democratic nomination looked very close. Hillary made her claims to be the nominee of the party, as did Barack Obama. Let’s try to figure out what the politics of this confidential source could possibly be.
The source clearly cannot be a McCain supporter or they would have provided the video to the McCain campaign. It clearly could not be an Obama supporter, because if that were so, why release the tape at all? The only logical conclusion is that the tape was provided to the L.A. Times by someone who believed that Hillary should be the Democratic nominee. And in that likelihood rests the logic behind the demand that the tape would not be released by the Times to the public. The intention of the tape was to “wound” Obama, but not “kill” him. It was intended to give Hillary an edge in the Democratic nomination but the source was very clever in hedging his or her bets: If Hillary should lose the nomination, he or she didn’t want this incident to be used by the Republicans to defeat Obama in the general election.
In this sense, the Times was used, possibly duped. It allowed its journalistic pages, its reporters, to be used for a very partisan purpose – to try to help Hillary get the Democratic nomination.
What exactly was the agreement between the Times and the source? How much detail could the reporter write about what they saw on the tape and how much could be quoted? Who reached this agreement with the source? Was it the reporter alone or was this reviewed by editors and publishers? In other words, what was agreed to – and by whom? We just don’t know. None of this has thus far been detailed by the Times – and don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation.
A review of the original article shows that not a lot of detail was included. For example, we don’t know who sponsored or paid for this event. Was it a private function or was it (semi-)public? Were there 50 people in attendance or 500? Was the tape made surreptitiously or did all the speakers – including then state Senator Barack Obama – know it was being recorded? Who was it being recorded by and for? Were multiple copies disseminated? How did this source come by his or her copy of the video?
Wallsten wrote in his April article that Palestinian American leaders believe “that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say,” and that this belief stems from “his [Obama’s] presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.”
Yet he cites but one example and only two quotes from the entire event: “At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, ‘then you will never see a day of peace.’ One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’.”
Wallsten then writes, “Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground.”
Is that all that was said negative about Israel and American policy towards the Middle East? Does the agreement between the newspaper and the confidential source preclude the release of a full-transcript of the event and greater details about the number in attendance – and the guest list?
Admittedly, this entire incident is more than a little bit embarrassing for the Times. First of all, they had endorsed Obama for the California primary in February which, as was already noted, Hillary won. But despite that endorsement, they allowed themselves to be used to hurt Obama while he still was contending with Hillary for the nomination.
The Times, of course, would counter-argue that the publication of this article only shows how their news reporters are unbiased and independent of their editorial stance and that their reporters report the news both positive and negative about candidates they endorse. That may be true. However, it doesn’t take away from the likelihood that (1) their reporters were taken advantage of by the source, and (2) that their editorial board is now protecting Obama from further hurt by cloaking themselves in cherry-picked ethics.
In law there is the concept of “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” that all information and evidence derived from an originally illegal method (i.e., a search conducted without a proper warrant) is tainted and is not admissible at trial.
Similarly, the agreement entered into between the L.A. Times and the confidential source - the terms of which remain unknown, as do the names of those who negotiated it on both sides - was itself highly unethical. To now claim the ethics of upholding an unethical agreement as the reason to avoid the tape’s release– if such an agreement even exists – is in itself unethical, immoral, hypocritical and an untenable position, given the counterweight of the public’s right to know and to decide for itself the value of the tape.
About this tape only one thing is certain: Its release will not help Barack Obama get elected on Tuesday. As a matter of fact, it could hurt him in critical states.
The L.A. Times admits it is in possession of this tape but refuses to release it, despite demands that it do so by John McCain, Sarah Palin and others. Simplified, the arguments boil down to this: Those demanding its release accuse the Times of throwing away the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed, while the Times says they are ethically bound to abide by a promise to a confidential source not to share the video.
In an article in the Times dated October 30, 2008, James Rainey, an L.A. Times staff writer, quotes several journalism professors, authorities on journalistic values and ethics, all of whom side with the Times in their decision, some of which say that it is not a good idea to enter into such agreements [to begin with].
Besides noting the obnoxious habit of the media – and its obvious hypocrisy - of picking and choosing between values in conflict as it suits them, it is worthwhile to consider – and I admit, in the absence of knowing who the mysterious confidential source is, speculate – as to the motive of the source and exactly what the agreement between the source and the media is.
Let’s examine the timing of the release of the video. It appears that the confidential source notified the Times of, or provided the Times with, the video sometime in the end of March or beginning of April of this year. The original article, by Peter Wallsten, a staff writer at the Times, was dated April 10, 2008.
In early February, Hillary Clinton had won the California primary and over the course of the next two months the race for the Democratic nomination looked very close. Hillary made her claims to be the nominee of the party, as did Barack Obama. Let’s try to figure out what the politics of this confidential source could possibly be.
The source clearly cannot be a McCain supporter or they would have provided the video to the McCain campaign. It clearly could not be an Obama supporter, because if that were so, why release the tape at all? The only logical conclusion is that the tape was provided to the L.A. Times by someone who believed that Hillary should be the Democratic nominee. And in that likelihood rests the logic behind the demand that the tape would not be released by the Times to the public. The intention of the tape was to “wound” Obama, but not “kill” him. It was intended to give Hillary an edge in the Democratic nomination but the source was very clever in hedging his or her bets: If Hillary should lose the nomination, he or she didn’t want this incident to be used by the Republicans to defeat Obama in the general election.
In this sense, the Times was used, possibly duped. It allowed its journalistic pages, its reporters, to be used for a very partisan purpose – to try to help Hillary get the Democratic nomination.
What exactly was the agreement between the Times and the source? How much detail could the reporter write about what they saw on the tape and how much could be quoted? Who reached this agreement with the source? Was it the reporter alone or was this reviewed by editors and publishers? In other words, what was agreed to – and by whom? We just don’t know. None of this has thus far been detailed by the Times – and don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation.
A review of the original article shows that not a lot of detail was included. For example, we don’t know who sponsored or paid for this event. Was it a private function or was it (semi-)public? Were there 50 people in attendance or 500? Was the tape made surreptitiously or did all the speakers – including then state Senator Barack Obama – know it was being recorded? Who was it being recorded by and for? Were multiple copies disseminated? How did this source come by his or her copy of the video?
Wallsten wrote in his April article that Palestinian American leaders believe “that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say,” and that this belief stems from “his [Obama’s] presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.”
Yet he cites but one example and only two quotes from the entire event: “At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, ‘then you will never see a day of peace.’ One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’.”
Wallsten then writes, “Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground.”
Is that all that was said negative about Israel and American policy towards the Middle East? Does the agreement between the newspaper and the confidential source preclude the release of a full-transcript of the event and greater details about the number in attendance – and the guest list?
Admittedly, this entire incident is more than a little bit embarrassing for the Times. First of all, they had endorsed Obama for the California primary in February which, as was already noted, Hillary won. But despite that endorsement, they allowed themselves to be used to hurt Obama while he still was contending with Hillary for the nomination.
The Times, of course, would counter-argue that the publication of this article only shows how their news reporters are unbiased and independent of their editorial stance and that their reporters report the news both positive and negative about candidates they endorse. That may be true. However, it doesn’t take away from the likelihood that (1) their reporters were taken advantage of by the source, and (2) that their editorial board is now protecting Obama from further hurt by cloaking themselves in cherry-picked ethics.
In law there is the concept of “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” that all information and evidence derived from an originally illegal method (i.e., a search conducted without a proper warrant) is tainted and is not admissible at trial.
Similarly, the agreement entered into between the L.A. Times and the confidential source - the terms of which remain unknown, as do the names of those who negotiated it on both sides - was itself highly unethical. To now claim the ethics of upholding an unethical agreement as the reason to avoid the tape’s release– if such an agreement even exists – is in itself unethical, immoral, hypocritical and an untenable position, given the counterweight of the public’s right to know and to decide for itself the value of the tape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)