Salute the Fallen Heroes

Today is Memorial Day.

More than any previous Memorial Day, I'm cognizant this year of the sacrifice made by the men and women who have answered this country's call in times of need.

I think of the young men who had no personal grudge against the English king, but joined General Washington's army to secure the dream of liberty. And the hundreds of thousands of young men--likely as not uncommitted to the abolishonist cause--who followed Generals Sherman and Grant, in many cases to certain death. And the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who understood Germany did not attack the United States at Pearl Harbor, but who took orders from General Eisenhower to storm the beach at Normandy to finish off the Nazi nightmare.

Today, our servicemen and women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, 3400 of their colleagues having fallen in service to their country. In service to all of us.

And still I hear, unceasingly, the refrain of people from all sides of the political spectrum deriding the war as "illegal", "immoral" or "lost", taking pains all the while to feign "support for our troops".

Shame on them.

I say it here and now, you cannot deride a war and pretend to support the men and women who are fighting it. We have a free country, and freedom of speech; I honor any American's right to speak against the war. But in so doing, s/he should understand that one cannot simultaneously "honor" those fighting a war, while labeling that war as "immoral".

To all who have defended our country in wars which have proven to be wise, and in all other wars--but especially to those who have fallen--I salute you, I thank you, and I honor you.

God Bless.

Praise Diesel. Damn Detroit.

I am bothered.

My first oil crisis memories involved driving around Wichita, Kansas in my Uncles fat-ass Chrysler New Yorker, while he passed up several gas stations to save a penny or two per gallon. He'd be damned if he'd pay $0.30 for a gallon if some guy down the road sells it for $0.28. That old Chrysler probably got about 10 - 12 mpg on the highway - 13 with the wind at its back. It was 1973.

For we who aren't good with numbers, that was 33 years ago.

Today, as I ponder what car might give me exceptional mileage, lots of room, good performance with a smattering of luxury, I come up with exactly one -- the Toyota Camry Hybrid, which the EPA rates at 40 mpg city/hwy.

By world standards, that ain't sheeeeeit.

If consumer electronics had experienced such dismal progress, you'd be paying $250 for a calculator whose most notable function was to input 71077345 and have it read "SHELLOIL" upside down.

And yet we just take it.

In Europe, diesel engines account for 40% of all cars sold. And these are't the belching, stinking, polluting diesels of yester-year. No, these are clean-burning, "green" diesels, with exceptional power, and which could run on grandmas cookin' oil, if need be.

Moreover, the diesels sold in Europe are most of the exact same cars sold over here -- but "over here", they won't sell us the diesels.

Honda makes an Accord that gets 44 mpg (diesel) in Europe. Volkswagen sells a Passat Diesel which gets almost 58 mpg hwy and nearly 40 mpg city. This is not a go-kart, folks. It's a luxurious family sedan. Heck, you can even buy a fat-ass BMW 7 Series (think Alexis Colby) diesel which averages 35 mpg.

And what does detroit give us? A Hummer. Where is the outrage?

And guess what else, the minute our friends at Daimler Chrysler sent the hulking Chrysler 300C across the pond, guess what engine they dropped in? A 3.0 litre diesel which averages (AVERAGES!) 35 mpg and gets almost 43 mpg on the highway!

And it's cousin, back here in the colonies? It gets a whopping 21 city / 28 highway. IT'S THE SAME CAR!!!

We are being duped, people. I don't know if it's big oil, the Big Three, or tree huggers, but we're being duped, and I am angry.

I want an awsome car with huge diesel torque and huge diesel mileage, and unless I'm willing to go to London or Stuttgart, I'm SOL.

And meanwhile, our soldiers are half a world away fighting against people that want to kill us dead, and we just keep paying them to shoot at us.

What the devil is wrong with us?

Steven Lefkovits - In Memoriam

I received some sad and shocking news today. Steven Lefkovits, a client, who had become a friend, died suddenly this morning.

Even though Steve's life was one of unspeakable hardships, he always kept his, well, smart-ass sense of humor. It was probably that sense of humor that kept him going.

Steve was born in Hungary, to a family that was reasonably well-to-do, and involved in the Horse-trade. When the German army invaded Hungary, Steven was rounded up and sent to a concentration camp. Having survived, he made his way to America, married and had a family.

I didn't know him then. I only met Steve a few years ago. He was on his second marriage, and was faced with the daunting prospect of investing a large medical malpractice award received by his second wife, Laura, who had been on the unfortunate end of an incompetent emergency room physician.

Steve's devotion to Laura and to his daughter, Ariella, was complete and unquestionable. He spent more energy caring for his wife and daughter than most people half his age could spend on almost anything. He swore that, as long as he lived, he would take care of Laura. And he did.

The fact that things never seemed to come easily to Steve probably had something to do with his personality, which could be, well, ornery at times. And that's putting it mildly. But Steve always said, "Hell, I survived Hitler, I can take anything they have to give me".

My relationship with Steven started as a business relationship, but quickly grew to be one of personal friendship. I felt about Steven as I did about any Holocaust survivor--he was a treasure. And he was; but Steven also had a certain strength that seemed to radiate confidence--even, or maybe especially, when he was wrong. Just thinking about that makes me smile.

As I think about Steve's death, I think about the victory of dying in his own house surrounded by people who cared for him, rather than in one of Hitler's death camps. If I knew Steve, his final thought must have been something like, "I won".

I'll miss you Steve. Well done.

Free the Pope!!

I know what it must look like - a Jew supporting the Pope in a conflict which has angered Muslims. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Wrong.

It's about people who value free speech versus those who threaten death to people who, with their speech, give offense.

I don't know what the Pope said, and I don't care. If it's like most of the other things this or other Popes have said, there's about a 50% chance I'll agree with it, which means it's just as likely to offend me.

Heck, the Pope can call my people (Jews) Christ-killers if he wants. I don't know if it's true and, really, neither does he or anyone else. But that's his right, as a free person. To speak freely and, occasionally, to offend.

I think the Pope should be free to say whatever the heck he wants. Heck, same for all the other Catholics out there. And while we're at it, how 'bout Jews, Hindus, Atheists and...well, okay, Muslims.

But what about the Islamo-facist thugs who took offense at the Pope's recent speech, in which he said something about Mohammed spreading Islam by threat of the sword. To this, the Islamo-facists have apparently taken great offense, and for this, some have threatened the Pope with death by suicide bomb.

I can understand their distress at such lies. Clearly a suicide bomb is nothing like a sword! How dare the Pope.

As I write this, it strikes me that, if the Islamo-facists were in charge, I could be killed even for paraphrasing the Pope's words. Now there's a thought.

I have read some things lately in which people from some political quarters have opined there is no such thing as an "Islamo-facist". Who knows, maybe they're right. But what do you call it when a group which identifies itself with a religion, say, Islam, threatens death to those who utter words which its adherents consider offensive? Islamo-speech-police? Hey, whatever works.

We are all people sharing the same earth, and breathing the same air. It follows we are children of the same G-d (whatever we choose to call her, and however we pray to her, if at all).

The correct way to oppose those whose speech we dislike is to tell them, and then to speak in opposition, dispelling untruths and correcting misperceptions. And if the words are true, and we still take offense? Perhaps we just need to take a deep breath and count to ten.

In arabic numerals.

Can A Jew Be President?

Last night I joined some colleagues from the local political blogosphere for drinks, food and discussion (in the real world!) at a forum called "Drinking Liberally". I met many lovely people and was enthused by the conversations, which were mostly insightful and interesting.

At one point, though (perhaps unavoidably) we turned our attention to which Democrat might stand the best chance of winning the Presidency in 2008. This is when one very jovial colleague was asked about the chances of a Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin.

I paraphrase here, but his reponse was something like, "a Jew will never be elected President of this country".

It would be an understatement to say I was taken aback. Here was a group of supposed progressives talking about a leadership race (which race I thought was "political" and not "human"), and then--BAM!--the anti-semitic stink bomb. I'm usually pretty good at seeing those coming, but this one caught me totally off-guard. Am I the last one to figure out why I was the only Jew at a gathering of progressives in Chicago?

To my added horror, most at the table just nodded in agreement--not the sort of uncomfortable agreement which Borat coaxes from an unsuspecting dunce after uttering his famously anti-Jewish hyjinxes. Nope, this was a full-throated agreement, a sort of "Ya, Herr Kommandant!" Another colleague quickly added, "yeah, no one named 'FEINGOLD' will ever be elected in my lifetime".

I understand these statements were not so much solemn vows as observations of the speakers' sense of reality, but either way, it's a problem.

At the risk of standing up for my peeps, whom history's authors have preferred to see powerless, I spoke out. "Just what does it take", I asked, "for a Jew to be considered a full citizen of this country [which, if you are a global reader, you should know is the United States, not Iran or, say, Khazakstan]?

As that question was met with puzzlement over my sense of obvious agititation, I tried to deflate the situation by suggesting my colleague soften the impact of his assertion just by stating it as his opinion, and not some irrefutable law of nature. Regrettably, my suggestion was met with a patronizing "oh honey..."

I wanted to say, "oh honey, nuttin, mutha fucka", but I held back. Instead, I responded that the principles upon which this country was built allow all Americans to achieve anything they desire though hard work, intellect and ambition.

This is when one of the more cynical and world-weary among us instructed me (as only a liberal Democrat can) that I need to understand the speaker was only speaking about "the 'residual anti-semitism' that exists in all non-Jews".

WHAT!??

I challenged that notion, saying, "well I'm not black, and I don't harbor residual anti-black feelings", thinking that might settle the issue. But no such luck--these were the intelligentsia.

"Sure you do", my world-weary friend again instructed me. At this point several of those assembled seemed intent on convincing me there was, indeed, a "residual anti-semitism" which would keep a Jew out of the White House (or at least out of the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office). It wasn't them, of course, but all those other people. Surely I had noticed it....

That was all I needed to hear; I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

What is a progressive, if not someone who--to paraphrase Robert Kennedy--dreams of things that never were and asks why not? But here was a group of lefties telling me that's just the way it is. Jews need not apply. Apparently "arbeit" will not "macht frei".

While I took pains not to accuse my colleague of anti-semitism, I told him "I still felt it, and after all, one cannot argue with another's feelings". Apparently I was wrong; as I was again instructed that one can too argue with another's feelings, and mine were wrong.

Reflecting upon this lively conversation, I can't help but wonder if it would have made a difference in my father's decision enlist in WWII and later Korea (where he won a Silver Star for bravery in combat), if he would have known he was fighting for the right of gentiles to govern themselves with the quiet understanding that the White House would remain off-limits to Yids.

These were not so much progressives, I felt, as defeatists--submitting to some (one would hope) lamentable truth. I suppose that's easier done when the offending words don't fall like shackles limiting their own ambitions.

This group which, to a person, would claim to believe that people should be limited only by their abilities and ambitions, mostly insisted I should reexamine my position, and assured me that no anti-semitism was intended.

Of course not. People are far too savvy these days to actually intend anti-semitism. They just speak of it as a fait accompli. But it's the unintended bigotry--the accepted wisdom, if you will--which we should most strenuosly challenge.

Despite what my colleagues maintained, a Jew can become president if she has the requisite Constitutional qualifications and wins a majority of electors. To maintain otherwise is to accept (and not merely acknowledge) a bigotry which is contrary to our Declaration of Independece, our Constitution, and our laws. These defeatists may be resigned to consigning others to a pre-determined existence of limted accomplishment, but I am not.

Each of us is responsible for the effect of our words. To accept an unsatisfactory reality for which we blame others is disingenuous in the extreme. It is the moral equivalent of "just following orders", and is a position devoid of integrity.

Yes, a Jew can be elected President, and I believe it will happen in my lifetime. It may even be a certain Senator from Wisconsin whose apparent mistfortune it is to be named "Feingold".

Here We go Again

Once again, I sit watching the State of the Union address. The Supreme Court entered, just before the President, who was accompanied by the leaders of both houses of Congress. As an aside, I have long felt it now represents a danger to have our entire government assembled all in one place. As the President begins to speak, I will now give my thoughts:

Dennis Hastert still looks like a fat pig. Nothing personal, of course. He just does.

President started by mentioning the death of Coretta Scott King. Nice and proper.

Now he says we "seek the end of tyrany in our world". That's nice. I'd also like to do away with cloudy days. Maybe we could legislate it. Or better yet, let's send in the military.

His speech seems a bit disjointed--which is to say the written word, not the spoken word. Well, that seems disjointed too, but no more than normal.

Now he's talking about radical Islam. He's right about this where he says radical Islam is a huge threat. He says "we love our freedom and we will fight to keep it". That sounds good and right, but I don't think he gives sufficient thought to the effect our actions have upon the third world. I'd like to fight with one hand and still raise up the oppressed with the other hand, but I don't think we're doing this. He says "we will never surrender to evil" and now all the stupid suits (read: congresspersons) stand in ovation. Yeah! Never surrender to evil! Dude!!

The cameras just panned a shot of Joe Lieberman applauding the President. He's such a syncophant.

Now the President goes for the ratings game by introducing the family of a fallen soldier. This sort of thing is revolting because it tells us nothing about the state of our union, and unduly depends on emotion. Presidents of both parties should stop doing this sort of circus trick; it's really unbecoming.

Now he's talking about how the nations of the world must not permit Iran to gain nu-cu-lar weapons. He's right about this, but I do wish he'd learn how to pronounce nuclear.

He asked to reauthorize the so-called "Patriot Act". Now he's asking to spy on Americans without a warrant. He says "if there are Americans in our country talking to Al Queda, we want to know about it because we're not going to sit back and wait to be hit again". Good grief. What a false choice. He could ask Congress to craft a law that permits the Constitution to survive.

Next: Economics. He mentions that China and India are ascendant industrial competitors and warns against protectionism and xenophobia (my big word - decidedly not his). He wants to keep our economy growing by letting rich people keep their tax breaks.

Did I mention that Denny Hastert still looks like a corpulent hog?

The republicans look like idiots. Generally, but also because they keep jumping to their feet every time the president finishes a sentence. But OH MY G0D!!! He just handed the Democrats a huge soft pitch when he said that last year Congress failed to pass my plan to save Social Security. ALL THE DEMOCRATS LEAPT TO THEIR FEET AND CHEERED!!! That was FABULOUS!

Getting back on track he says America needs affordable healthcare. He wants to strengthen Health Savings Accounts, which is a great idea. But he also wants medical liability reform and links it to the shortage of OB/GYNs in certain places. I still say that congress should investigate the insurance companies to determine their complicity in this scandal.

Energy: Clean, safe nuclear. Zero-emission coal and alternative fuels. He wants to make a new kind of ethanol practical within six years. And he wants to replace 755 of our mideast oil imports by 2025. He's GOT to make that happen; he can't just say we're going to do it. What's the PLAN?

American Competitive Initiative to help us compete in math & science - double federal commitment to physical sciences over next 10 years. Make the research tax credit permanent. Encourage kids to take more math & science and make sure the courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. He wants to train 100,000 teachers to teach science. Question: who pays? Now he sounds like that hysterical woman from The Simpsons "Won't someone do it for the children".....

Now he gets into culture. He's worried about activist courts that try to redefine marriage. Interesting that he could say this in the same breath that he says we must treat each other with respect. He is the ultimate hypocrite. He's such a fucking hypocrite. What a fucking hypocrite.

He goes on to say that a hopeful society (whatever the hell that is) helps people in need. Yet he refuses to release executive branch documents that would show they KNEW the devastation that Hurricane Katrina would cause, yet professed to be completely surprised. Did I mention he's a fucking hypocrite?

I'm sick of this guy. He has GOT TO GO. He makes me puke.

Thoughts on a New Year

The new year is just a few years old and I have a few comments on the new year, and a few that have passed:

1) At our low key dinner last night I recalled the celebration six years ago at the end of the last millenium (which, yes, I know actually ended at the end of 2000). I remember feeling a sense of awe--remembering the wars and bloodshed that had characterised large swaths of the prior millenium, and wondering what the dawning millenium held for us all. This is just a progress report to note that, so far, this millenium has been one of war and bloodshed. This troubles me.

2) A friend of mine says we should "beware men in robes". Think about it. Judges, Ayatollahs, Clergy. I'd wager a substantial portion of the world's problems originated with men in robes.

3) I've decided the "The Liberal (read: "Jewish") War on Christmas" should more appropriately be called "The Fundamentalist Christian War on Everyone and Everything Else". I am and always have been glad to say "Merry Christmas" to my Christian friends. All I ask in return is that they remember I'm Jewish and celebrate a holiday called "Chanukah". This occasionally has proven very difficult, as I have noticed the people most insistent on the words "Merry Christmas" seem to have the hardest time uttering the words "Happy Chanukah". This may not be true universally, but it is certainly true in my experience.

4) "Brokeback Mountain" was an exceptional film and should win something at this years Academy Awards. However, I just saw "Capote" and feel that Phillip Seymour Hoffman should win Best Actor.

5) I wish people would work harder to just get along in 2006.

Happy New Year.

Best Idea Since Sliced Bread?

One recent afternoon I was perusing the website of the Service Employees Internation Union, when I came across a contest the union is sponsoring. It has it's own website called http://www.sinceslicedbread.com

The purpose of this website is to solicit ideas from "ordinary people" to learn what they suggest to improve the lot of our country. The winner of this contest receives $100,000 and two runners up will receive $50,000 each. Well, heck that was enough to entice me to enter.

Following is my entry. Following that, based upon a friend's recent admission that he didn't really understand my economics gobbledygook, I'll try to explain.

******My Idea*****

The economic chasm between labor and ownership restricts growth and threatens our ability to meet future challenges.

Conventional wisdom justifies this disparity by supply and demand theory. But organized labor can shift this equation by providing seed-capital to startup businesses which embrace democratic labor standards like universal profit-sharing, and low pay ratios between highest- and lowest-paid workers. As they prosper, these businesses will challenge their regressive competitors for the supply of good labor, spurring adoption of progressive employment practices and raising wages at every level of demand.

Encouraging democratic capitalism through competition rather than confrontation, can ignite an era of wealth creation unseen since the industrial revolution, and historically unique in its benefit to workers and owners alike. The resulting economic expansion will increase incomes, grow tax revenues even while reducing tax rates, and permit us to retire our national debt. Achieving these goals will help us to secure a future of unimagined possibilities.

*****END*****

First, I should explain that contestants are limited to 175 words. So the sort of explanation that might accompany the verbiage had to be omitted. But here is my idea in a (slightly larger) nutshell:

Regardless of the good role played by unions in the lives of the working class, the membership and clout of unions have diminished significantly over the last 50 years. I believe it's because arguments based upon entitlement (i.e., "we deserve this", or "you owe me that") run distinctly counter the the American psyche. People in our society don't act in a certain way because they're told to; they act in a certain way if they believe it makes sense.

Thus, I believe organized labor will win more adherents if their arguments make economic sense. To accomplish this, labor unions should use their funds to provide seed money for businesses which agree to operate by democratic labor standards. Most notably those standards should include a low ratio between the hourly earnings of the highest-paid worker and those of the lowest. In addition, it should include universal profit sharing among all workers.

Think of it--restaurants, auto mechanics, brokerage firms--all operated with flat pay ratios by people who have a vested interest in the success of the enterprise. As these business prosper (and many surely would) they would attract the best labor and force competitors to adopt similar labor standards. The result could be astounding, with workers at every level having more money to spend and increasing demand for goods and services to an extent not experienced since before the industrial revolutions. As incomes rose, along with savings and investment, tax revenues would rise, even with lower marginal rates.

Few things, to my way of thinking, could better help us to experience a new economic renaissance than this. And the best thing of all, no one loses--even stockholders which, by value, are largely the wealthiest class, would make huge returns.

Is anybody listening?

Peace, Sister Rosa

Rosa Parks has died. This icon of the civil rights movement has gone to her eternal glory having lived a life of immeasureable meaning. And in death, she has been honored by the rich and famous, as well as those who are poor and humble. Fittingly, she even became the first woman to lie in state in the nation's capital rotunda.

To me, Rosa Parks symbolized the quiet, yet powerful statement that every individual is worthy of dignity and equal treatment under law. No more. No less. Rest in peace, Sister Rosa.

Shana Tova

Tonight at sundown begins the Jewish New Year. For those of us predisposed to making resolutions, the extra chance afforded by having two distinct new years is quite an opportunity. I have made my own very general resolution for this new year, and it's not necessarily for publication here. However, I look seriously to this new year, and hope that I can use it for good things.

Unlike the conventional (read: Christian) new year, Rosh HaShana is more of a reflective time than an unabashed celebration. It begins a ten-day penitential period which ends with the holiest day of our year, which is Yom Kippur. More on that (hopefully), as that date approaches. But Jews believe that on Rosh HaShana God determines the fate of every person, and that on Yom Kippur that fate is sealed. The days between offer us an opportunity to avert a severe determination by repenting genuinely for our sins. Taken literally or not, the concept is a good one--that true repentence can lead us to a better life.

Related to that notion, it's also common to apologize in person to those we have offended during the year. This is a more difficult task than it may seem. Oftentimes, people we've offended may be people we genuinely dislike. So to approach them to seek forgiveness can be, well, awkward. Other times, people we've offended may not be Jewish, or at all religious. Thus, a solemn request for forgiveness is likely to be met by a rolling of the eyes and some sense that we've gone a bit whacky. Nevertheless, it's something to strive for because forgiveness is healthy, in my opinion.

With the world in such turmoil, it's scary to stand at the beginning of a year--wondering what fate has in store of us. I've heard it say that everyone should pray because, you just never know, there might be a God. Well, I pray that the coming year brings more health to the sick, more rest to the weary, more strength to the weak, more humility to the strong and more peace to the world. More personally, I hope my family and friends all remain safe, healthy and happy.

Shana Tova.

Finally a Picture!!

I just figured out how to add a photo to a blog entry, so here's one of my recent favorites. Bill took this picture of me this summer when we were on Martha's Vineyard. What a great trip it was! We stayed at The Winnetu Inn & Resort in Edgartown, and it was just beautiful! It was definitely a vacation that we'd like to repeat often in the future.

William J. Bennett is a Pontificating, Hypocritical Gasbag

It's been a while since my last blog entry. Maybe the problems appearing in the media--floods, wars, deficits--just seem so enormous as to be unapproachable. So why even try to write about them, right? But now I have something to write about. As I lay awake at three a.m., my heart was pounding and my mind was racing--all swirling around one question: Who the heck does William Bennett think he is?

If you've been living under a rock, or have just been so overwhelmed by news of floods, wars and deficits, I mean William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education and self-appointed arbiter of all things moral in our world, gambling addict, and de facto racist. What's a de facto racist? Unlike a de jure racist who actually set out consciously to be a racist, a de facto racist just shows his racism by the effect of his words or deeds.

What bothers me about William Bennett is too long and detailed to list here. But what bothers me about him at this moment is not. Apparently, some "enabler" has seen fit to provide Mr. Bennett with a radio show (as if, say, dice to a gambler, or whiskey to a lush). On his radio show, Mr. Bennett received a call from a man seeking Mr. Bennett's opinion for the proposition whether all the fetuses aborted since the legalization of Roe v. Wade might be the missing delta whose societal presence could erase the shortfall for Social Security funding. The notion, frankly, is possible, I suppose. But why stop there? Might one of them have discovered a cure for cancer? Or perfected solar power? Or have been merely a loving and respectful human being? Perhaps yes to all those questions. But Mr. Bennett chose to see a darker side, um, no pun intended.

Instead, Mr. Bennett advised his caller against such an argument on the basis that not all of those aborted fetuses would have become productive citizens. One wonders precisely what was swirling through the vast empty spaces of Bennett's mind at that point--what exactly he was picturing. Something tells me it wasn't the possible life of one of those aborted fetuses as he was imaginarily truding to work each day trying to make the world a better place. Nope. Something tells me he was imagining a poor, uneducated, black person sitting in a prison cell. We'll never know, because we can't yet read minds. But I suggest we can draw some conclusions based on what Mr. Bennett said next. For most of us (at least for most of us not actively involved in electoral politics) what we say bears some relation to what we're thinking. And what Mr. Bennett said next was an absolute humdinger. Here is the exchange, verbatim (as provided at www.mediamatters.org):

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

I always knew Bennett was an offensive jackass. But who knew he was also such a moron? First, Bennett could not possibly "know" that aborting every black baby in the country would reduce crime, because there is not one empirical fact to support such an unspeakable notion (ah, yes, would that the term "unspeakable notion" still meant somehing).

It's also telling how he next backtracked--obfuscated, really--by saying that aborting every black baby would be "an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do..."? Notice his first word was "impossible". Good God Almighty! It sounds as if that sociopathic, moronic jackass had previously considered such an evil notion, but merely concluded was "impossible". Ponder that for just a second. Please. If it were actually "possible", might he never have proceeded with the rest of his sentence? One conjures a mental picture of Hitler, Goering and other white, educated and, for their day, productive Nazis sitting around a table pondering, "....but if it were only possible....". Truly, Bennett's attempt to minimize his racist notion should frighten even the marginally civilized.

But for the record, when it comes to aborting all black babies in the country as a means to reducing crime, Bennett is as wrong as he could be. I for one would be so incensed at the mere suggestion of such evil, that I would expect to commit a whole slew of crimes Mr. Bennett never even considered. A lot of property damage, for one thing. And maybe some assaults and batteries--all against the evil thugs who'd dare propose such a notion. Yep, it's highly unlikely my disobedience to such a morally reprehensible proposition would be even remotely civil; I'd make it my purpose to commit a whole lot of statutorily "criminal" acts against anyone in a position to carry out such a genocidal notion. And I hope I wouldn't be alone. So as to just this point, Mr. Bennett is probably wrong--I would do my best to see to it that "crime" in this country went way, way up if such a notion were ever attempted.

And further, why did Mr. Bennett choose to discuss aborting "black babies" as way to reduce crime? Why not "white babies"? Really. And, for the record the dark-skinned people to which Mr. Bennett refers are not black; they're brown. Just as Mr. Bennett himself is more of a peachy, pinkish beige--not white. Even if brown people comprise a disproportionate share of the prison population, there are certainly reasons for that, and they mostly have to do with pinkish-beige cops more than with brown people. But Mr. Bennett spoke in absolute terms. So in real numbers, at least by Bennett's sick and twisted logic, one might expect to reduce crime even more by aborting all "white" babies. Mathematically, at least, this seems so because there are so many more "white" people than "black"--yes, even in the prison system. But Mr. Bennett never suggested that as a possibility, and focused instead on aborting "black" babies. Perhaps it's because he could never even fathom such a thing. Go figure.

William Bennett is probably a sick man, mentally speaking. He certainly has an inflated sense of self-importance. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I suspect there are some worrisome things going on in his mind. What else could possibly possess anyone to even think of such a dark, evil thing? Want to discuss abortion? Social Security? Go ahead. But to drag into the discussion such an abominable notion as Bennett's is to reveal inner workings of a mind which is patently disturbing.

At the very least, someone should pull the plug on his radio show. I'm all for free speech, but I'm not sure his free speech deserves a microphone and a broadcast tower.

Go Pistons!

I'm a car nut, pure and simple. At 3 years old, I could name every car on the street and tell you its model year. I still can, though as I get older, it's admittedly more difficult to distinguish between model years. But I know cars--especially Detroit iron from the 1960s and 70s. If one measures the loves of one's life by the hours spent dreaming about it, then Cars of this vintage are surely my great loves. This is why I'm pained to write that I see what others also see in the American cars produced today: they just ain't got it.

Take the 1965 Pontiac Bonneville. Sure, it was built on the same platform as its sister cars the Chevrolet Impala/Caprice and Buick LeSabre/Electra. But it was a heck of an exciting car--long and low, with truly distinctive styling and performance. The 2005 Bonneville, by contrast, is such a snoozer that it's now doomed for distinction, despite GM's attempt to drop in fast V8 engines, heads-up displays, and the like. Why? General Motors' design talent is still in the decades-long hibernation it entered in1977, or 1985, or 1993 or any of the other years that its cars kept getting uglier and uglier.

Or take the Camaro? Whoops, it's gone, too. Or the Mercury Cougar? D'oh, also gone. Jeez, does any popular nameplate remain from GM's heyday? Thunderbird! Sure, it's not dying until next year, but it's still here, so it's fair game. There's no arguing the car is a looker--that is, from 20 paces. Get closer to the interior and it's decidedly bargain basement. If you believe FoMoCo, the car wasn't supposed to have a long life; supposedly they knew it would only have a brief appeal for consumers. Thay What?! Could you imagine Mercedes introducing a new SL convertible with the expectation that it would disappear after a few years? If this is the sort of long-term thinking coming out of Dearborn, then maybe we need to reevaluate Ford's future.

I could go on and on, and so I shall for just a short bit. Chevrolet, for example, has a perfectly good new Malibu. Well, perfectly good as in "oatmeal is 'perfectly good' for you". Maybe. But does it make my mouth water, and my palms sweat? Um, not unless you consider the bile rising from my gut when I think about it. And the new Ford 500 and it's stablemate the "Freestyle"? If you want to ruin an exceptionally good Volvo platform, just ask the guys at Ford to top it with a bland shoebox. They'll be happy to oblige and they get their marketing department to pass it off as desireable. Shame on them. And Chrysler's no better (300C notwithstanding--we'll discuss that later). Their midsize offerings would embarrass even a Chinese automaker, if that were possible. And the Neon? Good grief. All the build quality of a '65 Rambler without the sexy looks.

This is not to say I disdain GM, Ford or even Chrysler. Nein! These companies have a storied history during much of the 20th century of helping to make America great. And this is why I believe they will rise again. How could I make such an assertion with so much evidence to the contrary? Let's face it, the Big Three suffers from more than a stable of boring product. They face costs for legacy pension and medical care promises accumulated when the fortunes of the American auto industry looked far different than today. These costs, in the many billions of dollars, have pundits actually talking about bankruptcy as a survival option for GM. Yes, GM. Is nothing sacred? Next thing you know, Germans are going to tell us how to bring back the glory days of American Iron. ....ahh, the Chrysler 300.

Here's a car so audacious that it has people flocking into the showrooms of the same company that brought us the K-Car. The 300 C is a big, fat, heavy, in-your-face sedan with "up-yours" looks and a Hemi-powered V8 to make it happen. And as unremarkable as its interior may be, it rides atop what is, at its core, componentry from a Mercedes Benz E Class. Add a feature that shuts down some of the eight cylinders at cruising speeds and you have a car that would make its competitors whince. If only it had any.

Yes, American car makers can not only survive, but thrive. But time's waisting, and they haven't a moment to lose. For Detroit not only to survive, but to thrive at the expense of Stuttgart and Tokyo, here's what they have to do:

Every car has to have 1) alluring interior and exterior design, 2) exceptional FPC (fuel economy, performance and crashworthiness), and 3) superior build quality. There is nothing--literally nothing--else buyers of any car are looking for. If every American car leaves it factory with passing grades in all three categories, Detroit would rise again. But here's the catch - these passing grades need to be for real. No more feeding us junky Tauruses, Impalas and Caravans and hope their cars will seem appealing by holding the camera at just such an angle...

Drive a Mercedes Benz. Or BMW. Or Lexus. Or Acura. Or Toyota. Or even a Scion, for Chrisakes, and you'll know what I mean. The country that defeated Hitler once and Saddam twice, and put men on the moon CAN DO THIS. We just have to try.

Good Times

My nephew Micah became a Bar Mitzvah this past weekend. It was a wonderful family affair. Micah did a wonderful job--having first led weekday shacharit services the Thursday prior to his bar mitzvah, and then leading the entire service (including the preliminary service) on "the big day". I was really amazed how at ease he appeared for such a big occasion; he really approached it with amazing aplomb for a 13-year old.

The service was very much also a "family affair", as many family members were included at various parts of the service. Some read Torah, others had aliyot, others still read prayers, or opened and closed the ark. A very nice job on Micah's part to be sure. Even his younger sister got into the act and read The Prayer for Israel all in Hebrew! Most impressive.

It was very fun to see everyone, too! Of course, it's always good to see my Mom & Jim. And my other nieces and nephews are really growing up nicely: Amy, with her big job in pharmaceutical sales. Seth, who seems very happy studying physics at Columbia. Adam, with his nearly 4.0/4.0 accum at Rutgers still seems to enjoy his "bad boy" image, but appears happy, and is very delightful to talk with. And on and on--from Sarah, who seems to have boundless energy, to Prom King Brad who's about to start a great adventure at college, it's really great to see everyone thriving so well.

My sister, Sondra, and her husband, Frank, did a great job preparing for the weekend. Frank and his father helped prepare Micah for the occasion by studying with him, and Sondra planned a very lovely party. Some pictures will hopefully follow on this site.

It's so nice to get together for happy occasions. In my opinion, this is what families are supposed to do. Even when we live far apart, we make sure to share special events with each other--which is what makes events "special" in the first place. More than once I looked around at all our relatives and thought about how lucky were were to be able to share such an occasion together. Times are good right now, but we all know what the bad times are like, and that makes it all the more sweet to celebrate the good times.

Email Exchange

Following is an exchange I had recently with a very esteemed colleague at work. He's an incredibly bright guy, and he occupies a different "political space" than I do. We both share a deep interest in politics and world affairs, and I started a missive which ended up in an exchange of ideas which, in retrospect, I thought would be worthy of the blogosphere. Of course, his identity must remain secret, and will only be revealed when he dies.

***START OF EMAIL EXCHANGE***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:38 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: Point of Agreement

I think we can both agree on the following: The 2008 presidential primaries of both parties will be out-and-out slugfests and (at least to we politico-phyles) loads of fun.

Ds
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Wes Clark
John Edwards

Rs
John McCain
Sam Brownback
Bill Frist
George Pataki

Any others?

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:41 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I hope you are right,but we've not had a tight primary race since when?--the repubs when reagan was second to ford in 1976,and on the dem side since 1972?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:48 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

'84 was actually a pretty stiff contest b/t Hart(pence) and Mondale. But that ended with some "Monkey Business".

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/ElectPandC.html

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:00 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I think donna rice won that one---who do u think will win the two contests?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:06 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Rs
Depends who splits the vote. If both Brownback and Frist run, I see the possibility of a McCain victory. He could probably beat any Dem on the list right now, but the Neandrathal wing of your party may not let him get the chance.

Ds
Hillary looks tough to beat if she runs. Kerry still sits on a lot of campaign cash. Wes Clark will have a tough message. I doubt Edwards will run. If it's those three, Hillary wins.

McCain beats Hillary beats Frist. Clark will be the Ds VP choice.

***
From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:17 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Condi over hillary here.it appears to me you don't consider rudy g. as likely,whereas I think he'll be strong.fortunately the repubs have many candidates who've been correct in their judgement on the major issues,while the dems have only joe lieberman.

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:22 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Neither Condi nor Rudi will run. And don't get partisan here--you're wrong about Rs and major issues, and I might be forced to show you why, point by point. Rather keep it agreeable.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:23 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

You expect a neanderthal to be non-partisan?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:26 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

U bet. And stop dragging your knuckles on the ground, while your at it….

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:41 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Standing upright now……my point is that enough time has elapsed since the two major issues have been dealt with that one can empirically determine political judgement---the major domestic issues of the bush admin have been terrorism and economic revival---so anyone who voted in favor of the patriot act whether dem,repub or independent cast the correct vote,since we have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since the act passed.the most important aspect of the move to revive the economy was the reduction of income tax rates,and obviously the reduction has worked so any vote in favor of reduction was right.turning to foreign policy,the major issue has been the attacks against the taliban and saddam,and since both of those countries are now democracies,at the cost of relatively few lives,any person who supported the invasions was correct in their judgement.

***
From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:58 PM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

1. Terrorism - the only reason there hasn't been more terrorism is because Al Qaida hasn't yet decided to cause any. To hold otherwise is to demonstrate a hubris that is both frightening and totally unsupported by historical example. Be it the IRA, the PLO, ETA, Chechen rebels, Tamil separatists or some other violent group, governments far better schooled than ours in terror have only learned how to fight it--not how to stop it. If and when AQ decides to strike again, they will. I'd put Ariel Sharon's terror fighting skills against GWBJr.s any day, and AS has had only minor success.

2. Economy - your definition of "worked" is not very expansive. Bankruptcy rates are at all time highs, pensions promised by major corporations are vanishing at a rate higher than ever, gasoline prices are at historical highs, the Republicans have taken our budget from surplus to an enormous deficit, but apparently you think the economy has revived because wealthy people got huge tax cuts. To quote a favorite of yours, "I respectfully disagree".

3. Foreign Policy - "I respectfully disagree" with the characterization of 1,865 lives as "relatively few". And I thought the President said we were there for WMD? Apparently our mission changed. I was one of the people "correct in [my] judgement" by supporting the invasion. But that judgement was based on our Presidents apparent lie that Saddam had WMDs.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I won't bother citing all the facts to make my case,just a few--relatively few compares to the 31,000 we lost saving south korea and the 50,000 we lost in vietnam,while saving countless other asians from communism through our efforts---we have freed millions directly in afghanistan and iraq,with many more to come by indirect means in lebanon,egypt,palestine……as far as the economy goes,just read steven wieting---and on terrorism---by your measure there is no way any administration could be judged successful……consider this………if everything that has taken place since sept 11 had happened under a democratic admin….i think dems would sing a different tune----and as far as being right on the war…..i'm talking about possible candidates,not your esteemed self

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:36 PM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I stand on my earlier words. Especially #1. And you're right--there is no way to judge success in war on terror. Te genie is out of the bottle; as I said, we can only fight a war on terror. Only a fool thinks we can win it. The winning is in the fighting. It will now always be about waiting for the next shoe to drop, so you were were at least right about that. Leaving for the day. We can continue tomorrow, if you wish. Cheers.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:43 PM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

You've twisted my words---I said that by your measure no admin cud be judged successful---becuz if the only reason that we've not had an attack is because the terrorists have decided not to,then the admin never is credited for its actions.

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2005 8:45 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

… I wasn't going to respond (had actually deleted in hopes of starting a new day), but just had to, b/c I think this is a very important point psychologically in our war on terror.

I credit the administration for its efforts in the war against terror. But our war on terror goes back either to Reagan (Marine barracks) or, domestically, to Clinton (Oklahoma City). Pre-9/11 Presidents (including 43) fought terror with less stridency than is needed now--and, in retrospect, with tragic results.

But a pause in domestic terrorist acts doesn't mean success--unless you are measuring with a stopwatch something that history tells us should be measured with a calendar. There were nearly eight years b/t WTC attacks. Were Clinton's actions in the war on terror successful post-WTC attack #1, only to be undone by Bush's failures? Of course not.

"Success" isn't a dynamic concept. It either is or it isn't. The only variable is whether there can still be a terrorist strike on US soil. God forbid there were, that would no more mean this administration's actions failed, then it means now they have succeeded.

We fight the battles as they materialize with the expectation eventually of winning the war--but that will only come when the constant threat of terrorism is eliminated, which is to say maybe never.

This is our Hundred Years War. I think short-term characterizations are illogical and dangerous.

God Is.

One of my sisters recently mentioned in an email her belief that religion is a bunch of hooey. I'm paraphrasing, mind you, but that adequetely conveys the sentiment she expressed. And she is not alone. Her viewpoint is shared by a great many people, and it usually follows the following thought pattern:

Religion divides people, causes wars, gives some people an excuse to kill other people, and generally allows one group to think it's superior to another. Therefore religion is hooey.

This thought pattern is illogical; even if the predicates are sometimes true (and I think they are), they are not always true. Other things can also cause the ills noted above, and religion can also engender humanity's best traits--respect for life, love of peace, charity and humility. Thus, the only permissible conclusion is that religion can be a bunch of hooey, but it can also be a wonderful thing that elevates the human condition. So how do we guard against the former and seek the latter? God seems like a pretty good place to start.

God is basic to religion, and I can't remember a time that I ever doubted God's existence. How can even the smallest particle exist without a Creator? Everything has to have been created somehow. Call it science, nature, "big bang", randomness--what have you. Who made that very first particle, or gas molecule, that some say randomly became our universe? To me the answer is clear: God.

That said, and secure in my belief, I also recognize that my belief in God is nothing more than an inferrence I have drawn from the evidence available to me. He has not verbalized to me that He exists. Nor has She appeared visually to me in any physical form. And for every convincing article of proof, there could also be another explanation. Thus, I have to accept that my inferrence could be wrong. I accept there might not be a God, but I do not believe it.

The vastness and the interrelationship of creation makes me even more convinced of God's existence. It's at this point that many religious people get into trouble, because beyond belief lies interpretation. I have learned to be very skeptical of declarative statements about God which are more than two words long. God is this. Or God wants that. Or, worse, God hates the other thing. As likely as not, everything beyond the second word lacks proof. Surely God wants something and, hopefully, it's for people to love each other. And I suppose God hates other things, like greed, arrogance and violence. And I could suggest what God "is", but it would just be a guess. The purest, truest, declaratve statment about God, is merely that "God is". Beyond that, we just can't know.

Those who claim exclusivity with God approach religion with a hubris that is factually insupportable and morally inexcuseable. We should recognize this fraud and label it such. But to deny the relevance or the goodness of religion, is to throw the baby out with the bath water. The bad things often done in the name of religion do not come from religion itself but, rather, from its perversion. Interpret God. Praise God. Worship God however you choose--whether or not within confines of traditional religion. Or don't, if you feel the Creator of all existence neither seeks nor need such worship. But whichever you choose, do so with humility.

Most people think that agnosticism is the opposite of religion. I disgree. I think the opposite of religion is hubris. Purporting to recognize the vast mystery of God while purporting also to know God's thoughts, wishes and desires, is hubris, pure and simple. If someone says it's impermissible to question or doubt their interpretation of religion, then reject that person--but not necessarily his religion. Be it the Pope or some other learned prelate, remember: no one can say authoritatively anything more than "God is". Beyond that, declarative statements are mere speculation.

If the goal is to worship God, then it should not matter how one chooses to do so. When a person demands that someone else's worship of God is wrong unless it's like his own, it's not worship he seeks, but conformance, which has become his God. None of us can know more about God than His mere and awesome existence, so it is especially arrogant--and, again, pure speculation--to presume that some praise pleases God while other praise does not. I suspect God is as pleased to hear the praise of Christians as He is Muslims, Jews, Hindus and those not affiliated with organized religion.

So look around. The oceans, the trees, the heavens, your own body, even a sunny day. It all attests to the power and design of a Creator. Anything that acknowledges just this much can't be hooey.

Salute to Service - An Update

For the record, Dave Bellon, has returned from fighting in Iraq. He is safe at home and getting back into his life. That's all I know so far, but I'm glad to know that this friend, and true hero, has returned from war.

Deep Throat

One of the last, great secrets from the 1970s Watergate scandal was revealed today: The Identity of Deep Throat. As the gentle reader will likely know, Deep Throat, was the journalistic source who--under "deep background"--provided information and guidance to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, ultimately bringing an end to the Nixon presidency.

Deep Throat was apparently W. Mark Felt--at the time of the scandal, the second-ranking official in the FBI.

As I write this, I'm listening to convicted felons Chuck Coulson and G. Gordon Liddy tell CNN interviewers that, by leaking information to the Washington Post, Mr. Felt acted dishonorably. Day is night, white is black, pigs fly, and nothing is what it seems. So rotten to the core was the entire Nixon Administration, that its stench still hangs over our nation's capital. These despicable people, led by a despotic ruler with only contempt for the rule of law, broke any number of laws to advance the political agenda of the President. They were convicted for their crimes, and were imprisoned. Truly the only unjust aspect of their imprisonment is that it ended.

And here sit these unrepentant traitors daring to impugn one of the few high-ranking American of the time with the guts and determination to defy a lawless President and his criminal administration. It's as unfathomable as it is unsurprising; having first lied about their activities, these traitors now seek to bend the truth regarding the criminality of their actions.

Make no mistake, W. Mark Felt is the most unommon of American hero. Whatever his motive, he saw something so wrong as to imperil American democracy, and he stepped forward, at great danger to himself, to make sure that our great free press shone its light brightly upon the wrongdoers.

Well done, Agent Felt. Well done, indeed. Even thirty years later, a grateful nation remains in your debt.

A Salute to Service

I have a good friend -- one I haven't seen in many years, but a good friend nevertheless -- serving in Iraq. His name is Lt. Col. David G. Bellon. I met David during law school, where we both enjoyed talking about politcs, religion and world events. I had been awed by David's decision promptly after graduation to "upgrade" his Marine JAG commission to active duty status when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Dave had a patriotic streak a mile wide, but this was astounding.

Dave served well and safely during the first Iraq campaign, and returned stateside where he continued to serve, married and had kids. Later he started a law practice. So when the second Iraq campaign began, I was surprised to learn that Dave "re-upped" to go lead and fight. Upon reflection however, I shouldn't have been surprised. That patriotic streak of Dave's, which I had mistakenly believed to be a mile wide, was apparently much larger.

To my knowledge, Dave has been serving in Iraq since the earliest stages of this campaign. I, and many of Dave's other friends and admirers, think about him frequently and wish him safety and success in his mission.

If you want to learn a little more about Dave, you can visit a website which, I believe, was set up by his family: http://www.thegreenside.com/

Godspeed, Dave.

Keeping Kosher Enough

I have several distinct childhood memories of my family's experience with Kashrut. Probably my first such memory is my mother soaking meat in tall and round white metal container with a black rim near our back door in our house on Broadleigh in Columbus, Ohio. I remember asking her what she was doing and she said something like "I have to soak the meat to get the blood out so it can be kosher". I was about 4 years old at the time.

Another memory is of shopping with my mother at a store called Martin's, in Columbus, Ohio ("Marty's" to cool Jews). It was a kosher market, and I think there were even two locations at one point, but to a very young child it was merely the grocery. My mother and I would always check out with a clerk named "Ossie", a larger-than-life, soul-mother-of-the-earth sort of black woman--at least to me. Ossie and I "had a thing going on", and this 3- or 4- or 5-year old always loved Ossie; we were buddies, and I always looked forward to seeing her when Mom shopped at Marty's.

I also remember that, after we moved to St. Louis, my family stopped buying kosher meat. My mother said it was because the market was so far away (about 8 miles) and so expensive. We did, however continue to have two sets of dishes and silverware. And I remember my father railing against having margerine (pareve margerine, mind you) with meat meals because it was "being like the goyim". That pronouncement sparked endless debates around a dinner table which encouraged debate, but my father was, well, the father, so that was that. He would also check, on "fleischik" nights, to make sure our salad dressings contained no cheese, and he would only eat Campbell's Vegetarian Vegetable Soup, because the other kind was made with beef stock. One time, during Pesach, he really let me have it when, on a trip to Glaser's Drug Store, I bought a Hershey Bar (for $0.10). "Don't you remember it's Passover!?", he scolded.

"Sorry", I replied. "I didn't know chocolate bars were made with bread". To this day, I don't see what's so bad about a chocolate bar on Pesach--especially in such an ambiguously kosher family as mine.

Then there was my mother instructing us whenever my grandmother would visit, that we mustn't tell Grandma the meat isn't kosher. Apparently, even grown children care what their parents think, but only for a while. Some time later, I remember my mother, grandmother and I were eating at McDonald's. As always, my grandmother ordered "Filet of Fish", but I had a cheeseburger. Actually, make that a double cheeseburger. And a shake. As I unwrapped my aromatic treasure, my grandmother commented disapprovingly that my mom was letting me get cheese on my McDonald's hamburger. We're at freaking MCDONALD'S and my grandmother wanted me not to have cheese on my double treyf-burger. My mother told my grandmother, in so many words, to mind her own business and get with the times.

Later, when we moved to our smaller house on Springport, Mom jettisoned the second set of dishes due, she said, to space constraints in our new kitchen. From then on, the watchwords were "kosher style"--until, a few years later when "kosher" had even less to do with "style". After that, our relationship to kashrut was "why bother". So we didn't.

So it is against this mosaic of experiences that I have always approached Kashrut. For a while as a much younger man, I tried to keep Kosher, but I stopped. And when I realized lightning wouldn't strike me down if I ate pork bacon, I did that, too, but never in my house!! Perhaps another blog someday about people keeping a kosher house and eating treyf when they go out.

Kosher meat was seldom a question, and separating meat from milk, almost never a thought. Deep down, though, it always bothered me that I was so far removed from kosher eating, but I just never lived the sort of life where keeping kosher was easy. And trust me--my friends and family had plenty bad to say about those who tried. The most caustic comments about some Jews' audacity to keep kosher will always come from other Jews. The fact is, to many "modern" Jews, keeping kosher is irrelevant to the daily lives we've created for ourselves; it's just not done, and when it is, eyes roll.

But still, I always had a little spark of excitment when I'd walk into a kosher restaurant, or bakery, or market. It was like coming home again. On visits to St. Louis, I'd meet my friend, Brent, at Simon Kohn's kosher market & deli for lunch. I loved being there and eating their food, but always worried that I'd be discovered as a fraud. Surely some passer-by would see me in the window and shout "I've seen that man eating at McDonald's"!!! Oh, the embarrassment.

Not exactly for that reason, I decided about two months ago to keep what I call "Kosher Enough". I've stopped eating meat that wasn't killed according to the laws of Kashrut, and I don't mix meat with dairy. When I go out, I'm essentially a "fishetarian", and I'm as kosher as I'm comfortable with when we eat at home. Ergo, "kosher 'enough'". I'm sure there are many who think my "kosher enough" isn't kosher at all; but I get some comfort knowing that at least I'm trying (and also from knowing some people would find fault no matter how hard I tried).

Some day, I may even decide to keep a kosher kitchen with a full three sets of dishes--meat, milk & treyf (don't forget I have a Catholic husband who's not obligated to eat kosher food). If I'm out to prove anything, it's only to myself--that in a normal life, it's possible to honor such an important commandment. In so doing, it might be nice to show other Jews, though, that people honoring the commandment of Kashrut can do so without seeming offensive to other Jews who've chosen not to.

So far, it's been remarkably--even shockingly--easy. But I know the hardest part is just around the corner. When, for example, I eat at a friend's home, or attend an event where the meal is planned in advance, I'll have to try to stick to my kashrut without making a mini-scene. It'll be hard, but after I do it, I'm sure it'll get easier.

All that said, if I'm successful at this old, new "kosher thing", I will dearly miss pepperoni pizza.

Valentina Zubova - In Memoriam

Today I received some very sad news -- my second cousin, Valentina Zubova, died. I hardly knew Valentina, having met her really only once when my parents brought her to my Washington University LL.M. graduation. She stayed with us as my home in St. Louis, and I remember her as a very lovely guest. I think Valentina was only in her thirties when she died.

As if her death at such a young age weren't tragedy enough, there are other circumstances with make learning of Valentina's death all the more difficult. First of all, she was from a branch of the family that were left in Russia after my grandfather came to America. So in a certain "U.S.-centric" way, I feel that's almost the first tragic part of the story. I have been able to grow up and live in relative freedom and prosperty, while Valentina lived under a repressive system--first, in the U.S.S.R., and then later in a slightly more free Belarus.

But in addition to that, Valentina had never married, nor had children. She lived with an elderly father who depended on her, I'm told, for much of the facilities of daily life. He is now left mostly alone, depending on other cousins to check in on him.

The news of Valentina's death was also very difficult on my mother. After Mom & Jim had visited the family over in Russia in the early 1990s, Mom had become close with Valentina. I distinctly remember her saying how much Valentina "looked like a Cohen" (my mother's family name). She and Valentina would communicate via email and the occasional phone call, and it was a fond hope of my mother's to bring Valentina back to this country for another extended visit. "Who knows", my mother would muse, "maybe she could meet a nice man over here".

On the day of Valentina's death, she had sent an email to my parents telling them that, after her long trip to Minsk (the capital of Belarus--my cousin lived in Gomil), she had been denied a visa. To this day I'm not sure whether it was the United States government or that of Belarus which denied her visa, but it was clear she ws very upset. They had essentially taken her $100 application fee and provided no explanation--merely telling her she's free to reapply. Later that day, in her last email to my parents, she wrote, "in my heart, I am already in America".

My folks sent several responses to that email, and even tried to marshall the eforts of extended family to intercede with U. S. Government officials in an effort to award a visa to Valentina. But after no response, Mom tried calling. The only person to answer the phone was Valentina's father who did not speak any English. Unbeknownst to my mother, he was trying furiously to communicate, in Russian, that Valentina had died. But he could not.

After a few days, my parents received an overnight letter from someone in Houston. All it said was, "Valentina Zubova died", and it gave the telephone number of someone in Russia or Belarus--presumably someone who spoke English--who could provide details. My mother took this news very hard. It wasn't just her fondness for Valantina, or her efforts to bring her to this country. Valentina was just 38 years old when she died. Death is sad at any age, but even more so at such a young age as this.

Despite her young age or, as likely, because of it, there was surely much about Valentina I never learned. She had friends, she was very successful in her career, and she surely had many talents--one of which, I know, was a very warm and ready smile. But now she has died, leaving people on two continents very sad over her loss.

Stellaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Why do the people I work with insist on placing food at their desks for their colleagues to nosh all day long? And I'm not talking about just the typical candy dish. No, these folks do it UP: Chips, dips, cookies, casseroles, cakes, brownies, powdered donuts and more cookies. Do they think I don't get enough food at home? Do I look malnourished? Do I appear so underpaid that I can't afford my own snacks from one of the five restaurants downstairs? I think not.

So why all the food? I have a cynical, but likely reason: passive-aggressiveness. Think about it; no one likes to drink alone. Why would they want to gorge alone? They don't. So they bring in a shmorgasbord of artery clogging goodies to drag the rest of us down with them. I doubt their actions are intentional, but I think my thesis is compelling.

The piéce de resistance, though, is the parade of carb-addicted co-workers who saunter up to the food, oh, every five minutes, as though on every pass they're surprised to find it there. And trust me when I say most of those who partake could stand to lose a few pounds -- like about 30. We all know it's bad, but we just keep coming back like crack-whores strung out on Krispy Kremes.

For we who are trying to lose a few pounds (yes, like 30) this is a difficult dilemma. But while it may be difficult to visualize what we want to look like after we lose weight, it is easy to visualize what we could look like if we keep fressing on all the snacks. The evidence is walking all over the office: stomachs hanging over belts, derrièrs wide enough for two, and--as they say--more chins than a Chinese phone book.

Faced with such a choice--say, the chance to look more like a young and hot Marlon Brando, or an old and bloated one--I'll take a 50s Brando every time.

Now if I could only remind myself of that fact each time I walk past a plate of brownies....

Stop The Presses!!!

I have just been informed of a terrible omission from my January 19, 2005 posting, known affectionately as "Happy Birthday to Me!" The very long listing of those who called, emailed or otherwise sent gifts and offerings to wish me happy birthday was short by one very important name.

I wish to take this opportunity to mention that Heather did, in fact, call to wish me happy birthday. However, I don't believe this call occured on my birthday, as I believe she was out of town--apparently choosing to celebrate this most joyous occasion in a different locale. If memory serves, Heather called me a day or two before my birthday to offer heartfelt birthday wishes.

If my egregious omission has led anyone to think that Heather was dilatory or otherwise forgetful in this regard, I humbly beg your forgiveness.

:)

Reflections on Teresa Schiavo

At this writing, myriad Florida state courts and several federal courts have determined that Michael Schiavo can authorize the withholding of nourishment from his "persistently vegitative" wife, Teri. Her feeding tube having been removed, it appears Teri may soon die, but not without having provoked a dubious cast of blowhard politicians to preen before cameras, declaring their support for, well, life.

Terry Schiavo's situation is tragic and puzzling for me on many levels. On a personal level, I think it is barbaric to starve Terry Schiavo to death. To her doctors' determination of her "persistent vegitative state", I say "so what"? She is not on life support (unless one considers nourishment to be life support--and then we're all in trouble), and she breathes on her own without a ventilator. This is not a case of "pulling the plug". Instead, it's just starving to death a low-functioning human being.

Unfortunately, we cannot know whether Ms. Schiavo ever expressed a desire not to live as she now clearly does. She left no living will or other written directive for the end of her life. In such a situation, the law permits her husband to make that decision for her, and he has done so--indicating Teri had verbally expressed a wish not to be kept alive by artificial means. So, this life of Teri's--her only life, however good, bad or indifferent--may likely end soon because her husband has directed so, purporting that Teri herself would want it that way.

Michael Schiavo might be right. Or he might not. I suspect most people who glibly voice aversion to living as a "vegetable" never envisioned Ms. Schiavo's eerily animated movements and gestures. Even those who thoughtfully decline life support likely picture themselves lying motionless, eyes closed, hooked up to monitors, heart pumps, and oxygen, not that middle ground of obvious, but impaired, life. Or maybe they have. And that's the problem.

In the absence of an express end-of-life directive, who gets to speak for the patient? State legislatures? Congress? The President? God help us. No, it's families that must be empowered to make these decision for their loved ones. And while this is the best choice, it's uncomfortably imperfect. Surely some people will be allowed to die (read: starved to death) who would not have chosen it. And still others will be condemned to an undesireable life who might have chosen otherwise. But as imperfect as this system might be, it's better than allowing this decision to be made outside the family. Congress has enough to work just undoing its own messes; I couldn't care less what it says about the highly personal issues of life or death.

Nice as it sounds, however, to say family should make these choices, it doesn't always work out that way. Teri's husband, Michael, is battling her parents who wish to keep her alive. And it is this issue that I find confusing. If "Teri" were "Terrence" and not "Teresa" (i.e., if the couple were gay partners, which I know they're not, but bear with me), the law would accord no rights whatsoever for Michael to intervene in Terry's end of life decisions. This is because neither Florida- nor federal law recognize the rights of gay partners to speak for their spouses in medical situations. Thus, the uncomfortable result in this situation is that whether Teri lives or dies depends on her being straight or gay. Think about it.

Clearly, such issues are best left to written directions. I have made my wishes known both verbally and in writing (...and if there's ever a conflict, let me say for the record that I value life for life's sake and would like to be kept alive unless two doctors agree there is no hope "HOWEVER REMOTE" of my recovery). In any event, I certainly never imagined a situation like Teri Schiavo, and would wish to be kept alive in a situation like hers. But absent written directions, such decisions should be left with a patient's family, which should err on the side of life. But that is just my opinion, which I would only want for my husband and family to honor. It's certainly too private an issue for intervention by public officials.

I acknowledge that it requires trust to leave such issues up to one's family. But who would you rather trust--your family or a politician?

Blogger Block

From what I recall of the ritual, blogging is a lot like dating. I always want to be eloquent, enchanting even, but probably just end up sounding verbose. So if I end up not having time to write as compellingly as I might like, I end up ignoring my blog which, of course, it the blogosphere's equivalent of "not calling". But does that mean the blog just doesn't meet my needs? Again, as with dating, than answer is usually "no"; the problem is with me, not my blog. Like a spouse or just a best friend, blogs don't require brilliant repartee. Occasional attention, sure, but just be real; the conversation should not be forced. Just say whatever is on your mind. Sometimes it's grandeloquent, and other times it's just a short "harumph". I'm not sure what future entries will be, but I am sure that there will be more quick "harumphs" from now on.

My So-Called Wedding

My husband and I were married three years three months and three weeks ago today. For both of us, our wedding day was the most important day of our lives. Not only did it take months of planning and cost a great deal of money but, in many ways, it also took a lot of courage. For, at that time, no state--not even (gasp!) Massachusetts--accorded legal recognition to same-gender marriages. Nevertheless we spoke our marriage vows before family and friends, and with the blessings of our clergy. Never was there a more glorious day, at least for us. As for the legalities, we felt then as we do now--a majority vote of any body politic does not a marriage make.

Not least because today is Valentine's Day, as well as my husband's birthday, it seems appropriate here to state the obvious: I have never loved anyone more, nor could I. We express our love in many ways both great and small, and tell each other "I love you" more times in a day than any couple I have ever heard. Our love is so deep and sustaining that I wish every person in the world could experience something even close. Our wedding was part of this love; its first formal expression, if you will. I don't need to explain its importance to anyone who has been happily married.

If there was any proverbial cloud on our wedding day (and it would have to have been "proverbial", because the sky could scarcely have been more blue) it was the absence of certain close relatives. There were all sorts of reasons given for these absences--it was just weeks after 9/11, the kids have school, or soccer, or some such things. We knew there were also other reasons, but we chose not to let it spoil our day. It should suffice to say that neither my husband nor I had ever experienced a wedding where so many close relatives of the betrothed simply did not show up. That said, it gave us profound joy that so many relatives did join us. Notable among this contingent was my Uncle Norman who, at 86, had cancer and heart problems so advanced that he had to rest for several minutes when climbing the stairs after our rehearsal dinner. When Uncle Norman said he wouldn't have missed our wedding for anything in the world it was more than just small talk; it was quiet, powerful proof that those who really wanted to be there, were. And this is what makes the rest of this story so interesting.

One of my nephews is having his Bar Mitzvah soon. He's been practicing for quite a while (tutored by his paternal grandfather!) and, no doubt, will do a fantastic job. His mother (my sister) and father will also do a great job planning a lovely weekend to celebrate his accomplishment. As it should be; a bar mitzvah is a huge event in the life of a jewish child and it should be celebrated by family and friends.

As luck would have it, one of my neices is having a dance recital soon. She's been practicing for quite a while and, no doubt, will do a fantastic job. Unfortunately her recital occurs the same weekend as her cousin's Bar Mitzvah, and her parents have decided to let her choose which event to attend. She chose her recital over her cousin's Bar Mitzvah. For the record, if I had a child, I don't believe I would have allowed her to make that sort of decision. When families live so far apart, as our does, any happy occasion should be reason enough for every member to do whatever is possible to attend. But also for the record, my neice is not my child, and her parents are good parents who can let their child do whatever they want. As she has.

My "Bar Mitzvah Sister" called me recently to discuss the choice that our "Recital Sister" had made. Bar Mitzvah Sister's opinion was not even slightly in doubt; she was not amused. I responded that I thought it was the wrong decision but that she should just try to get past it. In so doing, I reminded her that several family members did not attend my wedding and, though Bill and I noticed that fact, people did what they felt they must. At this, Bar Mitzvah Sister informed me that I could not equate my "so-called wedding" to her son's Bar Mitzvah. The rest of the conversation was friendly. I remember Bar Mitzvah Sister using the words "insulted" and "disgusted", but frankly, most of what I recall are the words "so-called wedding".

If my family shares one trait in addition to our good looks and incisive intellects, it's the uncanny ability occasionally to say things we might later regret, and it is to this defect that I will attribute her "so-called wedding" comment. I don't intend to spend time or space justifying the validity of my marriage. I'll just take the long view and just get over it. And I recommend this approach for my sister.

The focus of a Bar Mitzvah is the child who becomes an adult by accepting the teachings and responsibilities of Judaism. One of those principles is "Shalom Bayit", which implores Jews to look past certain transgressions for the sake of keeping peace in the home. Surely there is a connection to be made between one's home and one's larger family. Shalom Bayit is a worthy principle, among the very many which my nephew soon will take upon himself. Those who appreciate the solemnity of that occasion will be there. Among those present will be my nephew's two married uncles, Jonathan & Bill. I guess you could say we wouldn't miss it for anything in the world.

Sweet Nothings

If you use Nutrasweet or Equal brand sweetener (chemical name: Aspartame), please read further. My friend, Dave (who's a physician) was quite emphatic recently about the medical dangers of Nutrasweet.

I don't completely understand the science, but many physicians do and they say to avoid it like the plague. There is credible medical evidence, for example, that Gulf War Syndrome (from the FIRST Gulf War) is related to poisoning from Aspartame from Diet Coke that--under desert heat--broke down into it component parts: Methanol, ethanol and formaldehyde! This, apparently, is what happens also when it's added to hot coffee! Last night I drained and threw away a 12-pack of diet coke and some light yogurts, all with Aspartame.

If FDA approval is all the proof of safety you need, remember: first, Vioxx was rushed through the approval process and later pulled. Also the Chairman of GD Searle when Nutrasweet was approved by the FDA was Donald Rumsfeld who was, even then, a powerful Washington insider. No one has ever proven he unduly used this influence to get FDA approval, but claims to this effect have been swirling for years.

I asked my physician friend about Splenda and, while he couldn't cite any science to conclusively verify its safety (there ARE some detractors of that artificial sweetener, too), he said he's never seen convincing evidence of any dangers (as he has re: Aspartame).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
http://www.dorway.com/jwnoasp.html
http://www.greenfacts.org/aspartame/l-2/aspartame-1.htm

Wife Beaters in the Crosshairs

As first reported by a San Diego NBC affiliate, Lt. Gen. (as in "LIEUTENANT GENERAL") James Mattis--a top U. S. Marine commander--was quoted as saying its "fun to shoot people". Well, it's nice to enjoy your work, but this may be going a bit too far.

Lt. Gen. Mattis made his controversial comments at a panel discussion in San Diego, saying, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Don't he just make 'ya proud?

White Men on Parade

As I write this post, I'm watching the President give his fourth State of the Union address before Congress. Following, in no particular order, are my impressions of this event:

1. Watching Junior at his podium flanked by Fat Cat Cheney and a bulldog-like Hastert, it occures to me that the beltway culture they so loudly decry has, in actuality, been fertile ground for white men, just like them, who comprise the power elite. They just look so entitled sitting up there. Although not all State of the Union messages were delivered personally (Woodrow Wilson was the first modern President to present a verbal address; previous to that, the last verbal address was given by Thomas Jefferson), since the founding of our republic the image has remained the same: a parade of white, christian males as president, flanked by yet other white, christian males as Vice President and Speaker of the House. Hell, it's not MORNING in America; in some ways, it's still 1789! For some history of the State of the Union, check out this link: http://hnn.us/articles/1233.html

2. When will we have a President with the political guts to just submit a written State of the Union, and forego the insipid spectacle that has come to characterize the State of the Union? The President barely utters 50 words before his party stands to applaud loudly. It's childish and it doesn't even make good theatre. Honestly, purple fingers? Emotional hugs to loud and sustained applause? Even to those who claim this stuff is exciting, it has--read closely here--NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE OF OUR UNION.

3. Cheney looks bored. And mean.

4. Hastert looks mad.

5. The Republican attempt to dismember Social Security is a vicious smoke-screen. There may be funding problems over the horizon--the President should be well acquainted with these, as he has led this country to budgetary irresponsibility from the day he was appointed by the Supreme Court--but make no mistake, the assault on Social Security is no timid slap at the American worker. It is a full frontal assault that must not succeed. There already exist a host of ways that workers with means can save funds for retirement. There are IRAs, 401(k)s and other deferred arrangements, savings accounts, stock plans and more. But Social Security is the one last hope--last "safety net" if you will--of the American worker. Social Security is not, and should not become, just another program for those who are already able to sock away money. It is a pensioners program for the aged who, without it, would not be able to survive. It is a program for the surviving children of dead parents who, without it, could neither eat nor have shelter. If the program has grown extravagant over the years, then trim it back. But we must retain this compact between the people and their government that no American fall into penury on account of old age or loss of a loved one on whom they once depended.

6. I feel Bill Frist would be about the worst possible person to invite to a party--except, perhaps, the Republican Party.

7. The President's gratuitous attack on the righs of gays and lesbians to marry shows he lacks the reputed compassion of Jesus, whom he claims to much admire. And did I miss something? I heard him talk about the danger of same-gender marriages, but I'm not sure I heard the part about the danger of North Korean nuclear proliferation. Or, come to think of it, the danger of U. S. shipping ports or chemical facilities being vulnerably unprotected. Or about the inexcusable fact of 46 million Americans being uninsured in this richest of all lands. Surely those points must have been in there somewhere; I'll have to check the transcript.

8. Laura Bush always looks very beautiful in "Bush Blue".

9. Was Orin Hatch sleeping at one point during the speech? Or just praying? No matter. Both were inappropriate then and there.

10. Have either lawsuits or jury awards suddenly exploded exponentially? Have doctors suddenly become just that much more careless? Somehow I doubt it. Yet the President again mentioned that high medical malpractice costs are impacting the availability of good healthcare by driving doctors out of certain specialties. I find this to be interesting. If there has been no vast increase either in the number of lawsuits, the amount of jury awards or the overall carelessness of physicians, then to what must we attribute the truly exponential increase in malpractice insurance rates? I suggest it is the result of collusion between insurance companies who seek--in a manner learned well from our President--to preciptate a crisis, and then beat their breasts about its severity. I am here calling for a Congressional inquiry into this matter, and legislation to control the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance rates.

Iraq the Vote

The cornerstone of any democracy is the right to vote. Today, for the first time in fifty years, the people of Iraq had the opportunity to vote for their national leaders. The doomsayers' fears largely unrealized, the people of Iraq turned out by the millions to exercise their franchise. This is a historic day in the middle east, and it is thanks in large part to President Bush's unswerving dedication that this election will happen on time and with security.

One could argue about the wisdom of this war itself, the United States' tactics, or our likelihood of success there. And to be sure, this is but one positive step in a long list of bitter tragedies. But it is a big step indeed--perhaps the biggest. On this day the naysayers' protestations are muted, indeed. I congratulate the people of Iraq on this historic day, and I wish them success at implementing an open, vibrant and representative democracy that honors the rights of Iraqis and all people.

Mazal tov.

They're Called Germans -- Not Nazis

Sixty years ago today Allied forces liberated the German death camp called Auschwitz - Birkenau. So ended the most important event in my life, the Shoah. It is not just the unspeakable German depravity that will always haunt me, but also its proximity to my--our--existance. In America, my own mother was a little girl playing in her back yard while, in Germany, soldiers were ripping other children from their mothers' arms, separating them forever. While my father was studying for his Bar Mitzvah, Germans were murdering learned Rabbis, defiling our sacred texts and burning our synagogues. And while our American economy sought more efficient mass production of automobiles and radios, Germans sought to perfect the industrialized mass murder of an ancient and peaceful people. All of these, while other Germans watched.

To be sure, there were also other Germans who resisted--and fiercely. But, relative to their complicit countrymen, their numbers were so depressingly small as to be insignificant. And so it is that I insist we call these offenders by name; it was not the Nazis or their political party or even their military officers who loosed this sickening depravity upon the world. It was the German people themselves--their society, their institutions, their collective soul--which nourished a Jewish blood lust which knew no bounds. Not a single truckload of Jewish families could have been herded to their death trains by dark of night without the corrupt complicity of neighbors peering with feigned powerlessness through their intact windows. Children screaming, women crying, bewildered men powerless to save their families. Show me one German who shielded a Jewish child with her life and I'll show you hundreds of thousands more who found stature in Jewish suffering.

Some people have asked, "Where was God"? How dare they? God was everywhere. In the books, in the wind, in the eyes of every person smacked by the butt of a gun into cattle cars. It was the Germans who hungered viciously to deny God's presence. Better to ask instead where was humanity. That is the question sadly, angrily left unanswered.

I wish I knew how to live with the mistrust I will always feel for my fellow humans. Which casual acquaintance would, in another context, have shot my grandmother for refusing to board a railcar, leaving her to die in a muddy street? Which would have seen the act and done nothing? Which would have fought with me to the last breath, delivering guns and bread to me in the Warsaw ghetto, dying as we all must, but proudly and with honor. Perhaps thankfully, these questions are unanswerable.

It was the Germans. They did it. They created the Nazis, voted for them, allowed them, followed them, fought for them, killed for them, and looked the other way for them. They cannot now blame them; they were them. And that is the point. Just as a fire cannot burn without oxygen, Nazis could not have hijacked a society if their countrymen had resisted. This must be the lesson from this dark time. To the question "could it ever happen again", the answer can be "no"--but only if people follow their better consciences and resist.

Peace.