Shabbatshalomagram 3/2/12

Shabbat Shalom, Haverim:

Well, I never got back to you from last week, so today here’s what I said I’d write about then:

We’re off to Dana Farber (yes, yet again to get stuck and sticked this time with a dollop of MRI just for the fun of it) but principally to see how I did on Tuesday’s scans. So, I’ll write when I can, hopefully today before sundown, if not on Sunday with the report. In the meanwhile here are some previews of coming attractions for later:

Six sticks. Two before the tech could get the dye in for the MRI which turned out to be a waste of sticks as apparently while there is some residual brain, there’s no cancer in it. And then at Dana Farber itself another four sticks before my blood could be extracted in sufficient quantities to determine (yet again) that the medicine is not inflicting any damage to vital organs. But we’ve decided to install a power port. Not just a port, mind you but a POWER port. It’s only for the most macho of people, they tell me (and for anyone else who gets frequently poked to take out and/or infuse stuff on a regular basis. We left the house at 9:30, I think and got back home at 5:30. It was some day. But the good news is that I’m alive enough to gripe about it. As to the scans, the report was that there was no change. The medicine is still working. Score one for the good guys.

Jeremy and Amanda are here! Jeremy will be leading morning services in schul tomorrow, so come all you faithful (and Penney and I have made a contribution to the Kiddush fund for the après services luncheon; it’s to celebrate our joint anniversary and [my] birthday on Monday).

But they left yesterday. Their trip was mostly solo voyages to places in Boston and RI while Penney and I were at school. So it was during morning and evening meals when we caught up. Also when I was awake, which was less often than I’d have liked. I’m in the classic “the medicine is killing the disease and me, too” phase of my treatment. I sleep a lot (yesterday after returning from school I napped for a sold three hours—a personal best in nap taking) but on the other hand eat very little as food has lost its flavor. But back to the kids. Jeremy performed the Scharit (morning) part of the service, beautifully and read the haftarah. It was sort of a birthday bash. Mine, our friend Toby’s and a 91 year old woman’s. It was swell. But the best part was having them here.

Lunch last week with Sam, Sarah and her parents—the full report. Pictures at 11:00.

Sadly, no pictures. The visit was fraught with anticipatory jitters. One only gets a single non-renewable shot at meeting the people your child will be associated with as family for as long as they live, and you want to do it right, but not go overboard because that’s doing it wrong. A tightrope metaphor seems appropriate here but I’ll let you work it out. In the end, “not to worry” was the galvanizing principle. When they walked into our house we started to talk as though we’d known each other for years and were continuing a conversation interrupted, not beginning to lay the ground work for future meetings. He’s an infectious disease doc specializing in AIDS research and treatment, teaching at Yale and running a clinic in South Africa to which he flies four times a year. And he’s four years older than I am. Incredible! She’s a retired social worker. Now, retirement at our age is something I can understand. Anyway, all went well. I think I wrote with the news of Sam’s engagement that we’d hit the trifecta in daughters-in-law; three consecutive winners; well, it seems we’ve done it again with the daughter’s-in-laws’ parents. (Anyone willing to tell me if I’ve put the apostrophes in the correct place there?)

I learned and will teach you when to pronounce the word “the” as “thee” and when to pronounce it “thah”. Who knew?

According to a student, and I’ve been checking on her ever since, we pronounce “the” as “thee” when the next word begins with a vowel as in thee ocean and thee apricot. We say “thah” when the next word begins with a consonant as in thah house or thah stairs. As I said last week, who knew?

Friends and strangers have sent me notes after my last column. Surprisingly none have said, “well, thank God for that; the paper will return to sanity.”

These continue to come in, though at a slower pace. I appreciate them all but can’t decide if the ones from friends mean more to me than from total strangers, from people I’ve never met. Both are sincere, but the latter remind me of the impact of those columns, the range of people who read them even if they didn’t agree with all of the views expressed, thought differently but only appreciated the word play. I’m not jumping back into the game; the fatigue and struggles to come up with appropriate ideas while maintaining a full teaching load still exist, but it’s nice to be missed.

I’ve had three Dr. Horton moments (long time readers will know what this is; others will be informed) this week in class.

When I was an undergrad John Theodore Horton was my favorite professor. I took him six times and each day was one to look forward to. The stories he would tell, the truths that he’s reveal, all done in the most beautiful and melodious voice. Penny and Bev, you remember, don’t you? And he looked as though he’d lived in those days (I’m currently eight years older than he was when I studied medieval history with him). Joe, you were my favorite grad school professor, no question, but Dr Horton was, well he was Dr Horton and maybe undergrads are more impressionable than jaded graduate students. They don’t happen often but my Dr. Horton moments come when I’m talking, usually in answer to a question, and then I notice a different ambience in the room and that the students have stopped writing and are just listening, their eyes wide, and the sound of a needle hitting the floor would break the mood. And when I finish I ask the student who set me off with her/her inquiry, “Does that answer your question?” invariably the kid doesn’t even remember that they’d asked a question, then they do and say “yes” and the class laughs. It’s best if this happens at the very, very end of the period so that I can dismiss them with that thought in their minds, but as the whole thing is spontaneous, that can’t be established in advance. Thrice it happened last week.

As always I wish you a week filled with love and joy, peace and prosperity, good health and the wonder of discovery. Be strong and resolute, Haverim, and have a Happy Purim.

Again, Shabbat Shalom.

I send you all my love,

Josh

The Curse of the Cure

It’s been many months since Yom Kippur and will be many more until the next, but the compulsion to confess, if not to atone, for I have done nothing wrong, is overwhelming. When friends came to our home to celebrate my 50th birthday I wondered if there would ever again be a similar party. Something was wrong with the mysterious innards within, but I didn’t yet know what. After all, I’d never heard of PSA, a series of letters that soon would be the measure of my existence.

In brief, doctors at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute said that the cancer in my prostate had probably spread beyond the organ itself. They couldn’t see it but with a PSA reading of over 40, statistically they were sure it had. Removing the prostate would therefore do no good. They suggested initial hormonal therapy to be followed up by radiation and then continued hormonal therapy. I agreed. That was eighteen years ago.

The side effects of monthly (then quarterly) injections of Lupron, and thrice daily ingestion of Flutamide capsules were minimal and for the first sixteen years the PSA was safely within the acceptable range. But two years ago, it soared and new medicines were tried and they didn’t work so I agreed to go on a trial of a new drug which also didn’t work and then into hardcore chemotherapy which ultimately failed and now I’m on another trial which seems to be working. (The disease had spread to my bones, from my skull to my toes. Six weeks after taking the new drug, the tumors had apparently vanished.)

But this new medicine, Cabozantinib (XL 184) has its side effects including fatigue, so that I can barely get through my daily activities without a nap that leaves me upon awakening feeling groggy beyond any capacity to work. Which brings me to deadlines. The university where I teach expects me to show up in class and perform wonders. Of course, I do. The editor of this newspaper patiently awaits each new column and is kind enough to give me some leeway. But not only does fatigue plague me, I’m mentally not as acute as I used to be. Ideas don’t come as quickly and sometimes not at all. In the classroom I can fall back on 40 years experience. But as a columnist, I’ve only been doing this for six years. Not having an idea is an occupational hazard for the columnist. Until recently it was easily resolved by poring over newspapers, in my case either the New York Times, occasionally the Providence Journal, the Forward or JTA daily summaries of events. But now I find I have neither the energy nor the sitzfelisch to read anything beyond what I’ve assigned o my students.

In the years that I’ve been writing I’ve tried to mix current events with historical and literary precedents and perspectives, giving readers a greater mutual understanding of the present and the past, always with a Jewish theme in the forefront; I’ve tried to infuse some columns with my love of science and my devotion to the idea that it’s labor, be it physical or mental, that creates value, an old fashioned idea, I now admit, but I’m an old-fashioned guy. I have expressed my love for Israel and opposition to those who would purposely or inadvertently destroy it. I have tried to write about interesting things in an interesting way, twisting a sentence here, defying grammar there, contorting words so as not to split an infinitive for the pleasure it gave me and might give the reader. You as the reader can decide how successful I was, or was not.

The deadline for this piece has passed. The ability to write on cue has also.

And so, Haverim, readers of this Voice & Herald column since February 2006, I thank you for your attention and bid you l’shalom. If the editor will allow the occasional guest column I may come up with an idea. But I can’t do it on demand anymore.

Thank you Mary Korr for asking me to write this column; thank you Nancy Kirsch for allowing me to continue; and to you readers, whether you’ve loved or loathed what took my fancy over the past six years, I thank you for your attention. If you are interested in seeing the complete opus, it’s contained in my blog

Winter Reflections: Of stars and bugs

As I sit at my desk, a bug flutters by. It and its family share my home, adding little but some small annoyance. They are each about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Yes, that dot, or maybe smaller. They seem to waft like a slow-motion knuckleball, though still too swift in their gyrations for me to catch them (except when I do) and they are easily killed once entrapped. But I look at these things and wonder, does it have a name (I’m hoping some scientist has dubbed it something like Timwakefieldius minoris). More importantly, does it have a brain? I know it has wings and I assume it has sex organs because spontaneous generation is no longer de rigueur in the scientific world. But how to cram all that and a digestive system and sensory organs into such a small space, and why—yes, yes, I know the story of David asking God why are there spiders, but I’m not David—all elude me.

Then I look up to the sky. It’s glorious in the winter. When there are neither clouds nor moon and the air is crisp I can see to the South the Great Winter Oval, an asterism consisting of first magnitude stars from six different constellations. Starting at what appears to be the top and proceeding clockwise there’s Capella from Auriga (the Charioteer), Aldebaran from Taurus (the Bull), Rigel of Orion (the Hunter), Sirius of the Great Dog, Procyon from the Little Dog and Pollux of the Twins. In the midst of all this, just a bit off center, is Betelgeuse, which forms the right shoulder of Orion. Viewed as in a gallery over my neighbor’s house this elongated circle forms an enormous object d’art. The red giant Betelgeuse throbs, big enough to cover our solar system at least to Mars, and possibly beyond. No Timwakefieldius minoris here. And yet, these glorious points of light are only the local eye-catchers. Our galaxy has about 200 billion stars (estimates vary) and there are probably as many galaxies as stars in our Milky Way. In the autumn, find Andromeda, two lines of stars that seem to come out of the square that is the constellation Pegasus (the flying horse). If you know just where to look, out of the corner of your eye (you can’t see it straight on) is the gauzy blur of the Andromeda Galaxy, a good 2 million light-years away (a light year is approximately five-trillion miles. Now multiply that by 2 million and you’ll agree that it’s not walking distance). It’s the farthest thing you can see with the naked eye.

How big is the universe? It depends on who you ask, but a good guess is that its diameter is just shy of 14 billion light-years from here. All of which makes me think that none of us is much more, and probably considerably less, than a Timwakefieldius minoris in the grand sweep of things.

The psalmist asks:

“When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, …what is mankind that you are mindful of us, human beings that you care for us?” and then answers his own question, “You have made us a little lower than the angels and crowned us with glory and honor.” Well, that’s one approach. Shakespeare expressed another: “Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

So, who is closer to the mark, the psalmist or the bard? I know not but as old age creeps upon me, as I look at the tiny bug and at the glorious stars and imagine the unimaginable vastness of the universe beyond, I think … it must be Shakespeare. We come, we go, like the tiny Timwakefieldius minoris unremarkable in the vastness, alone in our teeniest speck of the corner we occupy of outer space. So, petty as we are, it is the petty that consumes us. Locally this is expressed in the anger directed at a young woman who wants to honor the spirit of Rhode Island’s founder and of the US Constitution by fighting to remove a prayer from a public school. To quote Shakespeare one more time, “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

Republicans as Socialists?

Last Thursday morning as I lay in bed looking at the rain coming steadily down on the window pane I thought of Mitt. He’s narrowing the gap. Good for him. In Iowa a full 75% of the Republican voters chose someone else but in New Hampshire it was only 63%. By any measure (“A victory is a victory” he said after winning Iowa by eight votes) this is progress. Whether it’s juggernaut progress remains to be seen. South Carolina looms, though observant Jews are excluded. Its primary is being held tomorrow, on Shabbat. But there’s hope for Jewish participation. The obnoxiously wealthy among us can still try to buy their favorites a few delegates.

Sheldon Adelson, one of the multi-zillionaires, has pledged $5,000,000 to help Newt Gingrich’s Super Pac run anti-Romney ads that would make a socialist proud. For nearly half an hour viewers see how Romney’s Bain Capital would buy up ailing companies, strip them of any latent and residual value, and then through a process of financial reverse peristalsis throw the workers onto the street. It’s capitalism at its worst, Republicans (REPUBLICANS, for crying out loud!) are charging. “You have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?” Gingrich asked, ignoring the fact that Adelson is bankrolling him. Griffin Perry, son of Texas Governor Rick Perry, got snide: “Mitt Romney knows how to lead ... Lead people straight out the door with a pink slip.” Père Perry was not shy about entering the verbal jousting contest either. “I am as much of a capitalist and have a record to prove it … by helping create over a million jobs in the state of Texas,” he said in an interview on Fox. “But there’s a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism, and that’s what we’re talking about here.”

Matt Brooks, the director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, isn’t bothered by the attacks. “At some point it’s fairly obvious that the Obama campaign would have raised this issue anyway,” Brooks said. “I’m not sure they’re happy that it’s been taken away from them and is not on their terms.” Matt, you disingenuous spin doctor, of course Democrats are happy, though thrilled may be a better word. It’s usually the job of the Vice Presidential candidate to smear the opposition. Now Joe Biden, the presumptive candidate, will only have to quote Republicans, giving that much more credibility to the anti-Romney barrage. This piling on Mitt will end only when Romney’s finally nominated in August, but as Saul Ricklin, a local contributor to the New York Times letters section wrote, “I can hardly wait for the coming hilarity of hearing all the Republican candidates now denigrating Mitt Romney start to laud him as what this country needs as a president if and when he wins the nomination.” Me, too, Saul, me too.

Of course Romney has his own Jewish money baggers including Mel Sembler, the Florida shopping center magnate, and Fred Zeidman, a Texas lawyer. And so the money flows. At least these guys aren’t also trying to determine Israeli politics the way Adelson does. He’s a major backer of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pouring money into his coffers as well. Well, I suppose that if I’d made my millions by luring people to Las Vegas so they could lose their money in glitzy, gilded, gaucheness while fondling show girls I’d want to make sure my ideas, obviously sanctified by a Higher Power as I’m so successful, become the laws of the lands.

You’ll note, of course that this Republican brouhaha is about capitalism. Romney of the unbridled kind, Gingrich and Perry who would rein it in. But let’s take a look at the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith (1723-1790). His most famous book is the Wealth of Nations which advocates an unregulated market-driven economy. But Smith wasn’t talking about Bain Capital getting wealthy but of the nation. He was as much a moralist as he was an economist. He believed that labor is what gave things value. A cotton seed is worth nothing, but apply labor and eventually you get a shirt. A Jewish economist of the same era, David Ricardo (1772-1823) took this point and extended it. Only labor gives things value. Are Republicans finally giving credence to this perspective which has been with us since the dawn of capitalism? Probably not. Mitt’s got it sewed up so the Bain Capital model will likely be the United States’ given a Romney victory in November. Ah well, people like labor saving devices. But maybe they don’t like labor destroying financial devices as much. We’ll see.

The Haredi bane

The story is by now familiar enough to make grown men gag in disgust. In Israel, the Haredi, the ultra-Orthodox (as opposed to the merely “Orthodox” who are called Dati) have raised their voices and thrown their excrement. One Dati women dared to sit in the front section of a public bus and was abused by Haredi passengers. Students who attend an all-girls school set up by Dati parents near an Haredi neighborhood in Beit Shemesh have to run a gauntlet to get to class. Little girls are called whores and have had eggs and bags of feces thrown at them. Apparently the sleeve and hem lengths the girls don are not long enough for Haredi standards of modesty even though they cover the arms and legs entirely. Oh, wait; examining a photo, I think I can see the stocking-covered ankles of eight year-old Na'ama Margolis, the little girls whose torment finally made the national and international news. Burkas, anyone?

Two weeks ago when city workers tried to remove signs (illegally erected) mandating the separation of the sexes on city streets (this is so familiar isn’t it—think 1938 after the Kristallnacht) new signs went up in defiance of the law. When police showed up to remove those, about 300 Haredi men threw stones at them and burned trash cans creating a foul stench and polluting the air with smoke as a supplement to their verbal outrage at little girls whose ankles show. Television reporters were attacked when they attempted to film these events.

Not surprisingly Israel’s president, Shimon Peres is on the side of the girls. Urging Israelis to attend a rally on their behalf he said, “Today is a test for the nation, not just for the police. All of us, religious, secular, traditional, must as one man defend the character of the State of Israel against a minority which breaks our national solidarity.” Tzipi Livni, formally foreign minister, currently the head of the Kadima Party which holds the largest number of seats in the Knesset, lent her support to the forces of sanity: “We are struggling over Israel's character not only in Beit Shemesh and not only over the exclusion of women but against all the extremists who have come out of the woodwork to try and impose their worldview on us.” Even right-wingers, religious and secular, oppose what the Haredi in their arrogance, their “my way or the highway” do. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called on the police to act aggressively against violence aimed at women and urged Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to make certain that laws against excluding women from public spaces are enforced. Moshe Abutbul the mayor of Beit Shemesh, himself Haredi, decried the violence against young girls. “Beit Shemesh denounces such behavior,” he said according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Violent men belong behind bars,” he continued. “I urge the Israel Police to act with a firm hand against all the rioters,” adding that reporters should not make assumptions about all Haredi Orthodox Israelis.

The mayor, however, seems not to speak for the Haredi he claims to represent. Shlomo Fuchs, for one, seems not to have gotten the memo. He was arrested for calling a female soldier, Doron Matalon, who dared to sit in the “men’s section” of a public bus a whore and a shiksa. As she is 19 years old and not a mere eight, as is Na'ama Margolis, she at least knows what a whore is. Fuchs was joined in his insults by other Haredi passengers. The same day that Fuchs was indicted, female members of the Knesset's Committee on the Status of Women rode in the front of a bus Haredi demanded be segregated. They were insulted by male passengers who complained that the women were acting in a provocative fashion by sitting with men. The MK’s were accompanied by television crews. When these were spotted by brave Haredi, they opted not to get on the bus.

Our Father in Heaven, Rock and Redeemer of the People of Israel, bless the State of Israel, dawn of our redemption. Shield it with Your love, spread over it the shelter of Your peace. The rabbis of old believed that the Second Temple was destroyed because of senseless hatred. That was Jerusalem of old. We thought we were over that. Welcome to Jerusalem, 5772. According to Othello, Cyprus was for goats and monkeys. Jerusalem? It has Haredi.

The Truth Can Hurt

There are times when the truth hurts—not the subject of the statement but the maker of it. Two recent examples, one from a Republican, the other from a Democrat:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (he’s the Republican) said that Palestinians are an invented people (and as such have no legitimate territorial ambitions). His actual words were: “Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940’s, and I think it’s tragic.” He later asked rhetorically in defense of his remarks: “Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. We are in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States—the current administration—tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth,” he continued. “These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools.”

This was a fine opening for his Republican challengers. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said, “That’s just stirring up trouble.” Mitt Romney, who currently (December 16) stands second or third in polls, said he agreed with Gingrich’s comments about Palestinian terrorism, but that Gingrich went too far in publicly questioning Palestinian peoplehood. “I happen to agree with most of what the Speaker said,” Romney responded. “Except by going and saying that the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the Speaker’s part.” Romney warned against throwing “incendiary words into a place which is a boiling pot” and that doing so could make things harder for Israel. Rick Santorum, agreed with Romney’s comments.

You’ll note that none of these gentlemen denied the truth of what Gingrich had said, only that he shouldn’t have said it. Even Gingrich seemed to acknowledge this as his campaign later issued a statement stressing that despite his comments on Palestinian peoplehood, he still favors the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. “Newt Gingrich supports a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which will necessarily include agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over the borders of a Palestinian state,” they intoned. Remember when Republicans made hay over John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” sound bite?

I began by saying that Gingrich was speaking truth; the Palestinians are an invented people. But so are we all. I’m American, my paternal ancestors emigrated from Russia; my maternal ancestors from Austria-Hungary. Before that, I have no idea. But I (and my Italo-American and Polish-American and Hispanic-American and Afro-American friends are all now Americans, proudly). Arabs who trace their ancestry to grandparents and beyond who lived in the Ottoman Empire have the same right to call themselves whatever they want, even if it gives them a political advantage.

The other truth teller was The American Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman. He delivered a speech at an event hosted by the European Jewish Union in Brussels in which he noted “the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews is largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.” Advancing peace between Israel and its neighbors was the key to addressing this issue, he said.

Jewish groups condemned the statement as one sided. In response, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that the views expressed by Gutman were the envoy’s and not the administration’s. Gutman has said that his remarks were “misinterpreted” and that he condemns all forms of anti-Semitism.

Tempest in a teapot? Seems like it to me. The man spoke truth. Let’s pretend that there was no Zionist movement, no Balfour Declaration, that after the First World War the Ottoman empire was carved up with what we call Israel not intended as a Jewish Homeland but an Arab one, and that since 1919 it’s been Arab. Would Muslims in Europe be acting in an anti-Semitic fashion? I don’t see it. They can’t win their war in the Middle East so they take their frustrations out on Jews in France, England, Germany and the Netherlands. Gutman was right, his Jewish critics wrong. But apparently he shouldn’t have said it.

The Republican Games

I don’t normally think of myself as being particularly sadistic, I’m not the sort of guy who rues missing the opportunity to cheer on gladiators going at each other to the death, but let’s face it—who doesn’t love the way the Republicans are behaving in the pre-caucus, pre-primary phase of their blood sport. They all want to unseat President Obama, and none are willing to raise a penny in taxes to help resolve the debt brought about by the Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars. All believe in cutting off their noses to spite their faces. For example, when asked at a recent debate if they would be willing to increase taxes by a dollar in return for spending cuts of ten dollars, there was a universal response—none would. But after those areas of agreement, it’s strop the razor, hone the machete, sharpen the tongue and praise Jesus. (Mitt Romney is a bit behind on the praise Jesus part, though as a Mormon he does believe in three gods, one of whom is the aforementioned gentleman from Nazareth.)

Romney has always been the pace setter, the one the others are trying to dethrone. One by one they rise up against him and one by one they fall by the wayside. I write this on December 2 so don’t know how things will be on the 9th, but I can report with certitude that today Newt Gingrich is the current first tier challenger, having replaced Herman Cain who previously had edged aside Rick Perry who’d steamrollered over Michele Bachmann. At this pace, poor Rick Santorum, who is universally ignored, might just emerge as the next great white hope to defeat Romney. Tim Pawlenty may have dropped out too soon. And Sarah Palin, too. Even she might have had a decent run at Romney before going down in flames against Obama. It’s all too wondrous to behold. Like watching gladiators. As is said about fox hunting, enjoying this is as indefensible, but irresistible.

And what does all this mean to the Jews? Well, on the one hand nothing more than to gentiles, but there is the Israel question now. Yes, all are passionate about the survival of the Jewish State but Ron Paul, who is opposed to spending any money unless it can be justified by the standards of the eighteenth century, opposes foreign aid altogether and Rick Perry, in what seems by comparison to be a more moderate view has come out with the idea that in any decision on foreign aid he would start at zero dollars and “then we'll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries.” Gingrich immediately signed on. The former House Speaker who looks fondly back on his suicidal shutting down of the Federal Government in 1995-’96 said the idea “made absolutely perfect sense.” Off camera Perry latter waffled, a technique he learned from Romney. “Obviously,” he said, “Israel is a special ally. And my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.” Time to bring out the maple syrup. Oh, and save some of that Aunt Jemima’s for Romney whose spokesmen announced immediately after the debate that he would exempt Israel from the policy.

What Perry seems to have forgotten (or never knew about) is a ten year Memorandum of Understanding that governs US-Israel funding levels, signed in 2007 providing for long-term assurances guaranteeing Israel both financial assurances and political support. So, while reneging on international promises is not unheard of, no Republican, whether Perry or any other GOP candidates in unison with him, would start with zero dollars for Israel; and if not for Israel, than probably not for other countries in the Middle East, all of which would look askance at America supporting the Jewish State to the exclusion of their own. Well, it sounds fiscally conservative anyway, if undoable (like much fiscal conservatism).

So, as Republicans vie with each other uttering “morituri te salutant” their razors stropped, their machetes honed, their tongues sharpened, their minds numbed (Oops, I shouldn’t have said that) how will Evangelical Republicans or Orthodox Jews, those bastions of the Republican Party, feel when Gingrich is brought low and they are ultimately forced to choose between voting for Obama or for a tritheist? Who can say? We can only sit back and enjoy the spectacle. Let the games continue!

Autumnal Reflections

I wandered into the Pawtucket Tax Assessor’s office because I’d been told that they will tell you the history of your house. “Sure,” said the nice lady. “What’s your address?” I told her and she looked something up in one book and then went to another and within minutes she had the page with the ownership record of my home.

I knew we’d bought the house from Betsy Joslin, a widow, shortly before her re-marriage, and once I’d met a man named Rosenfield who’d sold it to the Joslins, but I’d buried that information somewhere deep in my shallow sub-conscience. But now, looking at the list of owners of Lot 547, Plat 66 dating back to 1914, it suddenly hit me that there are an awful lot of people who also said, “this is my home” as they entered my front door and slept in my bedroom, cooked their meals in my kitchen, ate those meals in my breakfast room. I knew that the Joslins had two children who I imagine played and whooped and screamed as they tore through the house, as did mine, but how many other children have there been who felt that the walls that protect my family, protected them? Did Rosenfield (1963-1970) have children sleeping in my sons’ rooms? Or Sherlee Gershman (1954-1963) or Samuel and Edna Orenstein (1952-1954) or Esther Halpert (1941-1952)? Who was Frederick R. Marquis, Jr (1938-1941)? Is he still alive, did he love this house the way we do? Why was he only here for three years? Or Thomas and Muriel Mitchell (1929-1938)? Did they have children who played in the same backyard ours did? Were they the ones who switched from coal to oil, and who was it who then switched from oil to gas? Conrad Paris lived in my house from 1925-1929. Was he forced to sell by the coming of the Great Depression, or had he seen the house as a starter home? In 1924 there were two owners, and I don’t know why. Rosalun C. O’Brien sold to Thomas and Catherine Gill, but why did Thomas Gill buy the house when he (or someone who had the same name) owned it in 1918—or was it a house in 1918, or just an empty lot waiting to be developed? I don’t know. Gill bought the house (or the lot) from the Oak Hill Lawn Company who had bought it in 1916 from M. Jenckes and E. H. Thornton (if I decipher the handwriting correctly) who were the first listed owners, in 1914.

Sometimes, not often, I think I see a shadow, or sometimes a flash of light, or hear a peep of sound and then it’s gone and I wonder if the shade of a previous owner ever comes back to check on us, and then I remind myself that I’m an enlightened rationalist. Still, I wonder who these people were? Who will be the next people, and the next who won’t even know of our existence, of our joys and sorrows, of what we did to improve the house they will think of as theirs? We’ve had the house the longest, since October 1977, but I know we are really only caretakers.

I’d gone to City Hall to get a dog license for Emma who has lived with us for a year and a half. She knows nothing of Morgan whose home this was for ten years and she had no idea that Wordsworth had lived here for 17 ½ years. Wordsworth had no inkling that he was dog number two, that Jonathan had been first. In time no one will know of any of those animals who gave us such joy.

At the university where I’ve been on faculty since 1969 people who have been teaching for decades retire, and then in four years, no student on campus remembers them. Only we somewhat younger old geezers recall the ancient days, the long gone people. Someday, I suppose nobody will know I was there either, just as nobody knew until I went to the Pawtucket tax assessor’s office that while I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, Sherlee Gershman lived my house, thinking it hers. Who were her friends? Who came to visit? Why did she sell? And what of those shadows caught in the corner of my eye, that vague flash of light, that peep of a sound?

A lesson from History

The ancient Roman historian Titus Livius (59 BCE – 17 CE) reminds his readers in every age that “in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”
The ancient Roman philosopher/statesman Cicero (106-43 BCE) tells the story of consul Marcus Atilius Regulus who was taken prisoner by the Carthaginians during the First Punic War. (Consuls were the chief civil and military officers in the Roman Republic. To get an idea of someone with equal status and authority combine General Eisenhower in 1944 with President Eisenhower in 1954.) The Carthaginians thought this provided them a great opportunity—one consul could be exchanged for hundreds of prisoners. So Regulus was sent back to Rome on parole, sworn to return if Carthage’s prisoners of war were not released. He came to the senate and stated his mission; but he then advised against the deal; for they were young men and officers who would make war on Rome, while he was only one man, already bowed with age. In the end Rome kept the prisoners, and Regulus returned to captivity in Carthage.
What do we learn from this? If nothing else it’s that before the exchange of prisoners the prudent thing is to win the war. Giving back over a thousand Palestinians, a goodly number with Jewish civilian blood on their hands, in exchange for one kidnapped Israeli soldier was inopportune. Doesn’t anyone over there read history? The Regulus story may be in the preserve of a few fussy scholars but ask this—during the First World War, how many prisoners were exchanged (answer: None before the Armistice). During World War II did we send back any Germans, Italians or Japanese in exchange for American POWs? (Hint: “No”.)
I know the rationale. Israel makes a commitment to the families of its conscripts (pretty much all age appropriate Israelis minus those in Yeshivas) to bring them back—alive if possible, if not, at least for burial. I understand. But when are they brought back, that’s the question. Three years ago Israel gave up a multiple murderer, Samir Kuntar who in 1979 killed a police officer then took a 28-year-old man and his 4-year-old daughter hostage. He shot the father dead in front of his little girl and then smashed her head in, killing her. Kuntar was sentenced to 542 years in prison. But in 2008 Israel arranged a swap. It received the cadavers of 1st Sgt. Ehud "Udi" Goldwasser and Sgt. 1st Class Eldad Regev in exchange for this sadistic murder who upon his return to Lebanon was hailed as a hero by Hezbollah. And now the returning heroes of Hamas have been greeted in Gaza with cries from the crowd to kidnap more Israelis, to get back more prisoners. Sergeants Goldwasser and Regev were spared what Gilad Shalit may soon suffer. Can you imagine the young man’s anguish when the first of the terrorists released to get him back blows up a pizzeria, or a bus, or a Seder, or a pedestrian mall?
Israel prides itself on the return of conscripts but has forgotten the other part of the social contract, the part that says we will protect the civilians of Israel from terrorists. Israel, any government, must remember to do no harm to its population. It’s bad enough that despite seeking peace Israel has been in a state of perpetual war for its entire existence; it’s worse that it gives enemies fresh soldiers to make war on it. Hamas is strengthened; Israel has handed it potentially returning terrorists or if not them, has encouraged another generation to take the risk. After all, if they are captured before or after their assaults on civilians, all they have to do is wait a few years in jail and then come home to a hero’s welcome.
This edition of the Jewish Voce & Herald is due out on November 11, 2011, 11/11/11 for you numerologists. On November 11, 1918 at 11:00 AM, the First World War came to an end and then prisoners were exchanged, no longer a danger to the countries that had held them in captivity. I’m glad that Shalit is home, but the price was too high. Wait until after victory. Remember the lesson of Regulus, that honorable man.

Kol Nidre at the Wall (Street Occupation)

On Kol Nidre my oldest son and his wife attended services in their new shul in Virginia. My wife and I kvelled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as our son the cantor chanted the haunting melodies and gave life to the ancient words. But it’s the experience of our youngest son I’d like to discuss with you.

Much has been written about the so-called Wall Street Occupation. Unless you’ve been living under a rock you know that leftist activists in New York have taken over a small public park which they use as a staging ground for speeches and occasional marches on Wall Street. I’m pretty sure I know what the protesters are opposed to—corporate greed, but I’m not sure what they favor instead. Is it a genuine movement or warm weather flight of fancy, a nostalgic return to those thrilling days of 1968 in Chicago? Time will tell.

Here (edited for space) is what my son saw on Kol Nidre:

The service was held at a public plaza across the street from Zuccotti Park, where the occupation itself is centered. We were surrounded by police (and food carts, probably in the worst possible place for business that night). I got there right before it started. I’ve read that 1,000 participated. At 7:00, two rabbis and a cantor (Avi Fox Rosen, Getzel Davis and Sarah Wolf) stood in the center of the plaza and got everyone’s attention in the standard Occupy Wall Street style by shouting “Mick Check” in call and repeat style. They asked everyone to form concentric circles around them. They distributed some machzors and kippot, and created 4 aisles through the crowd. Some people brought folding chairs, but most of us stood and sat on the concrete. All instructions were given in call and repeat, so that everyone could hear. There are no microphones or bullhorns, as the occupation does not have a sound permit.

Most of the service was in Hebrew, a traditional Conservative service with some added phrases to make it more egalitarian. There was some singing and some nigunim (wordless melodies) as well. For most of the service we were sitting in a circle facing the Rabbi, but for the Amidah and for Al Chait (confession of sins) we faced East. We did the traditional Al Chait in Hebrew, and then a more political version in English afterward. It started, “We have sinned by yielding to confusion and falling into passivity.”

The sermon was in the same call and repeat fashion. The Rabbi took traditional Jewish concepts and made them relevant in ways that I was not expecting. For instance he talked about the origins of the holiday—the Jews seeking forgiveness for worshiping the golden calf. That got him talking about contemporary “gold worship”, wealth, capitalism, and the rest. Then he talked about how Yom Kippur can easily be embraced as an opportunity for forgiveness, and is therefore described in some texts as the happiest day of the year. He talked about what it means that humanity was created in God’s image. If we are meant to serve God on earth, then what better way to do it than to serve humanity? It was a smart way of making a humanist argument in a religious context.

The sermon was followed by an “unconventional Alenu.” He said Alenu is our commitment to serve, and do better in the future. So he had people shout out things they commit to do in the new year, and if anyone wanted to take on that commitment, they could shout “Alenu” afterward. The commitments ranged from “I will call my mother more often” and “I will question my own assumptions” to “I will work to end capitalism,” and “I will fight for a living wage for all workers.” People were shy at first, but after a few shout-outs there were too many hands up to call on, so the Rabbi had everyone yell out their own oath together, and we all did, and laughed, and then sang the traditional end of Alenu together.

We said Kaddish, and that was it. People milled around, and many wandered over to join the occupation across the street. The organizers say they are planning to do Friday night services there as long as the occupation continues. All of this—the whole political Yom Kippur concept—could have failed on both religious and political grounds, but I thought they did a really good job on both fronts. I think it was especially successful because it had an immediate and clear relevancy and urgency to it, and the Rabbi and Cantors all did a great job with the difficult circumstances (the constant call and repeat, the lack of chairs, etc.).

It was a very memorable Kol Nidre at the barricades of the revolution!

A very brief video of a nigun moment at the Occupation can be found at http://www.twitvid.com/6HEQ8

Does Israel Matter?

Even before his inauguration the right-wing of the American political spectrum was predicting that Barack Obama would not be a friend to Israel. Almost on a daily basis since I’ve been receiving e-mails all of which declaim that Obama is selling Israel down the river.

Some of the e-mails point to the recent bi-election for the New York 9th congressional district, a traditional Democratic enclave lost because the Democrat because Obama was too pro-Palestinian, the conventional wisdom would have it. But David Weprin, the defeated Democratic candidate, is an Israel hawk. Yet his Orthodox co-religionists voted en bloc for the Republican, Bob Turner, who has never set foot in Israel So what did Weprin in? As Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker points out in his blog it was his votes in the New York State legislature in favor of gay rights which earned him a virtual fatwa from the local rabbis: “It is therefore Assur [forbidden according to Torah law] to vote for, campaign for, publicly honor, fund, or otherwise support the campaign of Assemblyman David Weprin.” In other words, Israel had nothing to do with the vote.

A recent Jewish Telegraphic Agency story caught my eye. It discusses why the candidates for the Republican nomination for president are all so pro-Israel. Rick Perry flies to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting and accuses Obama of appeasement (a word most Jews rightly view with abhorrence) and Mitt Romney argues that “You don’t allow an inch of space to exist between you and your friends and allies.” But ought Obama and the Democrats be ashamed of his attitudes in the Middle East?

The Obama administration tried desperately to prevent the Palestinians from formally applying for UN recognition of statehood. It’s been selling Israel bunker-busting bombs since 2009. It’s opposed to new settlements, but so are a lot of Jews. To the Republican charge that Obama has “the most consistently one-sided diplomatic record against Israel of any American president in generations,” Democrats counter with reminders of the $3 billion sent to Israel for military assistance, including $205 million to build the Iron Dome rocket defense system for communities on Israel’s border with Gaza. They emphasize the United States’ effort to block the Palestinian declaration of statehood, and intervening to protect the Israeli ambassador when a violent mob stormed the embassy in Cairo.

Previous Republican presidents have put pressure on Israel. Dwight Eisenhower forced Israel to give up the Sinai in 1956; Richard Nixon prevented Israel from administering a coup de grace to the Egyptian Third Army during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Gerald Ford announced that America would henceforth take a more even-handed stance in the Middle East (and Jews voted for Carter in 1976). While his father protected Israel with Patriot missiles, George W. Bush cajoled Israelis and Palestinians into the ill-fated 2007 Annapolis talks. So what’s different now? According to Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the cold war is over when it made sense to pressure Israel so as to woo Arabs from the Soviet camp. And Republicans can count. Noam Neusner, a former domestic policy adviser to President George W. Bush and now a communications consultant to Christians United For Israel points out that: “There are 5 million American Jews and 50 million Evangelicals,” who are even more monolithic in their support of Israel’s current government than are Jews.

As to Israel, does it matter if we have a Republican or a Democratic president? Both are committed to the survival of Israel; they disagree on how to achieve it. So do Jews. If a Republican wins in 2012 will he really always be so pro-Israeli as to be anti-Palestinian? Not likely. Marshall Breger, an adviser to President Reagan reminds, “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose,” meaning that all the sweet words aimed at wooing the Jewish vote will mean nothing when trying to decide what’s best for America. Dov Zakheim, a former senior Pentagon official in both Bush administrations, said that a Republican president likely would have to make decisions that displeased Israel. “Elections are about principle, holding office is about realties.”

My advice, for what it’s worth? When deciding for whom to cast your vote, think domestically. The Cold War is over. The Nazis are dead. Vote for the person you think will get us out of the economic mess Obama inherited; vote for the jobs program you think will work; vote for the social programs your think are necessary or aren’t. Israel can fend for itself quite nicely, regardless who sits in the White House.

Essay Writing 101

Sometimes the ways of the US Postal Service are strange to behold, beyond human comprehension. If things work as they should you’ll receive this on Friday September 30 just in time for an après Rosh Hashanah lunch sit down in your favorite easy chair. But as we know Saturday or next Wednesday is as likely a delivery date as any.

So, I ask you, what is this essay about? Will it rail against the inefficiencies of a privatized government bureau? Is it about Rosh Hashanah, perhaps lunch? Or easy chairs? Answer: None of the above. Instead it’s time for a redaction of the Essay Writing 101 a course I never took in college.

In the last issue I took a swipe at a letter writer who asked in what I thought was a patronizing and disingenuous fashion why Jews continue to vote for very liberal politicians when you would think that our values would be more in line with more conservative candidates. I found this patronizing because it suggested that Jews should be more like the author, like the majority of Americans, and, let’s face it, (and this is the disingenuous part) why aren’t we Christian. It would be to our advantage and like being a conservative would only require us to give up the past several centuries of our development to join the greater community. So I wrote a strong rejoinder but wanted to temper it a bit. So I added what I thought was a dollop of humor by teasing my editor (who nevertheless I described as “terrific”) for publishing what seemed to me a letter verging on the anti-Semitic.

It’s called “misdirection” in the essay writing business, sometimes it’s described in dance terms as a “lateral Arabesque” the starting with one thing you don’t intend to pursue but which sets up what your real target is, and then concludes with the initial misdirection either for emphasis or humor. It’s a technique used since at least the time of Homer’s Iliad.

So what was the reaction to the piece? Did I hit too hard, below the belt, score a knockout? None of the above. You shouldn’t have attacked Nancy (the editor) is all I heard. But I didn’t attack Nancy, I used Nancy’s publishing the letter as a springboard to dive into my real subject, the letter, I responded. You shouldn’t have attacked Nancy, is the response. Well, I give up. Nancy knows I didn’t attack her. In fact the original column concluded with a deliberate non-sequitur that I thought pretty clever, but she didn’t so out it went. Her only objection to my using her as a foil was that I referred to her as the paper’s editrix. She said it sounded too much like dominatrix but I said I had Amelia Earhart in mind who is always referred to as an aviatrix, but again the change was made. Never did she suggest that I was being unfair to her or complaining in a more than friendly tease.

So, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

(One person who wrote to me asked why I seemed not to know that most American Jews vote for very liberal candidates and chides that I should have known from the New York Times on September 23 that Jews have long proved a solid voting block for the Democratic Party. But my column was published in the September 16 edition of the Voice & Herald and submitted a week before that. I appreciate my correspondent’s belief in my prescience but if I knew what the Times was going to print two weeks before publication I’d be a very much richer man than I am.)

As this is designed to reach you on Rosh Hashanah and is the edition of the paper that precedes Yom Kippur, please let me take the opportunity to thank those of you who have made reading this column a regular part of your bi-weekly activities and to ask sincerely that if I’ve offended with anything I’ve written to forgive as my object may have been to provoke, but never to offend. Shana Tova, everyone; may 5772 bring us all the blessing of lives filled with love and joy, peace and prosperity, good health and the wonder of discovery. And may the US Postal Service get this to you in time for your après déjeuner period of overstuffed relaxation in an overstuffed chair. Amen

Jews as Liberals

Sometimes the ways of editors are strange to behold, beyond human comprehension. At the Voice & Herald we have a terrific editrix but why she chose to print a patronizing letter to the editor from a self-proclaimed practicing Catholic who asks “Why do most American Jews still support and vote for very liberal politicians when you would think that their values would be more in line with more conservative candidates?” is beyond me. You’ve got to wonder how desperate she is to have a letter to the editor.

Dear self-proclaimed practicing Catholic: I don’t know if most American Jews vote for very liberal candidates for office. Hopefully we do, but I cannot testify to that as I’ve not taken a poll. In fact I know several Jews who would take offense at your generalization pointing to themselves as George W. Bush conservatives. But if it’s true that we vote liberal it’s because of our history and our values. We have been at the noose end of the rope, the saber’s edge of the Cossack, the victims of the triangle shirtwaist fire, the inhalers of Zyklon B. What? Do you think that because many of us are now prosperous we should forget where we came from, forget that others are not yet prosperous and, in fact, are sliding into the morass of poverty as the wealthiest become wealthier? Should we ignore their plight which used to be ours? Should we forget that Jews marched in Selma, rode on Freedom busses, were slaughtered by conservative red-necks for daring to help African Americans register to vote? Should we forget the dogs that bit us, the tears we shed when we watched the news on TV and saw the atrocities of the south, the new heartland of the conservative Republican Party? Am I living in the past? Well, if so, I guess I’m a conservative after all. I’ll go to my local gun show and buy me an unregistered Glock. After all, I wouldn’t want no gov’ment revenu’ers interfering with my Second Amendment rights to pack a rod.

That’s the history we bring to the table, those of us who have not become conservatives. As to our values they go back to the bible. We were slaves in Egypt and I’ve lost count of the number of times we’re reminded of that fact in the bible and told, don’t treat your workers as you were treated in Egypt. Our prophets trump our desire for profits. They were advocates of social justice. Those of us who go to shul read them every week. Those who don’t attend regularly probably go on Yom Kippur where we always read, “This is the fast I desire: To unlock fetters of wickedness, and untie the cords of the yoke to let the oppressed go free; to break off every yoke. It is to share your bread with the hungry, and to take the wretched poor into your home; when you see the naked, clothe him, and not ignore your own kin.” Well, thanks to Reaganism there are now too many homeless for us to take care of ourselves, so we depend on government to do the job for us and pay our taxes so that it can be done. We pay our taxes so that government can build high-speed trains and repair roads. Oh, wait, I forgot, as a conservative I don’t want to pay taxes; after all, it’s my money; why should I share it with some vagrant, why should I want it spent on trains when I own a car?

As long as I’m quoting bible, here’s a question for our purported practicing Catholic: What would be the political philosophy of someone who said that it’s easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? Just wondering.

And finally, why was this question addressed to Jews in the first place? I know for a fact that many mainstream Protestants are more liberal than I am, and many Roman Catholics who are also. OK, Protestants, raise your hands if you are a liberal. I see, one, two, three, a million, ten-million. Now Roman Catholics, are any of your liberal? I see, one, two, three, a million, ten-million.

Please, Madame Editrix, enough. As to the rest of you, write a letter to the editor for her; she obviously is very lonely. Praise this column or attack it—or better yet, praise this column and attack Rosenberg’s.

A New Hero

I have many heroes, but today I add a new one to the list. In literature my hero is Hector of the Shining Helmet, defender of idyllic Troy from the barbarians at the gate. The Bible has a slew of heroes to choose from but I’ll stick with Joshua bin Nun, for obvious reasons. In science Galileo, who refused to back down from his researches even knowing the fate of those who preceded him tops the list, though modest Isaac Newton is close behind. Of American presidents I’ll stick with Kennedy, hero of my youth. In sports Gil Hodges wins the prize. His denied entrance to the Hall of Fame is a modern day equivalent of Hector being defeated outside the walls of Troy by the Achilles and Athena.

Except for Joshua, none of these fellows was actually Jewish, except in my mind. But the new guy is. One rainy day we drove to the Clark Museum in Williamstown to see the special exhibition called “Pissarro’s People”. (It’s there for another month if you have the inclination to make the drive.) I didn’t know much about Camille (since he’s my new hero we are now on a first name basis) other than vaguely that he was an early exemplar of the Impressionist School of French painting. What I didn’t know was that he was a Sephardic Jew. In fact, that morsel might be a clue to his personality and world outlook. Now, the world outlook of which I speak is not exclusively Jewish (it was shared by his exact contemporary Leo Tolstoy—1828-1910)—but Jews of his time, 1830-1903 and later, or some Jews, hold a similar perspective.

Pissarro is sometimes called the “Dean of Impressionism” or its “father”. He was an older member of that group that included Monet, Manet, Renoir, Cézanne, Degas, etc. which broke with the sanctified traditions of Beaux-Arts formalism to create the more fluid art that gave the idea of passing reality rather than perfected views of the past. So why is a guy who painted fuzzy a hero? Not because of his skill (which is indisputable) nor because of his courage in defying the establishment (also indisputable) but because of how he lived and painted. His real rebellion was against the self-satisfied bourgeoisie to whom material possessions were the be all and end all, who treated laborers as if they were replaceable cogs. He married Julie Vellay (1838-1926) one of his mother’s maids, a woman he loved for who, not what, she was, and to whom he remained devoted for the rest of his life. That he would see in the maid servant virtue was reflected in his paintings of peasants who worked his rural lands. They are shown during hard work and deserved leisure. They are respected, not revolutionary as suggested in Jean-François Millet’s “The Gleaners”. To Pissarro the peasants he painted from the mid-1870s on were interesting people living interesting lives best shown in their collective markets, kind of like what is now springing up as nostalgic throwbacks such as the Saturday morning and Wednesday afternoon Blackstone Blvd. farmers’ markets, a place to see and be seen, to meet and to gossip, to buy (Blackstone Blvd farmers’ market prices are not for peasants) and to sell, a place other than the church to congregate. It’s a romantic image ignoring the smells and feel of cow dung and the backbreaking labor of sowing and reaping, but to Pissarro (and to Tolstoy, both of whom worked side by side—at least on occasion—with their peasants) it was the forecast of what was to come, a time when labor, peasant labor in this case, would own the land and determine what was to be bought and sold and for how much, the profits distributed according to effort and need. Think kibbutz.

In the end, Camille realized that this edenic vision was not to be and he drew a series of sketches called Turpitudes Sociales (Social Disgraces), Hogarthian depictions of life in the industrialized cities with a prediction of the uprising of the workers against those who exploited their labor. (You can find the complete set at http://www.clarkart.edu/exhibitions/pissarro/content/slideshow-turpitudes-sociales.cfm)

So, my new hero in art is the Jew, Camille Pissarro—not because he’s Jewish but because his Jewishness colors his work in a way I’d never realized until I saw his people at the Clark.

Prophets, not Profits

Tisha b’Av, the Jewish day of mourning has come and gone. Traditionally (though tradition and reality are not always congruent) both Temples were destroyed on the 9th of Av, the first by the Babylonians, the second by the Romans. The rabbis teach that Moses sent spies to scout the Promised Land who reported on its milk and honeyness. But the people wept at the prospect of entering such a formidable land full of giants. God declared, “You wept without cause; I will therefore make this an eternal day of mourning for you.” The day of course was Tisha b’Av. Other events associated with Tisha b’Av are the crushing of the Bar Kochba revolt, the expulsion from England, the expulsion from Spain, the beginning of the First World War, the first of the deportations from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka.

A new reason to mourn is always available, this being planet earth. Our grief this time? The abandonment of basic Jewish principles by the Thatcherite State of Israel. Ol’ Margaret once famously said that “the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The problem with that aphorism is that the opposite is also true. After a while the poor will run out of money for the rich to cheat them out of.

In Israel, as you may have read in the last issue of the Voice & Herald Tisha b’ Av was a day of mourning for the heritage of the earliest idealistic days of the new state, of the Yishuv that had preceded it, the Israel of David ben Gurion and the Histadrut and kibbutzim. The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netenyahu has drunk the Reagan/Thatcherite Kool-Aid to the last dregs, believing with them that it is a good thing for the rich to get richer and for the poor to shut up. Thatcherites like Netenyahu and Reagan trickle this treacle down more eloquently but in the end how else are we to interpret the American version that argues that in return for granting another 13 months of unemployment benefits, the super rich receive a twenty-four months re-authorization of the Bush-era tax cuts; more recently, in return for cuts in governmental services, many of which had benefited the growing poor and the shrinking middle class, there are no efforts to tax the rich.

In America we seem to take this lying down, we allow Republican ideologues who ignore the fact that our debt was brought about by Bush era tax cuts combined with a foolish war to trample the economic rights of working and middle class Americans. In Israel privatization has meant that a very few have acquired more money than you know Who. As Leslie Susser put it in the last issue, in Israel “Owners and a select few mega-salaried executives became richer and the middle class relatively poorer. It also led to the rise of the Israeli tycoons, who controlled a great deal of the country's wealth and power. Banks, energy companies, supermarket chains and media properties all were concentrated in the hands of a dozen or so billionaire families. Netanyahu's economic philosophy also entailed a reduction of corporate taxes… while the middle class saw the prices of everything from food to cars to apartments rise considerably. The system produced impressive economic growth but left wealth in the hands of the few. The trickle-down effect, middle-class Israelis said, had failed to materialize.” Of course it failed to materialize. It always fails to materialize. The trickle down effect is to economics what leaches were to medieval medicine. The result was the tent cities, the tens of thousands of young Israelis who demanded more equitable distribution of available resources. They were not violent; they made no demands that were out of line with the traditions of Eretz Yisrael. They want to be able to afford a place to live. After all, they are the conscript soldiers of Israel who daily place their lives on the line, willingly. And in return, the wealthier got wealthier, and they poorer. Jewish this is not.

Shall I quote chapter and verse here? The middle part of Tanach, the prophetic portion, never advocates trickle down economics, never proposes aggregate wealth. Instead Isaiah and Jeremiah, from whose books we’ve been reading the last several weeks as a lead in to Rosh Hashanah advocate the opposite, the care for the poorer classes; they bemoan the powerful’s ruthless exploitation of the poor. Gee, I hope they weren’t Socialists.

Norway and the Jewish Problem

Time has made the joke acceptable. Frequent usage has made it unnecessary to tell the whole thing, short enough as it is already. “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

On a recent Friday my wife, third son and I drove down to Scarborough Beach. It was a glorious day. We arrived a few minutes before high tide so the waves were crashing in, rolling one after another after another to the shouts of children and adults who threw themselves headlong into cresting waters or turned their back, trying to time perfectly when to jump towards land so that the water would catch and propel them forward. Over and over and over again we did one or the other in the great ocean that had seemed so frigid when first we entered but after moments was merely cool against our skin, and then we returned to our blanket and chairs and soaked up those rays capable of penetrating the slathering of SPF 70 sun block she insisted we wear while we read, raided the food locker and talked and laughed and enjoyed each other and the day.

On the ride home we listened to the news on the radio and heard the shocking reports out of Oslo and Utoya Island. The joy was sucked out of the car as the grim reports came through the speakers, more and more and more dead, most of them children, the Oslo bombing probably merely a diversion so that Anders Behring Breivik could operate his death machine uninterrupted on the island. “Other than that Josh, how was the day at the beach?” It loses something in the immediacy, doesn’t it?

Breivik, his lawyer tells the world, is insane. This is either a legal strategy or statement of belief, possibly both. I’m sure that future historians will wade through Breivik’s 1,500 page on-line manifesto which announced his intentions and provided his motivation. I’ve not yet begun the task, leaving it to others for the moment, but it’s become apparent that there are elements in it that smack of pro-Zionist sentiments.

The Jews of Norway are nervous about the perception that Breivik’s anti-Muslim sentiments couched in pro-Israeli terms. (He warns, “If Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next.”) This in a country whose ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, was quoted in HaAretz as saying “We Norwegians consider the occupation [of the West Bank and Gaza] to be the cause of the terror against Israel.” It doesn’t really matter that Arab terrorism long preceded the Six Day War that brought these territories under Israeli control, that’s apparently the way Norwegians, certainly the government, see it. Local Jews are quick to point out that just because some whacko murderer says positive things about Israel doesn’t mean that Norway’s Jews are pro-whacko or that they do not mourn the senseless slaughter of children. They know that just the previous day those children discussed a boycott against Israel and pressed the country’s foreign minister to recognize a Palestinian state. But what of it? Whether we agree wit these ideas or not (and many Jews do) they are legitimate areas of discussion and should not diminish our grief over the slaughter of the innocents.

Michelle Goldberg (who I assume is Jewish) in The Daily Beast comments that “Breivik’s embrace of Israel, far from being unique, is just the latest sign of a great shift among the continent's reactionaries. Indeed, in European politics, fascism and an aggressive sort of Zionism increasingly go together.” (In another piece she sees the massacre as an assault on feminism.) The on-line edition of The Jewish Journal of Greater L.A. has a long riposte arguing that while Breivik often speaks of the importance of defending Israel, what he wants to defend is not the Israel of Zionism. “It certainly isn’t any of the values associated with Israel by those liberal Zionists [Breivik] frequently demonizes: democracy; open political discourse; the rule of law.” Rather, Breivik seems to perceive Israel as the frontline in a war all Muslims are waging against Jews and Christians.

My day at the beach ended when I heard the tragic news out of Norway. The children of Utoya Island had their lives snuffed out by an ultra-nationalist who has taken Israel as a hostage in his madness. In May 1974 Palestinian ultra-nationalists took more than 115 people (including 105 children) hostage in Ma’alot, Israel eventually killing Twenty-five hostages, including 22 children. Rest in Peace, children of Israel and Norway. When the über-nationalists come a-calling gone is your innocence, gone is your youth, gone is your life, gone is our hope.

A Plan That Won't Work

I don’t doubt the man’s loyalty, bravery or honesty, but I do think Ephraim Sneh whose op-ed piece “Bad Borders, Good Neighbors” in the July 12 New York Times is off the mark. Sneh, a retired general in the Israel Defense Forces, was Israel’s deputy minister of defense from 1999 to 2001 and from 2006 to 2007. His credentials are excellent; his proposal for peace between Israel and the Arabs is flawed.

Sneh advocates a Rube Goldberg plan of returning to the 1967 borders (with territorial concessions based on exchange of Israeli land to Palestine in return for land occupied by Jewish settlements on the West Bank), and a disarmed Palestinian state, and Israeli soldiers patrolling the border with Jordan—which he argues disingenuously would not violate Palestinian sovereignty—and a three-way Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian defense treaty. This “would bring about a dramatic, strategic change in the Middle East. It would remove the obstacle preventing moderates in the region from uniting against militant Islamist extremists and lay the groundwork for a new strategic alliance in the region, including the Persian Gulf countries, which are natural business partners for Israel, Jordan and Palestine. As a result, Israel would be able to extend its hand to new democratic and secular governments in the Arab and Muslim world. And those committed to Israel’s destruction would be confronted by a new alliance with enormous economic and military power.”

Right. And grateful members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad will throw rose petals at the feet of Israeli troops who bring them this new era of democracy and prosperity. Has no one learned anything from America’s Iraq and Afghanistan experiences?

Oh, and lest I forget, nowhere does the word “Jerusalem” come up in Sneh’s piece. I suppose he intends to re-divide the city if it’s 1967 borders he deems most viable, but he doesn’t say so. I can’t imagine why.

He does talk about Gaza, though, the worm in the apple of his argument he must deal with, but he never does so satisfactorily. Gaza he admits has been the launching pad for thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli towns and villages since Hamas wrested control in 2007. What he doesn’t acknowledge is that that Hamas could not have taken over the territory if Israel hadn’t unilaterally withdrawn in 2005. I’d like to add to the Gaza discussion. Hamas is in control and is unlikely ever to surrender the power it won in 2007. Those who disagree, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I’ll continue. So, with Hamas held Gaza to the West, and the heirs of Yasser Arafat in the East, just how secure can borders be? How united will this new Palestine be divided by Israel? How much resentment will being disarmed, unable to protect itself, will Palestinians feel? And those Israeli troops patrolling the border with Jordan? That’s going to fly?

And one more thing. Let’s look at the land exchanges. Base the new borders on 1967 lines Sneh argues, but with modifications to account for Jewish settlements. Fine. The 1967 borders were with Jordan and Egypt, not with a people not yet known as Palestinians. If it were up to me I’d give the territories back to the quasi-stable governments in Cairo and Amman before handing them over to Hamas. But that’s not going to happen. I know, I know. That the proposed new borders zigging and zagging in and out of the West Bank region would be impossible to defend Sneh does not mention, but the sound of snip-snap, as Arabs cut off the Jews of the West Bank and Jews cut off the Arabs in land that used to be part of Israel will most certainly be heard in the land. And there’s another question I don’t think anybody has asked, so let me be the first. Do Arabs living in Israel really want to leave a stable and prosperous land where, granted, they live as a minority, in order to revel for a while (and it will only be for a while until reality raises its ugly head) in the nationalism of an impoverished united Palestine? Has there been a secret ballot on this question or are advocates of the old borders with territorial concessions on each side merely assuming that the Arabs of Israel would prefer being the Palestinians of Palestine? Just asking.

Anthony Weiner and Jesus

As if Anthony Weiner doesn’t have problems enough. For a really, really, really smart guy, you’d think he’d know how to keep his pants and shirt on when in camera range and how to pronounce his own name. Clue: From the German, the diphthong “ei” is pronounced “eye” never “ee” as in creep or peep. I know it’s tough for him either way, but what with his lewd behavior and all it would be better to be a whiner than a … well, you get the idea. Then there are the lewd photos, the denials, the admissions. You know all about that. “Drat,” I thought when the story was breaking. This is supposed to happen to Republicans—the Governor of South Carolina, the Senators from Louisiana and Utah, the Congressman from upstate New York, the Holy Roller televangelists. These are the people of the party of family values, not a skinny Jewish Democrat from Brooklyn whose mother taught at Midwood High, a mile from my boyhood home. Yes, I know about Spitzer. Before all this broke Weiner was my man in Congress. Yes, Patrick Kennedy and then David Cicilline actually had the seat but Weiner was to the left of Obama, the one who chastised him for capitulating over and over and over again to the white Christian party on the health care bill. And now this.

But there’s more; it gets worse for Anthony. Apparently he’s going to Hell. Unless he makes one little life change. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky—the Southern Baptist Convention's flagship school, has taken it upon himself to give the Jewish fella some unsolicited advice. According to a tweet that Mohler sent to “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” This may be true; but I’m pretty sure it’s not the kind of treatment the Congressman was thinking about when he asked for a leave of absence to get his life in order.

When rebuked by Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA TODAY for hitting a Jew when he was down Mohler responded that “he was simply stating the Christian doctrine that “every single human being is a sinner in need of the redemption that is found only in Christ.” But then Mohler claims that he never actually sent the tweet to Weiner, only to the 27,000 people who follow his twitters. “As far as I know, Rep. Weiner is not among my ‘followers’ on Twitter,” Mohler complained disingenuously. “I did not assume that he was reading my posting. My message was mostly directed at my fellow Christians as a reminder of this very concern—that the American impulse is to seek treatment when our real need is for redemption.” Strangely, though, the tweet was addressed “Dear Congressman Weiner”. Unabashed, Mohler continued: “I never mentioned Judaism. Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation. Christians—at least those who hold to biblical and orthodox Christianity—believe that salvation is found through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him alone... We also understand that other religions claim ‘routes to restoring righteousness.’ But biblical Christians cannot accept that these ‘routes’ lead to redemption and the only righteousness that saves—the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, who is justified by faith in Christ alone.” Got that, sinner? Yes, you. Not only is Weiner going to Hell but you are too. The Rev. Mohler has it on good authority. This is the same Rev. Mohler who, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reminds, caused a stir in 2003 “with his staunch advocacy of evangelizing Jews. He had explained then that warning non-Christians of the ‘eternal danger’ they face in not embracing Jesus ‘is the ultimate act of Christian love.’” How sweet.

I really, really, really wish that the holier than thou crowd would love me less, that Evangelicals would stop trying to get us (me) to convert to Jesus. Jesus probably wishes that they would stop trying to convert me too. He was a good Jew after all, who never left the fold, living as a Jew, dying as Jew and most likely in Heaven as we speak, despite being the Jew that he was. Well, maybe I’m being cynical again. OK, no Rapture for me. Oh, wait a minute…

Bannning Brit Milah?

Have you heard about Moishe who walked by a store featuring clocks and watches in its window? He needed a repair so he went in and asked the proprietor how much it would cost to fix his watch. “We don’t fix watches here,” the man replied. “I'm a mohel.” “A mohel? Why do you have clocks in your window?” “And what would you put there?”

I remember the brit milah of each of my sons. The first time I was amazed that I burst into tears. The second time I was amazed that despite telling myself that I would not weep this time, I did again. The third time I steeled myself against such unmanly behavior and cried hardest. I’m a wimp, I guess. I was delivering these innocents pain. I’m their father; I should be protecting them from men with sharp knives about to cut them, not delivering them up to them. It was like a sacrifice each time. Yes, I knew it was part of an ancient ritual welcoming the boy into the community, an opportunity for friends and relatives to kvell and to eat and to sing and to dance. But to me it was, well, if I believed in psychology I might be tempted to say that it was a subconscious return to my own eighth day experience.

We read that God told Abraham to circumcise himself and all who were of this party and his son Ishmael and later his son Isaac on his eight day but we’re not told why this should be the everlasting sign of the covenant. Speculation abounds—that by marking the organ of reproduction we are initiating our children into the covenant from the moment of conception, that it was always intended as a health measure, that it was borrowed from other ancient societies, perhaps even from the Egyptians and the Canaanites (who waited until just before puberty to perform the ritual).

The US Constitution prevents government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion (First Amendment). Nevertheless in two California cities, San Francisco this November and Santa Monica next, there will be a referendum decreeing that anyone who circumcises a boy under the age of 18 within city limits faces a $1,000 fine and up to one year in jail. The only exception would be for “compelling and immediate medical need.” To get on the ballot known as the “MGM [Male Genital Mutilation] Bill” 12,000 people signed a petition. Matthew Hess, who founded MGM Bill in 2003 and spearheads its legislative efforts, says he is trying to protect boys from what he considers a barbaric mutilation of their bodies. He became an activist in his mid-20s, he says, when he decided that his own circumcision as an infant resulted in diminished sexual sensitivity as an adult. “Freedom of religion stops at another person’s body,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

Ironically Hess is echoing the great medieval Jewish sage Maimonides who argued in his Guide to the Perplexed that “with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible… The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.” Thus Jews have more time for study, less interest in lust as compared to uncircumcised Gentiles.

Opposing the ballot initiative is Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union’s Institute for Public Affairs. He argues that “The stakes are very high. Circumcision is a fundamental aspect of Jewish ritual practice and Jewish identity.” In this he is joined by other Jewish groups and Muslim ones as well. The San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council, with Abby Porth, the JCRC’s associate director in the lead, organized a wide-ranging coalition of religious, medical, legal and political leaders to oppose the ballot measure. The Council on American-Islamic Relations Bay Area director Zahra Billoo notes that CAIR rarely finds itself on the same political side as groups such as the Orthodox Union. “It’s the assault on religious freedoms that brings the two together,” Billoo said. “The civil rights of Jews and Muslims are being impacted,” she told the JTA.

On the legal front Joel Paul, professor of constitutional law and associate dean of the University of California Hastings School of Law, says the law likely would not survive a court challenge as it entangles the state in religious matters by putting the state in the position of judging whether a certain religious practice is permissible.

It’s very unlikely that the ban against circumcision will become a reality. Neither the votes nor the Constitution will permit it. But in any event, I’ve looked and have found no creditable indication that the proposed ban is anti-Semitic in origin. Nevertheless, passage of such bills, even if based exclusively on humanitarian considerations, would be a devastating blow to the Jewish (and Muslim) communities. My tears at my sons’ brit milahs ended; but ending brit milah would end Judaism as we know it.

A crazy week

What a week!

First there was the Rapture. Unless you have been living under the proverbial rock of ages you know that according to indisputable biblical prophesy, on May 21 all true Christians will have been wafted up to Heaven for all eternity whilst the rest of us would be subject to agonizing torments of biblical proportions until October 21 when the world itself would come to an end. I’m not sure if at that point we go to Hell or simply cease to exist, but in any case we give up our chance to sing psalms and strum harps and praising Jesus for the next 20 quadrillion years. If you are reading this without suffering the torments of Hell on earth the prophesy proved false. But millions were taken in by it and some of those millions, desirous of having their pets looked after, after they are in the hereafter paid enterprising atheists to look after their dogs and cats while they were gone. I don’t know how much cash changed hands but the whole story is proof to me that the sprit of Elmer Gantry is alive and well and living in the mouth of a false prophet somewhere beyond the New England/New York region.

Then there was the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair. Maybe “affair” is the wrong word in this context. After all, when people have affairs there’s presumably a degree of mutual consent involved. But M. Strauss-Kahn, the Socialist head of the International Monetary Fund (and how that happened is beyond me if the word “socialist” still has any meaning. The IMF, that pillar of support of the capitalist system is the last place you’d expect to find a socialist in charge. Or maybe that would be in a $3000.00 a night hotel room.) In any case Mr. Strauss-Kahn allegedly raped a cleaning lady, this with the impunity and insouciance you might expect from one of his international standing, and was on a plane waiting to fly home to France when New York City policemen came aboard, cuffed him and escorted him via a perp-walk to Rikers Island where as of this writing he is ensconced wondering, no doubt, how he of all people could end up in such a predicament. American journalists have been congratulating the United States for not turning a blind-eye, as Europeans, especially French or Italian Europeans might. Of course American (and European) members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy have been turning a blind eye to the activities of pedophile priests for decades and as part of the weird week I might mention that after an exhaustive investigation a commission has concluded that priests trained before the 1960s were not properly prepared for the social upheaval of the ’60s and ’70s, so they made passes at little boys who wore glasses (and those who didn’t as well). Makes sense.

Then Mahmoud Abbas published in the New York Times a statement justifying the Palestinian Authority’s decision to approach the UN to ask for recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. According to his view of history “the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states.” By “our homeland” he means all Palestine west of the Jordan River. (If he still thinks of all Palestine as west of the river than Israel has troubles. So does J Street.) Then, according to his distorted perspective, “Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened.” I guess it was a lucky coincidence that fully mobilized Arab brigades were at the border ready to invade.

The week continued with a counter blast from Danny Danon, deputy speaker of the Knesset. In his op ed piece he says if the West Bank/Gaza Palestinians declare themselves an independent nation, Israel will (or should) declare all Jewish settlements in the West Bank part of Greater Israel, and deny Arabs living in those zones Israeli citizenship. While Danon concedes that there would be international uproar over this he feels it will soon pass. I am not a believer in the two-state solution for reasons enunciated from time to time. But this is crazy. Danon and Abbas deserve each other, the one with no sense of the past, the other with no sense of the future. But if they deserve each other, why should we suffer?

As I’ve said, it was a crazy week.