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.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
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)