Thursday, October 23rd, a week from today, a curious thing is happening, never mind that it is by accident, or that it might ruffle a few feathers (you know, cuz competition is bad).
That's right, I'll put it out there, I think its good that people have a choice. Not that I don't love having a designated place to know I'm going to see everyone, and not that I particularly like spreading thin an already (relatively) small number of interesting people, but to me, it's not unimportant that I have to make a choice between three events that I want to attend. Were I in Chicago, NYC, etc. etc., this would be a weekly, if not daily dilemma.
Therefore, I'm kind of excited.
Ok, you are raving about three quality events, what are they?
..Right, sorry, so the events, in terms of timing are:
Saint Louis Graduate Students happy Hour
Just what it sounds like, except that you don't need to be a graduate student to attend. And the best part, first $200 bar tab on Hillel!
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008
Time: 6:30pm - 9:30pm
Location: Culpepper's Central West End
Street: 300 N. Euclid
City/Town: Saint Louis, MO
Contact - Phone: 3149359044 Email: marisa@stlouishillel.org
Nolad Lirkod aka Born to Dance at the Gramophone, presented by the Saint Louis Israel Connection aka SLIC.
I'm excited for this event because the Gramophone is awesome, there will be hilarious dancing, and discounted drinks.
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: The Gramophone
Street: 4243 Manchester Ave.
City/Town: Saint Louis, MO
Contact - Phone:3144423770 Email: hpaperner@jcrcstl.org
Finally, Metrobowl!
Making public transportation sexy, grab your friends for a night out bowling and get discounts just for riding the Metro!
Show your Metro ticket at the door and get your hand stamped for free shoe rental and half off on your second game. And when the night is over, let Metro be your designated driver.
Brought to you by the Public Transportation Initiative of St. Louis Urban Corps. Urban Corps’ mission is to create a framework through which young persons who want to become civic leaders can conceive, develop and implement initiatives that will improve the quality of life in St. Louis.
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008
Time: 7:30pm - 10:30pm
Location: Flamingo Bowl
Street: 1117 Washington Avenue
City/Town:Saint Louis, MO
I'm giving you a week's notice so that you can clear your schedule and make it to at least one of these great opportunities to meet great people.
Read More......
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Behind the Music: Joe the Plumber
So turns out John McCain's friend, "Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber at all...
"Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber at all, at least not one I would want fixing a leak in my house. It seems that a basic check of local licensing agencies in Ohio and Michigan show on plumbing licenses for Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, or even a name close to that.
So what does all this mean? The real question here is, if the Toledo Blade could figure this out, why couldn't a man vying to be the most powerful man in the world? Or did he know that he was twisting the facts, and hope he could sneak one by the American people? Either way, not an auspicious start to McCain's home stretch here.
On the way out, no, McCain did not land any body blows in last night's debate, appearing rather condescending and, yes, erratic. There's a long way to go, but it's becoming harder and harder to find the coalition McCain needs to pull this thing out. Disagree? Discuss below, it's Thursday and I'm up for a good fight.
//Edit by Y?- Sleep now and Zuz to cause an anti-matter black-hole in 3..2..1..
Read More......
"Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber at all, at least not one I would want fixing a leak in my house. It seems that a basic check of local licensing agencies in Ohio and Michigan show on plumbing licenses for Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, or even a name close to that.
So what does all this mean? The real question here is, if the Toledo Blade could figure this out, why couldn't a man vying to be the most powerful man in the world? Or did he know that he was twisting the facts, and hope he could sneak one by the American people? Either way, not an auspicious start to McCain's home stretch here.
On the way out, no, McCain did not land any body blows in last night's debate, appearing rather condescending and, yes, erratic. There's a long way to go, but it's becoming harder and harder to find the coalition McCain needs to pull this thing out. Disagree? Discuss below, it's Thursday and I'm up for a good fight.
//Edit by Y?- Sleep now and Zuz to cause an anti-matter black-hole in 3..2..1..
Read More......
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Baltimore Holocaust Memorial
Recently I took a trip to Baltimore, Maryland. I was lucky enough to stay in the Inner Harbor, which is a one of the most beautiful parts of the city. What I like about the location even more is its proximity to Little Italy and Fells Point, which has a similar feel to 6th Street in Austin, only with more history, a maritime feel, and the residence of Michael Phelps. I had some of the best pizza of my life in Little Italy and went into a time warp at Max’s in Fells Point, downing Belgian beer I hadn’t had since I lived there.
The highlight of the trip though was my visit to the Baltimore Holocaust Memorial (http://www.josephsheppard.com/Holocaust/AboutMemorial.htm). The story of the Memorial, like the Memorial itself, is as simple as it is powerful. Back in the 1970s, a ninth grade Hebrew class told their teacher that they did not believe that the Holocaust happened. Shortly thereafter, the Baltimore Jewish Council approved a proposal submitted by the Hebrew class teacher to build a memorial.
The Memorial takes up one city block, right in the heart of the Harbor district. It is entirely open air and outside, and we’re talking prime real estate. The block is owned by the adjacent Baltimore Community College, which houses a Holocaust resource center. What amazes me is that the college could use this plot of land for just about anything else it and it would bring in money, yet they chose to donate the use of it to a free memorial.
The Memorial itself is quite simple, yet powerful and moving. It simulates a railroad track yard with, at one end a concrete structure representing a train with words written by an Auschwitz survivor written across it: “On both sides of the track rows of red and white lights appeared as far as the eye could see… …with the rhythm of the wheels, with every human sound now silenced, we awaited what was to happen…. …in an instant, our women, our parents, our children disappeared. We saw them for a short while as an obscure mass at the end of the other end of the platform; then we saw nothing more.” At the other end stands the most moving sculpture I’ve ever seen. You have to check out the website to see it, it’s amazing.
There is much nuance to the Memorial that I cannot describe in words – it must be seen. If you ever find yourself in or near Baltimore, make the trip to the intersection of Lombard and Gay streets only a few blocks from the Inner Harbor.
Read More......
The highlight of the trip though was my visit to the Baltimore Holocaust Memorial (http://www.josephsheppard.com/Holocaust/AboutMemorial.htm). The story of the Memorial, like the Memorial itself, is as simple as it is powerful. Back in the 1970s, a ninth grade Hebrew class told their teacher that they did not believe that the Holocaust happened. Shortly thereafter, the Baltimore Jewish Council approved a proposal submitted by the Hebrew class teacher to build a memorial.
The Memorial takes up one city block, right in the heart of the Harbor district. It is entirely open air and outside, and we’re talking prime real estate. The block is owned by the adjacent Baltimore Community College, which houses a Holocaust resource center. What amazes me is that the college could use this plot of land for just about anything else it and it would bring in money, yet they chose to donate the use of it to a free memorial.
The Memorial itself is quite simple, yet powerful and moving. It simulates a railroad track yard with, at one end a concrete structure representing a train with words written by an Auschwitz survivor written across it: “On both sides of the track rows of red and white lights appeared as far as the eye could see… …with the rhythm of the wheels, with every human sound now silenced, we awaited what was to happen…. …in an instant, our women, our parents, our children disappeared. We saw them for a short while as an obscure mass at the end of the other end of the platform; then we saw nothing more.” At the other end stands the most moving sculpture I’ve ever seen. You have to check out the website to see it, it’s amazing.
There is much nuance to the Memorial that I cannot describe in words – it must be seen. If you ever find yourself in or near Baltimore, make the trip to the intersection of Lombard and Gay streets only a few blocks from the Inner Harbor.
Read More......
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Putting the "Dip" in Diplomacy
This election has raised the issue of diplomacy to a recent high. The Democrats have lofted diplomacy to a level of almost a deity. In the process, they have demonized anyone who has questioned its virtuosity. Yet the history of diplomacy is not an impressive one, and I can find no application of it, even one within the context of our current situation, which justifies this kind of emphasis. It is important to understand diplomacy within its historical context to properly assess its potential, so let’s look back at America’s modern (Hitler to present) experience with it.
The most sited example is Richard Nixon’s trip to China in 1972. However, for all the success dramatically reported, it was by no feat of diplomacy that Nixon was able to convince China to change its tune. Numerous secret talks between Henry Kissinger and his Chinese counterparts were needed before Nixon made the trip to China. These talks led Kissinger to explain afterwards that, “Only extraordinary concern about Soviet purposes [and the large buildup of Soviet forces on along the Chinese boarder] could explain the Chinese wish to sit down with the nation heretofore vilified as the archenemy.” The Chinese were lacking the technology and resources they needed to provide for and protect their country. Thus there ensued over a period of many years a series of third-party backdoor messaging leading first to secret talks with Kissinger and finally to Nixon’s visit.
Of Nixon’s visit to China, Kissinger wrote, “I know of no presidential trip that was as carefully planned. The voluminous briefing books…contained essays on the trip’s primary objectives and on all subjects of the agenda previously established…they suggested what the Chinese position would be on each topic and talking points on what the President might follow…Nixon committed the talking points to memory and followed them meticulously in his meetings with Chou En-Lai.” The responses from Chou and Mao were no less prepared. The direct Presidential talks, in reality, formalized rather than caused the desired changes in Chinese policy. The cause was entirely unrelated to the diplomatic efforts of the US government, which served only as the final stage in a very long process in which Chinese realized, before it even met with the Americans, that it needed America more than it needed the Soviets.
Another oft-cited example is Anwar Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem in 1977. Again, however, it took a long process in which Egypt realized, through no diplomatic efforts of the US or Israel, that it needed peace more than it needed conflict. Sadat had led Egypt away from its anti-Israel position since his surprise attack on Israel in 1973. In fact, Sadat went so far as to expel the Soviets from Egypt out of fear for not only his own strength as President but also out of fear for the implications it would have on its relationship with the rest of the world. In an interview with ABC News, Sadat signaled his desire to end the conflict with Israel. Two days later Begin responded with a TV ad inviting Sadat to Israel and eight days after that Sadat landed in Jerusalem. At no time before Sadat’s arrive had diplomatic efforts been used to secure the changes in Egyptian policy.
Yet another example of a re-positioning, a very significant one, was the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev met with Reagan in 1986, 87, and twice in 88. He then met with Bush Sr. in 1989. No Gorbachev accounts, nor the accounts of those involved in these meetings, provide any evidence that the meetings influenced his evolution towards policy changes. Gorbachev has described the evolution as being driven by the wish to modernize and revitalize the country he ruled. By his third year he was making comments on the USSR system giving him a “troubled conscious” and the need for “democracy like air.” This evolution was a product of Soviet reality, not American diplomacy.
Finding an example of diplomacy bridging a gap with an enemy or hostile country is very difficult. In fact, the success rate is negative, with results from major diplomatic pushes bringing at best neutral and at worst hugely costly.
After WWII, the heads of America, USSR, Britain, and France got together in the heralded spirit of unity, “the spirit of Geneva,” that ended a year later with Soviet tanks rolling over Hungry and Nikita Khrushev threatening London and Paris with nuclear attacks over Suez. Four years later the US and the USSR held their first bilateral talks at Camp David, ending with nothing beyond the inevitable agreement to hold another meeting. By May of the following year, Khrushev demanded an apology for the invasion of a US spy plane that they shot down. President Eisenhower refused and the meeting never materialized. And for the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Bush Senior similar patterns followed. 35 years of US-Soviet diplomacy lay exposed, showing no demonstrable effects on Gorbachev’s final positions towards the dissolution of the USSR and his attempts to make peace with America.
But the breadth, or rather dearth, of diplomacy goes beyond our relationship with the Soviets. Similar stories can be told of Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, and of course Germany and Hitler. No case better disproves the idea that “we have nothing to lose by sitting down and talking with their leaders” than the Munich agreement.
This era of diplomacy was extremely costly, both in lives and in face. In 1935, when Hitler defied the disarmament provisions of Versailles, British Foreign Secretary John Simon began pushing for talks. Ignoring Germany’s violations, he agreed to a new pact aimed at limiting naval forces. Meanwhile, France sent its foreign minister to Moscow to sign a defense pact with Stalin and to Rome to offer Mussolini the opportunity to take part in Ethiopia. Upon Mussolini’s later declaration of his goal to conquer Ethiopia, England sent its man to buy him off with a chunk of Ethiopian land. Convinced that these actions illustrated weakness and a lack of resolve, Mussolini declared the formation of a “Rome-Berlin Axis.” Emboldened by this series of events, Hitler moved into Poland and Czechoslovakia, culminating with the Munich agreement. This ultimate act of diplomacy, as if previous pacts with Hitler had worked, put the Allies on a direct and unavoidable path towards war – by not confronting the threat up front, and emboldening the enemy by not enforcing agreements, Hitler was left with no reason not to take the next step, and the lives of 70 million people were lost.
None of this is to say that diplomacy has no role. Obviously, the recipe for success is a cycle of diplomacy and action. But in all cases of both, the purpose and message should be simple: it will be more costly to be against us than with us. Deterrence 101 says that you can only be in a position to influence if you own and clearly sell a credible threat that the other party believes in and can avoid by not ignoring it. Diplomacy cannot mean offering carrots and sticks for coercion if the other party can get what we are offering from someone else. What the US can offer, that most other countries cannot, is total destruction. This threat needs to be made credible, and while that does not mean a regular cycle of war, it does mean that we need to keep to ourselves the likelihood of waging war. This is where President Bush went wrong – he made threats the other side knew he could not keep, and warned of repercussions the other side could avoid by joining forces with another country.
Perhaps the most successful act of diplomacy was the way America ended WWII with Japan. In the summer of 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, which offered the Japanese either a peaceful surrender or a final blow. While many in Japan believed that their country would be devastated by the impending attack, made credible to them by previous Allied actions, the Allied side did not make credible enough the threat of the final blow because they did not accurately communicate the means and level of devastation. Japan refused the offer, thinking that they could counter the Allies and win a more acceptable settlement, and two weeks later America dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Having then made the threat credible, the Allies were empowered to embark on a serious and mastery diplomatic effort that resulted in Japan becoming one of our closest allies. Diplomacy can be a spoke in the wheel of change, but it needs to be done with the utmost care and used selectively based on suitability. It is not the magic wand many would have you believe.
Read More......
The most sited example is Richard Nixon’s trip to China in 1972. However, for all the success dramatically reported, it was by no feat of diplomacy that Nixon was able to convince China to change its tune. Numerous secret talks between Henry Kissinger and his Chinese counterparts were needed before Nixon made the trip to China. These talks led Kissinger to explain afterwards that, “Only extraordinary concern about Soviet purposes [and the large buildup of Soviet forces on along the Chinese boarder] could explain the Chinese wish to sit down with the nation heretofore vilified as the archenemy.” The Chinese were lacking the technology and resources they needed to provide for and protect their country. Thus there ensued over a period of many years a series of third-party backdoor messaging leading first to secret talks with Kissinger and finally to Nixon’s visit.
Of Nixon’s visit to China, Kissinger wrote, “I know of no presidential trip that was as carefully planned. The voluminous briefing books…contained essays on the trip’s primary objectives and on all subjects of the agenda previously established…they suggested what the Chinese position would be on each topic and talking points on what the President might follow…Nixon committed the talking points to memory and followed them meticulously in his meetings with Chou En-Lai.” The responses from Chou and Mao were no less prepared. The direct Presidential talks, in reality, formalized rather than caused the desired changes in Chinese policy. The cause was entirely unrelated to the diplomatic efforts of the US government, which served only as the final stage in a very long process in which Chinese realized, before it even met with the Americans, that it needed America more than it needed the Soviets.
Another oft-cited example is Anwar Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem in 1977. Again, however, it took a long process in which Egypt realized, through no diplomatic efforts of the US or Israel, that it needed peace more than it needed conflict. Sadat had led Egypt away from its anti-Israel position since his surprise attack on Israel in 1973. In fact, Sadat went so far as to expel the Soviets from Egypt out of fear for not only his own strength as President but also out of fear for the implications it would have on its relationship with the rest of the world. In an interview with ABC News, Sadat signaled his desire to end the conflict with Israel. Two days later Begin responded with a TV ad inviting Sadat to Israel and eight days after that Sadat landed in Jerusalem. At no time before Sadat’s arrive had diplomatic efforts been used to secure the changes in Egyptian policy.
Yet another example of a re-positioning, a very significant one, was the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev met with Reagan in 1986, 87, and twice in 88. He then met with Bush Sr. in 1989. No Gorbachev accounts, nor the accounts of those involved in these meetings, provide any evidence that the meetings influenced his evolution towards policy changes. Gorbachev has described the evolution as being driven by the wish to modernize and revitalize the country he ruled. By his third year he was making comments on the USSR system giving him a “troubled conscious” and the need for “democracy like air.” This evolution was a product of Soviet reality, not American diplomacy.
Finding an example of diplomacy bridging a gap with an enemy or hostile country is very difficult. In fact, the success rate is negative, with results from major diplomatic pushes bringing at best neutral and at worst hugely costly.
After WWII, the heads of America, USSR, Britain, and France got together in the heralded spirit of unity, “the spirit of Geneva,” that ended a year later with Soviet tanks rolling over Hungry and Nikita Khrushev threatening London and Paris with nuclear attacks over Suez. Four years later the US and the USSR held their first bilateral talks at Camp David, ending with nothing beyond the inevitable agreement to hold another meeting. By May of the following year, Khrushev demanded an apology for the invasion of a US spy plane that they shot down. President Eisenhower refused and the meeting never materialized. And for the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Bush Senior similar patterns followed. 35 years of US-Soviet diplomacy lay exposed, showing no demonstrable effects on Gorbachev’s final positions towards the dissolution of the USSR and his attempts to make peace with America.
But the breadth, or rather dearth, of diplomacy goes beyond our relationship with the Soviets. Similar stories can be told of Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, and of course Germany and Hitler. No case better disproves the idea that “we have nothing to lose by sitting down and talking with their leaders” than the Munich agreement.
This era of diplomacy was extremely costly, both in lives and in face. In 1935, when Hitler defied the disarmament provisions of Versailles, British Foreign Secretary John Simon began pushing for talks. Ignoring Germany’s violations, he agreed to a new pact aimed at limiting naval forces. Meanwhile, France sent its foreign minister to Moscow to sign a defense pact with Stalin and to Rome to offer Mussolini the opportunity to take part in Ethiopia. Upon Mussolini’s later declaration of his goal to conquer Ethiopia, England sent its man to buy him off with a chunk of Ethiopian land. Convinced that these actions illustrated weakness and a lack of resolve, Mussolini declared the formation of a “Rome-Berlin Axis.” Emboldened by this series of events, Hitler moved into Poland and Czechoslovakia, culminating with the Munich agreement. This ultimate act of diplomacy, as if previous pacts with Hitler had worked, put the Allies on a direct and unavoidable path towards war – by not confronting the threat up front, and emboldening the enemy by not enforcing agreements, Hitler was left with no reason not to take the next step, and the lives of 70 million people were lost.
None of this is to say that diplomacy has no role. Obviously, the recipe for success is a cycle of diplomacy and action. But in all cases of both, the purpose and message should be simple: it will be more costly to be against us than with us. Deterrence 101 says that you can only be in a position to influence if you own and clearly sell a credible threat that the other party believes in and can avoid by not ignoring it. Diplomacy cannot mean offering carrots and sticks for coercion if the other party can get what we are offering from someone else. What the US can offer, that most other countries cannot, is total destruction. This threat needs to be made credible, and while that does not mean a regular cycle of war, it does mean that we need to keep to ourselves the likelihood of waging war. This is where President Bush went wrong – he made threats the other side knew he could not keep, and warned of repercussions the other side could avoid by joining forces with another country.
Perhaps the most successful act of diplomacy was the way America ended WWII with Japan. In the summer of 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, which offered the Japanese either a peaceful surrender or a final blow. While many in Japan believed that their country would be devastated by the impending attack, made credible to them by previous Allied actions, the Allied side did not make credible enough the threat of the final blow because they did not accurately communicate the means and level of devastation. Japan refused the offer, thinking that they could counter the Allies and win a more acceptable settlement, and two weeks later America dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Having then made the threat credible, the Allies were empowered to embark on a serious and mastery diplomatic effort that resulted in Japan becoming one of our closest allies. Diplomacy can be a spoke in the wheel of change, but it needs to be done with the utmost care and used selectively based on suitability. It is not the magic wand many would have you believe.
Read More......
Policy Forum: Obstacles, Solutions and a Vision for the Future of St. Louis Public Transportation
I am a firm believer that a strong public transportation system is essential for strong urban redevelopment. That's why I'll be at the policy forum tonight, schmoozing with a former mayor, amongst others, and getting more information about what can be done to revitalize STL. Details in the full post
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Time:
6:00pm - 8:30pm
Location:
Cummel's Cafe
Street:
1627 Washington Ave
City/Town:
Saint Louis, MO
Policy Forum: Obstacles, Solutions and a Vision for the Future of St. Louis Public Transportation
With panelists:
- Vincent Schoemehl, former mayor of St. Louis and a member of the Metro Board of Commissioners
- Thomas Shrout, Executive Director of Citizens for Modern Transit
- Max Starkloff, President of The Starkloff Disability Institute
- Nancy Cross, VP of Service Employees International Union Local 1
Networking 6-7
Panel Discussion/Q&A 7-8:30
These highly esteemed panelists will talk with us about what can be done to improve public transportation in St. Louis, what are the obstacles, how might the obstacles be overcome, and what can we do to help. Cummel's offers a selection of coffee, soft drinks, and a delicious menu of meals and snacks.
Co-hosted by St. Louis Urban Corps and Metropolis St. Louis.
Metropolis St. Louis’s mission is to create and promote an environment in the City of St. Louis that attracts and retains young people. St. Louis Urban Corps’ mission is to create a framework through which young persons who want to become civic leaders can conceive, develop and implement initiatives that will improve the quality of life in St. Louis.
Read More......
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Time:
6:00pm - 8:30pm
Location:
Cummel's Cafe
Street:
1627 Washington Ave
City/Town:
Saint Louis, MO
Policy Forum: Obstacles, Solutions and a Vision for the Future of St. Louis Public Transportation
With panelists:
- Vincent Schoemehl, former mayor of St. Louis and a member of the Metro Board of Commissioners
- Thomas Shrout, Executive Director of Citizens for Modern Transit
- Max Starkloff, President of The Starkloff Disability Institute
- Nancy Cross, VP of Service Employees International Union Local 1
Networking 6-7
Panel Discussion/Q&A 7-8:30
These highly esteemed panelists will talk with us about what can be done to improve public transportation in St. Louis, what are the obstacles, how might the obstacles be overcome, and what can we do to help. Cummel's offers a selection of coffee, soft drinks, and a delicious menu of meals and snacks.
Co-hosted by St. Louis Urban Corps and Metropolis St. Louis.
Metropolis St. Louis’s mission is to create and promote an environment in the City of St. Louis that attracts and retains young people. St. Louis Urban Corps’ mission is to create a framework through which young persons who want to become civic leaders can conceive, develop and implement initiatives that will improve the quality of life in St. Louis.
Read More......
Monday, October 13, 2008
What's Wrong with the Republican Camp
We’re a month out, and while you can’t call it yet, things aren’t looking so hot for John McCain. He was neck-and-neck with Barack Obama until the financial crisis hit, and when that kind of event happens, it pretty much guarantees success for the party not in office. You have to give Senator Obama some credit, but he shares it, at best equally, with the McCain campaign’s long list of failures, poor decisions, and terrible strategy. Don’t get too excited though, my list of what’s wrong with the policies of Barack Obama is much longer, and I still cast my vote for John McCain. But this column isn’t about the campaign.
I’ve worked for the Republican Party. I’ve voted for Republican candidates about 85% of the time. And yet this election makes me feel good about not being a registered Republican. In the spirit of Martin Luther, I want to post a list of the serious problems I’ve seen with Republicans. Don’t worry, I’m not going to pull out 99, but I do want to cover the top 8 (in no particular order).
1. They are out of touch with the next generation of Americans. The next generation of Americans is, by-and-large, out of touch with the reality of the world, but Republicans have reverted to the purist conservative judgment that says the status quo is to be defended at all costs. Change is needed, but in our present day political climate politicians lead from the rear, evidenced by decisions being made after polls mirroring the consensus view of those polls. The change that we need is someone that leads from the front. While Senator Obama is not a frontline leader, that’s no excuse for Republicans to not take the drivers seat of changing the status quo, which obviously needs tweaking.
2. They pick the wrong fights. The Republican base has been for the last 14 years Christians, but it is looking like a significant amount of Christians will be voting for Senator Obama. On the surface this makes no sense. Historically the two most important domestic issues for Christian voters have been abortion and gay marriage, yet Senator Obama is very liberal on both. We are seeing a changing of the guard among the Christian voting bloc, yet the Republicans continue to cling to a dated value set. Say what you will about sticking up for what you think is right, but these issues are not addressed by the federal government – they are largely reverted to the states, and the Republican President and Vice President nominees should not waste their efforts on issues they will likely not address when in office.
3. They give the ten word answer. My least favorite thing, when I writing speeches, is writing the second document with the 10 word answers to each of the target issues the speech addresses so that the speaker can cut to the crux. This is an incredibly complex nation and world, and 10 words do not provide a sufficient answer to any of the issues we face. The idea of having 10 words is that you can address every issue any voter might be concerned with. This is far less convincing and far less comforting than the 100 or 1000 word answers for the 10 most important issues.
4. Ignorance and indifference to the concerns and arguments of the opposition. Chanting “drill baby drill” distorts the virtues of drilling off the shores of America. Senator McCain has always said that he supports offshore drilling as a short-term measure to help us bridge the gap from where we are to the alternative energy future we need, but every time CNN shows footage of a John McCain rally with the crowd chanting “drill baby drill” it gives off the entirely wrong impression, and the opposition latches on to it to swing moderate and undecided voters in their direction. Be smart.
5. They vote for the wrong reasons. I’ve never chosen to not vote for a Democrat because he/she is a Democrat. I actually consulted for one Democratic campaign. Most Republicans vote party line because they like Republicans and hate Democrats. The amount of bad Republican politicians competes with the amount of bad Democratic politicians. When I attended a McCain/Palin rally I was encouraged to wear red to symbolize the desire to keep Missouri a red state. Putting aside the fact that I don’t like wearing red and don’t own a single piece of red clothing, I could care less that Missouri is a red state; I’d rather it be a smart state. The issue of voting is not about voting for a party but rather about voting for the best ideas, be they red, blue, or neon lime.
6. The idea embodied by Sarah Palin. I wrote an article on this blog not too long ago making a case for Sarah Palin, and I stick by the arguments I made. But she would be a less than stellar Vice President, not because of inexperience or policy specifics, but because she represents the idea, the mentality, that embracing the common denominator, the average Joe, is striving for greatness. This is not the mentality that made this country great. More than intelligence and education, we need leaders who allow for possibilities rather than shield us from them.
7. Two decades ago Republicans stood up and told the country that “Democrat” meant soft on crime, soft on the law, soft on education, soft on values, and soft on national security. And instead of standing up to this, the Democrats cowered in the corner and said, “Please, don’t hurt us.” Now, Democrats are saying that “Republican” means stupid, barbaric, and ignorant, and Republicans are running for the same corner of the house. These are salami tactics that should not be used in the first place and responded to with positive reinforcement of ideas and policies.
8. Swinging for the fences. It’s a sign of desperation, and no one sees it the way it’s wanted to be seen.
So there they are, the 8 things I find most discouraging about the Republican Party. In fact, you could remove the party slant and write almost the same article, the same 8 things, about what is wrong with the American political system. That would be even more depressing.
Read More......
I’ve worked for the Republican Party. I’ve voted for Republican candidates about 85% of the time. And yet this election makes me feel good about not being a registered Republican. In the spirit of Martin Luther, I want to post a list of the serious problems I’ve seen with Republicans. Don’t worry, I’m not going to pull out 99, but I do want to cover the top 8 (in no particular order).
1. They are out of touch with the next generation of Americans. The next generation of Americans is, by-and-large, out of touch with the reality of the world, but Republicans have reverted to the purist conservative judgment that says the status quo is to be defended at all costs. Change is needed, but in our present day political climate politicians lead from the rear, evidenced by decisions being made after polls mirroring the consensus view of those polls. The change that we need is someone that leads from the front. While Senator Obama is not a frontline leader, that’s no excuse for Republicans to not take the drivers seat of changing the status quo, which obviously needs tweaking.
2. They pick the wrong fights. The Republican base has been for the last 14 years Christians, but it is looking like a significant amount of Christians will be voting for Senator Obama. On the surface this makes no sense. Historically the two most important domestic issues for Christian voters have been abortion and gay marriage, yet Senator Obama is very liberal on both. We are seeing a changing of the guard among the Christian voting bloc, yet the Republicans continue to cling to a dated value set. Say what you will about sticking up for what you think is right, but these issues are not addressed by the federal government – they are largely reverted to the states, and the Republican President and Vice President nominees should not waste their efforts on issues they will likely not address when in office.
3. They give the ten word answer. My least favorite thing, when I writing speeches, is writing the second document with the 10 word answers to each of the target issues the speech addresses so that the speaker can cut to the crux. This is an incredibly complex nation and world, and 10 words do not provide a sufficient answer to any of the issues we face. The idea of having 10 words is that you can address every issue any voter might be concerned with. This is far less convincing and far less comforting than the 100 or 1000 word answers for the 10 most important issues.
4. Ignorance and indifference to the concerns and arguments of the opposition. Chanting “drill baby drill” distorts the virtues of drilling off the shores of America. Senator McCain has always said that he supports offshore drilling as a short-term measure to help us bridge the gap from where we are to the alternative energy future we need, but every time CNN shows footage of a John McCain rally with the crowd chanting “drill baby drill” it gives off the entirely wrong impression, and the opposition latches on to it to swing moderate and undecided voters in their direction. Be smart.
5. They vote for the wrong reasons. I’ve never chosen to not vote for a Democrat because he/she is a Democrat. I actually consulted for one Democratic campaign. Most Republicans vote party line because they like Republicans and hate Democrats. The amount of bad Republican politicians competes with the amount of bad Democratic politicians. When I attended a McCain/Palin rally I was encouraged to wear red to symbolize the desire to keep Missouri a red state. Putting aside the fact that I don’t like wearing red and don’t own a single piece of red clothing, I could care less that Missouri is a red state; I’d rather it be a smart state. The issue of voting is not about voting for a party but rather about voting for the best ideas, be they red, blue, or neon lime.
6. The idea embodied by Sarah Palin. I wrote an article on this blog not too long ago making a case for Sarah Palin, and I stick by the arguments I made. But she would be a less than stellar Vice President, not because of inexperience or policy specifics, but because she represents the idea, the mentality, that embracing the common denominator, the average Joe, is striving for greatness. This is not the mentality that made this country great. More than intelligence and education, we need leaders who allow for possibilities rather than shield us from them.
7. Two decades ago Republicans stood up and told the country that “Democrat” meant soft on crime, soft on the law, soft on education, soft on values, and soft on national security. And instead of standing up to this, the Democrats cowered in the corner and said, “Please, don’t hurt us.” Now, Democrats are saying that “Republican” means stupid, barbaric, and ignorant, and Republicans are running for the same corner of the house. These are salami tactics that should not be used in the first place and responded to with positive reinforcement of ideas and policies.
8. Swinging for the fences. It’s a sign of desperation, and no one sees it the way it’s wanted to be seen.
So there they are, the 8 things I find most discouraging about the Republican Party. In fact, you could remove the party slant and write almost the same article, the same 8 things, about what is wrong with the American political system. That would be even more depressing.
Read More......
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Thought Leadership
With all of the Obama/Ayers controversy, that seems to be the latest focus of the McCain campaign, I found this video of Obama speaking with Bill O'Reilly, on Fox, discussing his past associations.
You probably won't be convinced of anything new for or against Obama or O'Reilly, but either way, I think that you should take note of the way that Obama responds to the questions.
Read More......
You probably won't be convinced of anything new for or against Obama or O'Reilly, but either way, I think that you should take note of the way that Obama responds to the questions.
Read More......
Friday, October 10, 2008
A Fresh Start
At well over 6000 views, and having survived a full day of fasting leading into a delicious break-fast (which may have featured some of the most wonderful food EVER), we are back at it again with some even bigger things happening.
Earlier this week, I had a chance to meet with Barry Rosenberg, Vice President of the Federation, Yid-lover, Mensch, and as it turns out, a supporter of what we are all about (which, in case you need to be reminded, is bringing together post-college Jews to create a fly young community).
I think that there is a lot of possibility that came out of our discussion.
First, it is clear that even in the highest ranks of the Federation, there is an understanding of our importance of a demographic, as well as the fact that current outreach attempts are perhaps not at the level they would like.
Second, they are willing to act on these understandings, which shouldn't be underestimated as the Federation has quite a bit of clout, and resources.
The trick here is to find a solution that provides for the accountability that Federation must provide its donors, as well as the flexibility that we need so as not to become encumbered by too much structure. After all, we are building relationships, which need to be able to mature at their own pace and in their own way.
Really, as much as we have been placed in the role of leaders by default, we want to know what we could do that you would be interested in being a part of.
Should we carpet our basement, get a pool table, maybe a keggerator?
Should we try to set up weekly Hebrew lessons so that we can talk about attractive members of the opposite sex at bars without them knowing?
What are you interested in? I'm happy to do the leg work to turn the best ideas into reality. So go ahead, comment, email, SMS, whatever. But make yourself heard. It's your community too, what do you want it to look like?
Read More......
Earlier this week, I had a chance to meet with Barry Rosenberg, Vice President of the Federation, Yid-lover, Mensch, and as it turns out, a supporter of what we are all about (which, in case you need to be reminded, is bringing together post-college Jews to create a fly young community).
I think that there is a lot of possibility that came out of our discussion.
First, it is clear that even in the highest ranks of the Federation, there is an understanding of our importance of a demographic, as well as the fact that current outreach attempts are perhaps not at the level they would like.
Second, they are willing to act on these understandings, which shouldn't be underestimated as the Federation has quite a bit of clout, and resources.
The trick here is to find a solution that provides for the accountability that Federation must provide its donors, as well as the flexibility that we need so as not to become encumbered by too much structure. After all, we are building relationships, which need to be able to mature at their own pace and in their own way.
Really, as much as we have been placed in the role of leaders by default, we want to know what we could do that you would be interested in being a part of.
Should we carpet our basement, get a pool table, maybe a keggerator?
Should we try to set up weekly Hebrew lessons so that we can talk about attractive members of the opposite sex at bars without them knowing?
What are you interested in? I'm happy to do the leg work to turn the best ideas into reality. So go ahead, comment, email, SMS, whatever. But make yourself heard. It's your community too, what do you want it to look like?
Read More......
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Hidden Gems Part 2: The Gramophone
One of the key factors in deciding whether or not I like a city is always the availability of a diverse range of live music, preferably cheap or free, and the environment in which it takes place.
While I didn't just unearth this gem last night, I want to make special mention of the Gramophone
I've been checking out the Gramophone periodically since it opened a few months ago.
Last night cemented the Gramophone as my jazz spot in STL.
I used to be a Wednesday night jazz at Riddles (Penultimate) die-hard. Drinks were affordable, cover was waived, and Ptah brought the faux ivory of his keyboard to life.
On the negative side, it was always really smokey, and the place isn't really set up very well as a venue.
The Gramophone, on the other hand, is a smoke free bar that doubles as a musical venue in the Grove (aka Tower Grove), an up-and-coming area previously known for gay-friendly bars such as Novack's.
Last night, New York jazz band Shift 4 was the main attraction. The band was unique in that the only chordal instrument was a vibraphone (instead of the usual piano or guitar), which lent a much softer and loftier tone to the performance.
Shift 4 started out fairly relaxed, with a more contemporary back-beat driven jazz sound and built up to spiraling, almost free jazz intensity as their crescendo reached a peak.
Saxaphonist Logan Richardson led the group through several unique compositions which didn't end as much as one faded into the other. Tommy Crane, fantastic drummer, and native son of STL made a triumphant return. Mike Pinto crushed it on Vibes, and Chris Tordini held down the bass grooves.
The Gramophone was packed, probably the most busy I've seen it, or at least, since 80's night a month or two ago.
Couple that with Sound Clash, a mash up filled Thursday night, hosted by DJs Crucial and Needles, two of the top hip hop and beyond DJs in the city, and you have a very unique place.
Which is exactly what Roo Yawitz, co-owner (with his wife) wanted to create.
Even their beer list is eclectic, ranging from cans of Schlitz and PBR to unique finds like Anchor Porter and McEwen's Scotch Ale.
This place is worth a visit! And if you haven't been, consider Thursday October 23rd a perfect time. Meet up with the Saint Louis Israel Connection for a night of Israeli music, dancing, and drink specials.
View Larger Map
Read More......
While I didn't just unearth this gem last night, I want to make special mention of the Gramophone
I've been checking out the Gramophone periodically since it opened a few months ago.
Last night cemented the Gramophone as my jazz spot in STL.
I used to be a Wednesday night jazz at Riddles (Penultimate) die-hard. Drinks were affordable, cover was waived, and Ptah brought the faux ivory of his keyboard to life.
On the negative side, it was always really smokey, and the place isn't really set up very well as a venue.
The Gramophone, on the other hand, is a smoke free bar that doubles as a musical venue in the Grove (aka Tower Grove), an up-and-coming area previously known for gay-friendly bars such as Novack's.
Last night, New York jazz band Shift 4 was the main attraction. The band was unique in that the only chordal instrument was a vibraphone (instead of the usual piano or guitar), which lent a much softer and loftier tone to the performance.
Shift 4 started out fairly relaxed, with a more contemporary back-beat driven jazz sound and built up to spiraling, almost free jazz intensity as their crescendo reached a peak.
Saxaphonist Logan Richardson led the group through several unique compositions which didn't end as much as one faded into the other. Tommy Crane, fantastic drummer, and native son of STL made a triumphant return. Mike Pinto crushed it on Vibes, and Chris Tordini held down the bass grooves.
The Gramophone was packed, probably the most busy I've seen it, or at least, since 80's night a month or two ago.
Couple that with Sound Clash, a mash up filled Thursday night, hosted by DJs Crucial and Needles, two of the top hip hop and beyond DJs in the city, and you have a very unique place.
Which is exactly what Roo Yawitz, co-owner (with his wife) wanted to create.
Even their beer list is eclectic, ranging from cans of Schlitz and PBR to unique finds like Anchor Porter and McEwen's Scotch Ale.
This place is worth a visit! And if you haven't been, consider Thursday October 23rd a perfect time. Meet up with the Saint Louis Israel Connection for a night of Israeli music, dancing, and drink specials.
View Larger Map
Read More......
Pulling Away?
Following last night's debate, an interesting perspective from an unlikely source...
Much of what is being said about last night's presidential debate is pretty standard... they both did well, no one made a big mistake, no one landed the knockout punch, yadda yadda yadda.
But here is a perspective from the Christian Science Monitor, suggesting that McCain is having real trouble gaining traction and exciting voters throughout the Christian conservative base. The problem for McCain is, we are no longer months away from the election, we are weeks and soon days. And as the election inches closer, the story continues to be can John McCain catch up, can he kick-start his campaign, not that he is and that it is working.
I'm a sports fan, so it breaks down easiest for me like this. John McCain needs a game-saving drive, and time is running out to make it happen.
Amen to that.
Read More......
Much of what is being said about last night's presidential debate is pretty standard... they both did well, no one made a big mistake, no one landed the knockout punch, yadda yadda yadda.
But here is a perspective from the Christian Science Monitor, suggesting that McCain is having real trouble gaining traction and exciting voters throughout the Christian conservative base. The problem for McCain is, we are no longer months away from the election, we are weeks and soon days. And as the election inches closer, the story continues to be can John McCain catch up, can he kick-start his campaign, not that he is and that it is working.
I'm a sports fan, so it breaks down easiest for me like this. John McCain needs a game-saving drive, and time is running out to make it happen.
Amen to that.
Read More......
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Catch A Fire
This past Friday night, 50 people, ranging from Wash U undergrads, graduate students in OT, PT, Med school, law school, young professionals, and a few bums gathered at a beautiful mansion in the Central West End to celebrate Shabbat.
What does this mean for the future of St. Louis' Jewish community?
Aside from showcasing my press release skills. . . nothing that dramatic perhaps, but all the same, getting together that many young, interesting, and interested people to simply connect with one another is pretty cool.
There is probably a lesson for the Federated community in here somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it (at least until I figure out how to monetize it).
Maybe it was the wine. Perhaps the copious amounts of free food. It might have something to do with not letting in socially awkward people.
Hyperbole is a passion of mine. But let me explain why. This is was the first event that I have been to in St. Louis since I graduated that brought together so many young Jews without preconditions or expectations (ok, so maybe we asked for a bottle of wine here, a salad there).
Its been a personal struggle to justify being in St. Louis as opposed to Chicago, New York, Boston, DC, or Tel Aviv.
But a little more than a year out of school, I think we've changed something.
Sure, it's small, but it's proof that it is possible to have a thriving young (and I don't mean sans-AARP membership) Jewish community in St. Louis.
Read More......
What does this mean for the future of St. Louis' Jewish community?
Aside from showcasing my press release skills. . . nothing that dramatic perhaps, but all the same, getting together that many young, interesting, and interested people to simply connect with one another is pretty cool.
There is probably a lesson for the Federated community in here somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it (at least until I figure out how to monetize it).
Maybe it was the wine. Perhaps the copious amounts of free food. It might have something to do with not letting in socially awkward people.
Hyperbole is a passion of mine. But let me explain why. This is was the first event that I have been to in St. Louis since I graduated that brought together so many young Jews without preconditions or expectations (ok, so maybe we asked for a bottle of wine here, a salad there).
Its been a personal struggle to justify being in St. Louis as opposed to Chicago, New York, Boston, DC, or Tel Aviv.
But a little more than a year out of school, I think we've changed something.
Sure, it's small, but it's proof that it is possible to have a thriving young (and I don't mean sans-AARP membership) Jewish community in St. Louis.
Read More......
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Ibos of Nigeria: Members of the Tribe?
Many years ago, when the Ethiopian Jews were 'discovered', there was a lot of skepticism around whether or not they were Jewish, and how to assimilate Jews jam-packed with melanin into the collective consciousness.
A story from the yesterday's Forward (yes, the Forward) bring to light Jewish Ibo of Nigeria, and their struggles for legitimacy.
When most Americans are asked to describe a Jew, they probably imagine that person to be fairly pale (unless she spent a lot of time in a tanning bed), with curly dark hair (unless she straightened and dyed it), and is smart, left-leaning on social issues, and upwardly mobile.
But Jewish communities in India, Ethiopia, China, and now Nigeria make that stereotype a bit outlandish.
Still, even within the Jewish community, the Ibo Jews of Nigeria (because most Nigerians aren't Ibo, and most Ibo aren't Jewish) face a struggle for legitimacy within the world-wide Jewish community.
Despite having rituals in common such as circumcision and the shiva mourning period, the estimated 30,000 Nigerian Jews have not yet been recognized by Israel, a process which requires a thorough vetting (insert Sarah Palin reference here) by historians, politicians, and rabbis.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out as Israel tries to walk a fine line on this issue.
Check out the full article here.
Read More......
A story from the yesterday's Forward (yes, the Forward) bring to light Jewish Ibo of Nigeria, and their struggles for legitimacy.
When most Americans are asked to describe a Jew, they probably imagine that person to be fairly pale (unless she spent a lot of time in a tanning bed), with curly dark hair (unless she straightened and dyed it), and is smart, left-leaning on social issues, and upwardly mobile.
But Jewish communities in India, Ethiopia, China, and now Nigeria make that stereotype a bit outlandish.
Still, even within the Jewish community, the Ibo Jews of Nigeria (because most Nigerians aren't Ibo, and most Ibo aren't Jewish) face a struggle for legitimacy within the world-wide Jewish community.
Despite having rituals in common such as circumcision and the shiva mourning period, the estimated 30,000 Nigerian Jews have not yet been recognized by Israel, a process which requires a thorough vetting (insert Sarah Palin reference here) by historians, politicians, and rabbis.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out as Israel tries to walk a fine line on this issue.
Check out the full article here.
Read More......
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Master Debaters
First, Shana Tova to everyone, may this year bring us all, our country, and Israel new life, peace, and prosperity.
On the occasion of today's Vice-Presidential Debate, at Washington University, I wanted to try to give some insight, having been one of the lucky few, who, four years ago, witnessed the presidential debates at WU.
My presence at the debate was an example of Jewish geography at its finest: a friend of the family had a friend who worked for the Commission on Presidential Debates.
I walked from Wash U into Clayton to pick up the ticket, using an International Student ID card (which happened to make me 21) on the way to pick up a bottle of wine for the lovely ticket providing friend.
Being still a doe-eyed freshman, the whole ordeal seemed larger than life.
Hordes of media, security, and excitement.
People were excited to see the President of the Unites States... and perhaps more excited to see the man they hoped would become the President of the United States.
In a situation not too unlike the Vice-Presidential debate this year, four years ago, the Presidential debate pitted a Democrat noted for his master debating skills against a Republican for whom the bar was set abysmally low.
Let me tell you what I saw unfold in that debate.
I heard John Kerry give lucid, fairly-well reasoned responses in a somewhat academic manner. The students who were hidden from the cameras in the upper level of the auditorium nodded appreciatively at the reason and pragmatism.
I also heard President George W. Bush act a little defensive, a bit anti-intellectual. He was the defender of Joe Six-pack, even if he'd never actually been a Joe Six-Pack. His arguments were emotional in nature, and while they drew scowls and suppressed jeers from the audience up above, the randomly picked town-hall participants seemed put at ease by his simple black and white answers.
History has a way of repeating itself, or so I'm told repetitively.
If Sarah Palin has a chance, it is this same tactic, the bullied underdog, constantly being attacked by pesky things like 'facts', 'logic', and appeals to reason.
It's not that I think her unintelligent. I just haven't seen any proof yet of her grasp of complex issues.
Ultimately though, I found the debate to be an exercise in evasive tactics. Neither candidate answered a single question directly, using the question instead to return to talking points again and again
Read More......
On the occasion of today's Vice-Presidential Debate, at Washington University, I wanted to try to give some insight, having been one of the lucky few, who, four years ago, witnessed the presidential debates at WU.
My presence at the debate was an example of Jewish geography at its finest: a friend of the family had a friend who worked for the Commission on Presidential Debates.
I walked from Wash U into Clayton to pick up the ticket, using an International Student ID card (which happened to make me 21) on the way to pick up a bottle of wine for the lovely ticket providing friend.
Being still a doe-eyed freshman, the whole ordeal seemed larger than life.
Hordes of media, security, and excitement.
People were excited to see the President of the Unites States... and perhaps more excited to see the man they hoped would become the President of the United States.
In a situation not too unlike the Vice-Presidential debate this year, four years ago, the Presidential debate pitted a Democrat noted for his master debating skills against a Republican for whom the bar was set abysmally low.
Let me tell you what I saw unfold in that debate.
I heard John Kerry give lucid, fairly-well reasoned responses in a somewhat academic manner. The students who were hidden from the cameras in the upper level of the auditorium nodded appreciatively at the reason and pragmatism.
I also heard President George W. Bush act a little defensive, a bit anti-intellectual. He was the defender of Joe Six-pack, even if he'd never actually been a Joe Six-Pack. His arguments were emotional in nature, and while they drew scowls and suppressed jeers from the audience up above, the randomly picked town-hall participants seemed put at ease by his simple black and white answers.
History has a way of repeating itself, or so I'm told repetitively.
If Sarah Palin has a chance, it is this same tactic, the bullied underdog, constantly being attacked by pesky things like 'facts', 'logic', and appeals to reason.
It's not that I think her unintelligent. I just haven't seen any proof yet of her grasp of complex issues.
Ultimately though, I found the debate to be an exercise in evasive tactics. Neither candidate answered a single question directly, using the question instead to return to talking points again and again
Read More......
The Case for Sarah Palin
I’ll admit, as a staunch John McCain supporter and rhetorician, I often find myself somewhat less than enthusiastic when asked to defend the choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President.
I’ll admit, as a staunch John McCain supporter and rhetorician, I often find myself somewhat less than enthusiastic when asked to defend the choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President. Do I agree with her policies? No, not many of them. Am I impressed by foreign policy experience? What foreign policy experience? Am I impressed by her leadership? A bit. Do I enjoy Tina Fey portraying her? Strongly yes. But she does have one legitimate thing going for her that frankly neither candidate on the Democratic ticket can claim, and I’m throwing out gender.
Governor Palin rose from beauty queen to sports reporter to city councilwoman to mayor to governor, landing her governorship in a very impressive fight by beating the incumbent governor in the primary and a former two-term governor in the general election. And now she’s the most popular governor in the country, which is saying a lot when you consider that she’s made many politically unpopular decisions along the way, especially amongst those of her own party. She has done more in her 2 years than any governor before her to clean up Alaska’s government.
Along the way, she made some questionable calls. I do not intend to justify her decision to keep the money from the “bridge to nowhere” (though you would be hard pressed to find a governor who has not pulled that sort of thing). But she has put herself in the position where decision making was not a luxury, but rather a requirement, numerous times, and she did so because she wanted to. She wanted to make decisions. And the positions from where she has had to make decisions have been held solely by her, not jointly with 99 other people. This you cannot say about Barak Obama or Joe Biden.
Taking nothing away from the membership of Barak Obama and Joe Biden to the United States Senate, but they have never led; they have never, as elected officials, been the final stop executive decision maker. In fact, in the case of the top ticket holder, Senator Obama, the man routinely voted “maybe” in his days in the Illinois legislature. Since September 2007, he has missed 80% of Senate votes, no doubt due in part to his campaigning, but that’s the point. It has become clear that since his time in the Illinois legislature, he has either not been present or voted “maybe” on many of the most important and/or divisive issues, including abortion, security, foreign aid, bridge safety, and the AMT, so that he can campaign without a track record that could contradict claims he may make.
His most controversial opinion (at least at the time the decision was being made) was that he did not support the Iraq War. That’s a pretty easy position to take when you have no vote on the matter, because of course he was not in the federal government at the time and did about as much as I did to affect the decision. However, since he has been in the US Senate, he has voted with Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Christopher Dodd on every significant bill pertaining to the Iraq War, perhaps suggesting that, given an actual vote on the matter, he may have voted with them to approve the war too.
For the last 6 days, I have not been able to get a quote out of my head. Some of you reading this have heard me recite it. It’s truly one of my favorites. It popped into my head last Friday when reading a Wall Street Journal article. Here’s the sentence that reminded me of the quote:
“During a morning meeting on Thursday, Sen. Barack Obama called the cellphone of Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, to take stock of the talks, according to people familiar with the matter.”
Senator Obama was taking more of a hands-off approach, claiming that presidential politics should not taint the process. Someone might have reminded the Senator that he and Senator McCain were not the only people involved and that partisanship was tainting matters plenty already. However, one thing their attendance would accomplish would have been to illuminate their positions on the matter, so I understand why he would want to stay in the background given his history. This train of thought is what reminded me of what Alexandre August Ledru-Rollin, a 19th century French radical, said upon seeing a crowd of people marching through Paris: “There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.” Classic.
And then I watched the debate, and I heard Senator Obama say “John’s right on this” or “I agree with John” in double digit frequency, and I realized something. Senator Obama is only comfortable leading when it is politically expedient. This may strike you as odd considering he wants to be the leader of our country, and I’m struck by that too. As president, you cannot opt out of the role of leadership. But ask yourself this: when has Senator Obama truly stood up, when his name and issue were both on the line at the same time, and he was in a position to influence the outcome, and stated his position unambiguously and voted that way? I’m not sure I can come up with a significant instance. While this is not unheard of behavior from a politician, it is not to be respected.
This is what Governor Palin has going for her. She may have been on a city council, but that’s grassroots. After that, she went straight for the executive role, and sought and achieved other executive positions of greater responsibility, because she wanted to make more important decisions, and she wanted the ultimate power in making those decisions. She does not shy away from taking the lead; she shows up every time, even when it matters most. She is a reliable leader precisely because of these things. You may not agree with what she did when she showed up, but she always showed up, unlike her opponents who ridicule her. You have to respect that.
Read More......
I’ll admit, as a staunch John McCain supporter and rhetorician, I often find myself somewhat less than enthusiastic when asked to defend the choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President. Do I agree with her policies? No, not many of them. Am I impressed by foreign policy experience? What foreign policy experience? Am I impressed by her leadership? A bit. Do I enjoy Tina Fey portraying her? Strongly yes. But she does have one legitimate thing going for her that frankly neither candidate on the Democratic ticket can claim, and I’m throwing out gender.
Governor Palin rose from beauty queen to sports reporter to city councilwoman to mayor to governor, landing her governorship in a very impressive fight by beating the incumbent governor in the primary and a former two-term governor in the general election. And now she’s the most popular governor in the country, which is saying a lot when you consider that she’s made many politically unpopular decisions along the way, especially amongst those of her own party. She has done more in her 2 years than any governor before her to clean up Alaska’s government.
Along the way, she made some questionable calls. I do not intend to justify her decision to keep the money from the “bridge to nowhere” (though you would be hard pressed to find a governor who has not pulled that sort of thing). But she has put herself in the position where decision making was not a luxury, but rather a requirement, numerous times, and she did so because she wanted to. She wanted to make decisions. And the positions from where she has had to make decisions have been held solely by her, not jointly with 99 other people. This you cannot say about Barak Obama or Joe Biden.
Taking nothing away from the membership of Barak Obama and Joe Biden to the United States Senate, but they have never led; they have never, as elected officials, been the final stop executive decision maker. In fact, in the case of the top ticket holder, Senator Obama, the man routinely voted “maybe” in his days in the Illinois legislature. Since September 2007, he has missed 80% of Senate votes, no doubt due in part to his campaigning, but that’s the point. It has become clear that since his time in the Illinois legislature, he has either not been present or voted “maybe” on many of the most important and/or divisive issues, including abortion, security, foreign aid, bridge safety, and the AMT, so that he can campaign without a track record that could contradict claims he may make.
His most controversial opinion (at least at the time the decision was being made) was that he did not support the Iraq War. That’s a pretty easy position to take when you have no vote on the matter, because of course he was not in the federal government at the time and did about as much as I did to affect the decision. However, since he has been in the US Senate, he has voted with Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Christopher Dodd on every significant bill pertaining to the Iraq War, perhaps suggesting that, given an actual vote on the matter, he may have voted with them to approve the war too.
For the last 6 days, I have not been able to get a quote out of my head. Some of you reading this have heard me recite it. It’s truly one of my favorites. It popped into my head last Friday when reading a Wall Street Journal article. Here’s the sentence that reminded me of the quote:
“During a morning meeting on Thursday, Sen. Barack Obama called the cellphone of Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, to take stock of the talks, according to people familiar with the matter.”
Senator Obama was taking more of a hands-off approach, claiming that presidential politics should not taint the process. Someone might have reminded the Senator that he and Senator McCain were not the only people involved and that partisanship was tainting matters plenty already. However, one thing their attendance would accomplish would have been to illuminate their positions on the matter, so I understand why he would want to stay in the background given his history. This train of thought is what reminded me of what Alexandre August Ledru-Rollin, a 19th century French radical, said upon seeing a crowd of people marching through Paris: “There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.” Classic.
And then I watched the debate, and I heard Senator Obama say “John’s right on this” or “I agree with John” in double digit frequency, and I realized something. Senator Obama is only comfortable leading when it is politically expedient. This may strike you as odd considering he wants to be the leader of our country, and I’m struck by that too. As president, you cannot opt out of the role of leadership. But ask yourself this: when has Senator Obama truly stood up, when his name and issue were both on the line at the same time, and he was in a position to influence the outcome, and stated his position unambiguously and voted that way? I’m not sure I can come up with a significant instance. While this is not unheard of behavior from a politician, it is not to be respected.
This is what Governor Palin has going for her. She may have been on a city council, but that’s grassroots. After that, she went straight for the executive role, and sought and achieved other executive positions of greater responsibility, because she wanted to make more important decisions, and she wanted the ultimate power in making those decisions. She does not shy away from taking the lead; she shows up every time, even when it matters most. She is a reliable leader precisely because of these things. You may not agree with what she did when she showed up, but she always showed up, unlike her opponents who ridicule her. You have to respect that.
Read More......
Jewish Alliance for Change
As if people didn't need another reason to think that Jews control the world, the Jewish vote is being more intensely scrutinized and fought over, than almost ever before. Read More......
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Pizza For the Kids
If you're like me, you're always looking for an excuse to eat good pizza...
Well on Wednesday, the St. Louis Area Dance Marathon is giving you one. If you eat at Il Vicino in Clayton between 4 and 10, a portion of the proceeds will be donated to Dance Marathon, a local organization that raises money for children's hospitals in the area. Having been a part of this great event, I will definitely vouch for it, but check it out for yourself here
Here is the schedule for the rest of the benefit nights this month:
-Monday, October 6: Cold Stone
-Wednesday, October 8: California Pizza Kitchen
-Wednesday, October 15: Noodles & Co.
-Wednesday, October 29: Cicero's
And if you are interested in participating in Dance Marathon itself, the date is October 25th-26th, and registration is still open for another week. Click here to sign up and join me to help this awesome cause.
Read More......
Well on Wednesday, the St. Louis Area Dance Marathon is giving you one. If you eat at Il Vicino in Clayton between 4 and 10, a portion of the proceeds will be donated to Dance Marathon, a local organization that raises money for children's hospitals in the area. Having been a part of this great event, I will definitely vouch for it, but check it out for yourself here
Here is the schedule for the rest of the benefit nights this month:
-Monday, October 6: Cold Stone
-Wednesday, October 8: California Pizza Kitchen
-Wednesday, October 15: Noodles & Co.
-Wednesday, October 29: Cicero's
And if you are interested in participating in Dance Marathon itself, the date is October 25th-26th, and registration is still open for another week. Click here to sign up and join me to help this awesome cause.
Read More......
Monday, September 29, 2008
Art imitating life...or vice versa?
After watching a mashup of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric, and the Saturday Night Live skit portraying the same, I couldn't help but react with disbelief
That video made me think that, perhaps, the McCain campaign's decision to keep Palin out of the limelight wasn't the worst it has made.
On one hand, she is dealing with a lot right now. As if having 5 kids (one of whom will have a kid, another who has special needs, and a third who is in Iraq) wasn't enough, dealing with her current responsibilities to Alaska, and trying to get caught up on an entirely different level of politics is leaving her totally in over her head.
This, however, doesn't excuse many of the reports coming out about the McCain campaign barring media access or trying to make arguements that the media shouldn't give her hard questions.
If I was a feminist (as much as a man can be), I would be quite upset with the way Palin is being treated. Not so much by the media, but by those on her side who are seeking special treatment.
Equal work for equal pay also means equal questioning, equal scrutiny, and equal qualifications.
It seams to me that her choice indicates a certain type of pandering. One that I can't imagine pro-women's rights women are pleased by.
Don't take my word for it, though, check the video and hear it from the horse's, or rather, the pitbull with lipstick's mouth.
Read More......
That video made me think that, perhaps, the McCain campaign's decision to keep Palin out of the limelight wasn't the worst it has made.
On one hand, she is dealing with a lot right now. As if having 5 kids (one of whom will have a kid, another who has special needs, and a third who is in Iraq) wasn't enough, dealing with her current responsibilities to Alaska, and trying to get caught up on an entirely different level of politics is leaving her totally in over her head.
This, however, doesn't excuse many of the reports coming out about the McCain campaign barring media access or trying to make arguements that the media shouldn't give her hard questions.
If I was a feminist (as much as a man can be), I would be quite upset with the way Palin is being treated. Not so much by the media, but by those on her side who are seeking special treatment.
Equal work for equal pay also means equal questioning, equal scrutiny, and equal qualifications.
It seams to me that her choice indicates a certain type of pandering. One that I can't imagine pro-women's rights women are pleased by.
Don't take my word for it, though, check the video and hear it from the horse's, or rather, the pitbull with lipstick's mouth.
Read More......
Friday, September 26, 2008
Hidden Gems
My first trip to the Thurman Grill, with Zuz, immediately became interesting when, on the menu, we found two words and a symbol...Bagels & Lox.
Now, its not every day that you see such a Heeby thing on the menu, especially in a neighborhood not exactly known these days for its biblical brother population.
But Zuz and I thought little of it, drank our porters, and were on our way.
Last night, with Elliot, however, the plot thickened.
View Larger Map
I made it to Thurman Grill a bit before 10 PM, after taking in a free sound check at Powell Symphony Hall. Side note, if you are planning on seeing the performance, which includes Rachmaninoff's 3rd, performed (or should I say masterfully brought to life) by MOT Yefim Bronfman, you are in for one hell of a show.
Back to Thurman, after we rolled up (arrived), I immediately became engaged in what seems like a preprogrammed ritual of bitching about the beer selection, and finally decided on a glass of Scotch (eight F@#$in' fifty!).
After catching up with Elliot for a minute, I decided to ask about the Bagels & Lox.
"What's the deal?," I asked Lenny, recently identified to us as the owner.
"Where did the bagels & Lox come from?"
And then..... he outed himself. First, a few words of Yiddish, that he picked up from his parents, who were from New York (Queens), who were .....Jewish!
He confirmed our suspicion that we were among the only Tribesters on the block, or in the neighborhood, for that matter.
"Still," he said, "its not as bad as St. Charles. When I lived out there I was definitely the only Jewish guy. I made friends with the only Black guy out there, and we held our own Freedom Rides."
He also filled us in on the Shaw Art Fair, happening October 4th and 5th (Click the Calendar link from our main page to see details).
Suddenly it hits me. We just moved down the street from one of the hidden treasures of St. Louis. A bar that could actually succeeds neighborhood bar that doesn't suck, isn't skeezy, and has a really interesting owner, who by some kind of crazy coincidence just happens to be a Yid.
Not only that, but Leffe Blondes are $2.50 all night. Because Lenny feels like it.
And I can stumble home?!
I'm sold.
And I can all but guarantee that the crew will be at Thurman Grill tonight after Shabbat dinner.
Feel free to join in.
Read More......
Now, its not every day that you see such a Heeby thing on the menu, especially in a neighborhood not exactly known these days for its biblical brother population.
But Zuz and I thought little of it, drank our porters, and were on our way.
Last night, with Elliot, however, the plot thickened.
View Larger Map
I made it to Thurman Grill a bit before 10 PM, after taking in a free sound check at Powell Symphony Hall. Side note, if you are planning on seeing the performance, which includes Rachmaninoff's 3rd, performed (or should I say masterfully brought to life) by MOT Yefim Bronfman, you are in for one hell of a show.
Back to Thurman, after we rolled up (arrived), I immediately became engaged in what seems like a preprogrammed ritual of bitching about the beer selection, and finally decided on a glass of Scotch (eight F@#$in' fifty!).
After catching up with Elliot for a minute, I decided to ask about the Bagels & Lox.
"What's the deal?," I asked Lenny, recently identified to us as the owner.
"Where did the bagels & Lox come from?"
And then..... he outed himself. First, a few words of Yiddish, that he picked up from his parents, who were from New York (Queens), who were .....Jewish!
He confirmed our suspicion that we were among the only Tribesters on the block, or in the neighborhood, for that matter.
"Still," he said, "its not as bad as St. Charles. When I lived out there I was definitely the only Jewish guy. I made friends with the only Black guy out there, and we held our own Freedom Rides."
He also filled us in on the Shaw Art Fair, happening October 4th and 5th (Click the Calendar link from our main page to see details).
Suddenly it hits me. We just moved down the street from one of the hidden treasures of St. Louis. A bar that could actually succeeds neighborhood bar that doesn't suck, isn't skeezy, and has a really interesting owner, who by some kind of crazy coincidence just happens to be a Yid.
Not only that, but Leffe Blondes are $2.50 all night. Because Lenny feels like it.
And I can stumble home?!
I'm sold.
And I can all but guarantee that the crew will be at Thurman Grill tonight after Shabbat dinner.
Feel free to join in.
Read More......
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Warning, extremely offensive, and hilarious
Sarah Silverman is her usual raunchy and hilarious self in this video designed to get young progressive Jews down to Florida to convince their conservative grandparents that Barack Obama is the man for the job.
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo. Read More......
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo. Read More......
Your High Holiday Options
After being taken to task in the comments of an earlier post on this issue, I've decided to post the best resource out there for finding synagogues geographically.
The Map is brilliantly color coded for easy visual comprehension goodness.
Find a part of town and a level of observance, and you are well on your way. And apparently, you can pull a Y and use your student ID card to get in free.
Because salvation should be free, right Scientologists?
Read More......
The Map is brilliantly color coded for easy visual comprehension goodness.
Find a part of town and a level of observance, and you are well on your way. And apparently, you can pull a Y and use your student ID card to get in free.
Because salvation should be free, right Scientologists?
Read More......
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaigns in Suspended Animation
Like, 5 minutes ago, John McCain announced that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington to work on the economic crisis. He asked that the Friday debates be called off and that Obama suspend his campaign as well. UPDATES BELOW
Update 3
UPDATE 2 "Harry Reid counters McCain's blatant stunt brilliantly"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a statement that would be unlikely to go out without the Obama campaign's approval, dismisses McCain's suspension:
As of the moment, only CNN seems to be running the story, with Google News not picking it up at all.
UPDATE: McCain's statement read:
There is no doubt that the the crisis facing Wall Street, and by extension the world financial system is fairly grave, but is this a politically motivated move?
As Obama seems to be regaining momentum, is McCain trying to stall it. Is McCain afraid of debating Obama live on TV?
What is going on here?
Read More......
Update 3
UPDATE 2 "Harry Reid counters McCain's blatant stunt brilliantly"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a statement that would be unlikely to go out without the Obama campaign's approval, dismisses McCain's suspension:
This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.
I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Senator Obama's suggestion. But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation's economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.
If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.
As of the moment, only CNN seems to be running the story, with Google News not picking it up at all.
UPDATE: McCain's statement read:
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me. I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis. I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so. Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.
There is no doubt that the the crisis facing Wall Street, and by extension the world financial system is fairly grave, but is this a politically motivated move?
As Obama seems to be regaining momentum, is McCain trying to stall it. Is McCain afraid of debating Obama live on TV?
What is going on here?
Read More......
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
High Holidays Are High Stress
THE HIGH HOLIDAYS ARE ALMOST HERE!! OY!
For many Jews, especially right out of college, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur represent the only days we may set foot in a synagogue.
But between deciding on going home to be with family, missing partial or whole days of work or classes, and figuring out just where to go for a service that you connect with, the Chagim can be pretty stressful.
An interesting article from the Boston Globe entitled, "Jewish High Holidays Come at a High Cost" examines the position of Young Yids in Boston who scramble to find an affordable seat for services. Shout out to GesherCity for coming off strong in the article. Does anyone know if they organize things similarly here?
While St. Louis may not put the same financial pressures on us young adults, the search for the right spiritual experience can be daunting.
Do I go reform, for something a little more laid back and egalitarian, but risk a campy or hippy atmosphere at best, some things I'm not convinced are part of the liturgy at worst?
Do I go Frum/Ortho, pass up the opportunity to admire our female co-coreligionists in their High-Holyday best, as well as deal with entirely too much Hebrew?
Should I shoot in the middle and try to hit up a conservative service, despite it being West of 270, the barrier beyond which urban Yids feel lost and confused?
There is always trusty Hillel, with its hordes of Wash U students, Rabbinical students, and on-campus parking issues.
Then there is the whole issue of how much time to take off of work. If I can make it to services and still put in a few hours in the office, I don't have to take a full vacation day, and I'll only feel half as guilty.
Unfortunately with the timing this year, I won't be able to make it back to the chavurah in the 513, so I'm left trying to figure out how to make the most of High Holidays in St. Louis
For everyone else in the same situation, click here for a listing of synagogues and services.
and let me know where you think all the other young Yids will be gettin' spiritual.
Read More......
For many Jews, especially right out of college, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur represent the only days we may set foot in a synagogue.
But between deciding on going home to be with family, missing partial or whole days of work or classes, and figuring out just where to go for a service that you connect with, the Chagim can be pretty stressful.
An interesting article from the Boston Globe entitled, "Jewish High Holidays Come at a High Cost" examines the position of Young Yids in Boston who scramble to find an affordable seat for services. Shout out to GesherCity for coming off strong in the article. Does anyone know if they organize things similarly here?
While St. Louis may not put the same financial pressures on us young adults, the search for the right spiritual experience can be daunting.
Do I go reform, for something a little more laid back and egalitarian, but risk a campy or hippy atmosphere at best, some things I'm not convinced are part of the liturgy at worst?
Do I go Frum/Ortho, pass up the opportunity to admire our female co-coreligionists in their High-Holyday best, as well as deal with entirely too much Hebrew?
Should I shoot in the middle and try to hit up a conservative service, despite it being West of 270, the barrier beyond which urban Yids feel lost and confused?
There is always trusty Hillel, with its hordes of Wash U students, Rabbinical students, and on-campus parking issues.
Then there is the whole issue of how much time to take off of work. If I can make it to services and still put in a few hours in the office, I don't have to take a full vacation day, and I'll only feel half as guilty.
Unfortunately with the timing this year, I won't be able to make it back to the chavurah in the 513, so I'm left trying to figure out how to make the most of High Holidays in St. Louis
For everyone else in the same situation, click here for a listing of synagogues and services.
and let me know where you think all the other young Yids will be gettin' spiritual.
Read More......
Monday, September 22, 2008
St Lou Jews Abroad
On the occasion of our 5,000th page view, I wanted to showcase our newest talent, DH1, who will be writing a bit about her experiences as a Jew traveling abroad.
Enjoy.
“Y, tu? Cual es tu religion?” my Mexican host mother asked me excitedly. I couldn’t believe that I actually felt nervous answering a question about my religion. Had I ever, in my entire life, felt anything but glowing pride in making the statement that I was Jewish? If I can recall correctly, the answer was no.
These uneasy feelings were unfamiliar to me. I was confident that my Jewish identity was strong, as I had grown up in a community that welcomed diversity and had never lived far from the security of a supportive Jewish world. As I prepared to embark on a year-long adventure throughout Europe and Central/South America, I recall feeling a strange apprehension with respect to my Judaism. My knowledge that anti-Semitism was thriving in many countries around the world filled me with many questions about how the next year would unfold.
For the first time, I considered the possibility of encountering situations in which I would not feel comfortable expressing my Judaism. I already knew that I would be living with three different host families in Mexico, Spain, and Chile. What if my families didn’t like me because I was Jewish? I had already experienced how unfounded hate continues to be a common thread within the historical memory of many cultures. As I had witnessed in Poland two years prior, I knew that old stereotypes and fabricated tales still hold great sway and power in the minds of many.
Fortunately, I am happy to report that my experience in Puebla, Mexico was nothing of the sort. When I carefully explained to my host mother that I was Jewish, her eyes lit up with a kind of intense happiness that was both shocking and difficult to describe.
As it turns out, my Mexican host family professes to a sect of Christianity that is deeply devoted to Israel and the belief that the Jews are God’s chosen people. A woman of modest means, my host mother had traveled to Israel a few years before, and related vivid accounts of her experience at the Jordan River.
Throughout the summer, she would wheel me into the kitchen (out of sight from my non-Jewish roommate), place her hands on my head, and begin to recite a stream of extravagant blessings and prayers. The shock and humor of the situation was astounding to me. I had been expecting an uneasy welcome. Instead, I was met by an overwhelming fascination with all things Jewish. My host family introduced me to the pastor of the church (“she’s JEWISH!!!”) and asked me to write all of their names in Hebrew. Occasionally, mealtimes would be characterized by interrogations about Israel and its geography, the Jewish holidays (they were especially curious about Passover), and my family’s traditions.
The warmth, love, and acceptance of strangers who welcomed me into their home and their lives were deeply inspiring. They showed me that tolerance does exist, even in the most unlikely places.
Read More......
Enjoy.
“Y, tu? Cual es tu religion?” my Mexican host mother asked me excitedly. I couldn’t believe that I actually felt nervous answering a question about my religion. Had I ever, in my entire life, felt anything but glowing pride in making the statement that I was Jewish? If I can recall correctly, the answer was no.
These uneasy feelings were unfamiliar to me. I was confident that my Jewish identity was strong, as I had grown up in a community that welcomed diversity and had never lived far from the security of a supportive Jewish world. As I prepared to embark on a year-long adventure throughout Europe and Central/South America, I recall feeling a strange apprehension with respect to my Judaism. My knowledge that anti-Semitism was thriving in many countries around the world filled me with many questions about how the next year would unfold.
For the first time, I considered the possibility of encountering situations in which I would not feel comfortable expressing my Judaism. I already knew that I would be living with three different host families in Mexico, Spain, and Chile. What if my families didn’t like me because I was Jewish? I had already experienced how unfounded hate continues to be a common thread within the historical memory of many cultures. As I had witnessed in Poland two years prior, I knew that old stereotypes and fabricated tales still hold great sway and power in the minds of many.
Fortunately, I am happy to report that my experience in Puebla, Mexico was nothing of the sort. When I carefully explained to my host mother that I was Jewish, her eyes lit up with a kind of intense happiness that was both shocking and difficult to describe.
As it turns out, my Mexican host family professes to a sect of Christianity that is deeply devoted to Israel and the belief that the Jews are God’s chosen people. A woman of modest means, my host mother had traveled to Israel a few years before, and related vivid accounts of her experience at the Jordan River.
Throughout the summer, she would wheel me into the kitchen (out of sight from my non-Jewish roommate), place her hands on my head, and begin to recite a stream of extravagant blessings and prayers. The shock and humor of the situation was astounding to me. I had been expecting an uneasy welcome. Instead, I was met by an overwhelming fascination with all things Jewish. My host family introduced me to the pastor of the church (“she’s JEWISH!!!”) and asked me to write all of their names in Hebrew. Occasionally, mealtimes would be characterized by interrogations about Israel and its geography, the Jewish holidays (they were especially curious about Passover), and my family’s traditions.
The warmth, love, and acceptance of strangers who welcomed me into their home and their lives were deeply inspiring. They showed me that tolerance does exist, even in the most unlikely places.
Read More......
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Why the McCain Campaign Would Love for You to Donate to Planned Parenthood
John McCain would love for you to donate to Planned Parenthood. Well, kind of; only if you’re doing it because you’re a Barak Obama supporter. The scheme going around now of donating and having your thank you card sent to the McCain campaign office is clever, but it’s exactly what the Obama campaign would ask you not to do, if they could do so without opening the Senator up to accusations that he no longer supports Planned Parenthood.
This is a serious campaign, and Senator Obama says he would love to focus on the issues. These kinds of acts of petulance distract from a campaign’s message. Public opinion is a difficult thing to manage; that’s why smart people get paid of lot of money to steer it. Depending on whether the Planned Parenthood scheme takes off, and how big it could become, any or all of the following could take place.
First, it highlights a group of Barak Obama supporters who are acting immaturely in the
Senator’s name and cause. That’s a distraction the Obama campaign would rather not have to address, and the campaign would really rather avoid having to scold another group of supporters – they’ve had to do a lot of that.
Second, the Obama campaign would prefer to be the recipient of the $10 that the scheme recommends people donate. Because the scheme is primarily designed to embarrass John McCain rather than highlight the value of Barak Obama or even Planned Parenthood, the Obama campaign would be a wiser spender of those dollars, and probably use them more effectively to beat the Arizona senator in November.
Third, you’re giving the McCain campaign another tire pressure issue: “Obama would have you believe that money fixes American families, and that a liberal group knows how to run your family better than you do. This is another liberal elitist falsehood. Strong families are those that built on love and values and faith, not abortion clinic propaganda and condoms.” This leads us to:
Forth, talk about energizing the conservative base. While Barak Obama and his folowers may support Planned Parenthood, the voters that Sarah Palin has brought out do not, and the more you bate them, the more fervent they will be, and more enthusiasm will be generated for the Republican ticket. This leads us to:
Fifth, electoral math. Planned Parenthood had to pay $50,000 for violating Minnesota’s parent notification law in 2005. Currently, Senator Obama leads Senator McCain by 4% in that state, this down from 18% in July. A dispute similar to this one is still in process in Indiana, where McCain’s lead has halved in the last month. Not that this sort of thing guarantees a slide for Senator Obama in either of these two states, but they’re both battleground states, and you don’t want to bate the local conservatives.
Again, this scheme would have to get pretty big to be a catalyst to trigger any of these responses. But if even one of them does occur, chances are it will create more trouble than advantage.
Read More......
This is a serious campaign, and Senator Obama says he would love to focus on the issues. These kinds of acts of petulance distract from a campaign’s message. Public opinion is a difficult thing to manage; that’s why smart people get paid of lot of money to steer it. Depending on whether the Planned Parenthood scheme takes off, and how big it could become, any or all of the following could take place.
First, it highlights a group of Barak Obama supporters who are acting immaturely in the
Senator’s name and cause. That’s a distraction the Obama campaign would rather not have to address, and the campaign would really rather avoid having to scold another group of supporters – they’ve had to do a lot of that.
Second, the Obama campaign would prefer to be the recipient of the $10 that the scheme recommends people donate. Because the scheme is primarily designed to embarrass John McCain rather than highlight the value of Barak Obama or even Planned Parenthood, the Obama campaign would be a wiser spender of those dollars, and probably use them more effectively to beat the Arizona senator in November.
Third, you’re giving the McCain campaign another tire pressure issue: “Obama would have you believe that money fixes American families, and that a liberal group knows how to run your family better than you do. This is another liberal elitist falsehood. Strong families are those that built on love and values and faith, not abortion clinic propaganda and condoms.” This leads us to:
Forth, talk about energizing the conservative base. While Barak Obama and his folowers may support Planned Parenthood, the voters that Sarah Palin has brought out do not, and the more you bate them, the more fervent they will be, and more enthusiasm will be generated for the Republican ticket. This leads us to:
Fifth, electoral math. Planned Parenthood had to pay $50,000 for violating Minnesota’s parent notification law in 2005. Currently, Senator Obama leads Senator McCain by 4% in that state, this down from 18% in July. A dispute similar to this one is still in process in Indiana, where McCain’s lead has halved in the last month. Not that this sort of thing guarantees a slide for Senator Obama in either of these two states, but they’re both battleground states, and you don’t want to bate the local conservatives.
Again, this scheme would have to get pretty big to be a catalyst to trigger any of these responses. But if even one of them does occur, chances are it will create more trouble than advantage.
Read More......
Let It Raine
Our financial system sucks. Alright, maybe it doesn’t suck, but let’s be honest; it’s seen much, much better times. I remember when a can of soda was a quarter. It was right around the time I walked up hill both ways. When you reach my age, the knees start to go, you don’t remember your friend’s names, and you can’t eat a large pepperoni pizza without feeling like a beached whale afterwards. The times, they are changing.
Fannie, Freddie, WaMu, AIG, Bear Stearns, you name it; chances are if it’s a financial institution then it’s not doing so hot. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan says this is the worst financial crisis he’s seen. And in response, politicians are playing the name game. Senator Biden says it’s the fault of the Bush tax cuts, which makes almost as much sense as blaming world hunger on said tax cuts. Senator McCain and Governor Palin say its Wall Street’s “unbridled corruption and greed.” Senator Obama repeats what Treasury head Henry Paulson says, but that’s only because he hasn’t had his roundtable on what’s going on yet – he’ll get back to us once Paulson makes his next statement.
I maintain that they’re all wrong. I have a different name, and while you can’t even pin the whole thing on him, if we made a list of names, his contend for everyone’s top spot. He’s not a Wall Street fat cat. Although people are blaming Wall Street in droves, no one has put forth a name because it appears that, at least this time, they haven’t broken any laws. My guy is Frank Raines, and he’s not even in the business these days.
Raines was given the job of running Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004. He made it his top priority to open up the mortgage market to anyone who wanted one, even if they had poor credit, no assets, and no down payment - our defender of the American Dream. What a hero. He did it by loosening lending standards, because the way to fix something illegal is to make it legal (think illegal immigration).
Thanks to Jimmy C, it used to be that banks had to prove that they were not giving loans to minorities for the reason that they were minorities by approving loans to minorities and “community groups” (who coincidentally were staffed by the far-left) along the lines of those that Senator Obama used to get his start (that’s a whole other post). It was called vast extortion of US Banks at the time and set us on the path to where we are today.
Still, banks were happy to issue such loans and pass them on to Fannie, who gobbled up these terrible loans and bundled them with good ones and sold them to a Wall Street eager to buy because Fannie was considered a government-back monstrosity too big to fail. Oops.
The current crisis stems from loans issued to people who could never afford them. While the Democrats on the Hill love to blame predatory lenders, were it not for their own crowd including Presidents Carter and Clinton, and the man the latter appointed, Frank Raines, the lenders would not have been allowed to give money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. When the bad mortgages were added the stew, and because of the new accounting rules stemming from Enron (an effort led by the prophetic Democrats), the bad mortgages can not be removed, and the pot was soured. More liberal relativism - if they want a house, they can have it (only they really can't).
Of course the stew may not have been gone bad had Raines followed a good recipe. When you open the shop to anyone who wants to take at will, you don’t stay in business for very long. How does the American Dream look now?
There are other considerations, like the end of the housing boom. But the system takes care of these kinds of events. The reason the system can not cope this time is because of the big dose of toxins injected into it by Washington. In 2005, the first fiscal year after Raines left, Fannie revealed that its earning statement showed over $10 billion that it couldn’t find a source for. The Bush Administration pushed for reforms but was rebuffed by the Democrat-controlled Congress. You see, Fannie (and Freddie) has some pretty good lobbyists. They get along well with people like Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank and Barak Obama because they give them millions in campaign contributions – Dodd and Obama are the top 2 recipients of contributions from Mae.
We were forewarned in 2005 with this information. Senator McCain then sponsored legislation to counter what he said was “the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” Was he right? Yes. But needless to say, the legislation: rebuffed.
Raines, he was investigated heavily and settled for $24 million. That’s a lot of money unless you earned $90 million, $52 of which part of a compensation package based on fraudulent earnings statements that oversold his effectiveness.
Let’s keep blaming Wall Street. It covers all manner of sins. But more importantly, let's learn from these mistakes: only borrow money if you can pay it back, and only loan money to people who can afford to pay it back.
Read More......
Fannie, Freddie, WaMu, AIG, Bear Stearns, you name it; chances are if it’s a financial institution then it’s not doing so hot. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan says this is the worst financial crisis he’s seen. And in response, politicians are playing the name game. Senator Biden says it’s the fault of the Bush tax cuts, which makes almost as much sense as blaming world hunger on said tax cuts. Senator McCain and Governor Palin say its Wall Street’s “unbridled corruption and greed.” Senator Obama repeats what Treasury head Henry Paulson says, but that’s only because he hasn’t had his roundtable on what’s going on yet – he’ll get back to us once Paulson makes his next statement.
I maintain that they’re all wrong. I have a different name, and while you can’t even pin the whole thing on him, if we made a list of names, his contend for everyone’s top spot. He’s not a Wall Street fat cat. Although people are blaming Wall Street in droves, no one has put forth a name because it appears that, at least this time, they haven’t broken any laws. My guy is Frank Raines, and he’s not even in the business these days.
Raines was given the job of running Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004. He made it his top priority to open up the mortgage market to anyone who wanted one, even if they had poor credit, no assets, and no down payment - our defender of the American Dream. What a hero. He did it by loosening lending standards, because the way to fix something illegal is to make it legal (think illegal immigration).
Thanks to Jimmy C, it used to be that banks had to prove that they were not giving loans to minorities for the reason that they were minorities by approving loans to minorities and “community groups” (who coincidentally were staffed by the far-left) along the lines of those that Senator Obama used to get his start (that’s a whole other post). It was called vast extortion of US Banks at the time and set us on the path to where we are today.
Still, banks were happy to issue such loans and pass them on to Fannie, who gobbled up these terrible loans and bundled them with good ones and sold them to a Wall Street eager to buy because Fannie was considered a government-back monstrosity too big to fail. Oops.
The current crisis stems from loans issued to people who could never afford them. While the Democrats on the Hill love to blame predatory lenders, were it not for their own crowd including Presidents Carter and Clinton, and the man the latter appointed, Frank Raines, the lenders would not have been allowed to give money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. When the bad mortgages were added the stew, and because of the new accounting rules stemming from Enron (an effort led by the prophetic Democrats), the bad mortgages can not be removed, and the pot was soured. More liberal relativism - if they want a house, they can have it (only they really can't).
Of course the stew may not have been gone bad had Raines followed a good recipe. When you open the shop to anyone who wants to take at will, you don’t stay in business for very long. How does the American Dream look now?
There are other considerations, like the end of the housing boom. But the system takes care of these kinds of events. The reason the system can not cope this time is because of the big dose of toxins injected into it by Washington. In 2005, the first fiscal year after Raines left, Fannie revealed that its earning statement showed over $10 billion that it couldn’t find a source for. The Bush Administration pushed for reforms but was rebuffed by the Democrat-controlled Congress. You see, Fannie (and Freddie) has some pretty good lobbyists. They get along well with people like Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank and Barak Obama because they give them millions in campaign contributions – Dodd and Obama are the top 2 recipients of contributions from Mae.
We were forewarned in 2005 with this information. Senator McCain then sponsored legislation to counter what he said was “the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” Was he right? Yes. But needless to say, the legislation: rebuffed.
Raines, he was investigated heavily and settled for $24 million. That’s a lot of money unless you earned $90 million, $52 of which part of a compensation package based on fraudulent earnings statements that oversold his effectiveness.
Let’s keep blaming Wall Street. It covers all manner of sins. But more importantly, let's learn from these mistakes: only borrow money if you can pay it back, and only loan money to people who can afford to pay it back.
Read More......
A Brilliant Strategy
Looking for a way to tweak the McCain campaign and help out a good cause all at the same time?
There is a deliciously devious movement quickly spreading across the internet to "honor" Sarah Palin's candidacy. Here's the deal.
When you donate to Planned Parenthood, they send you a postcard thanking you for your support. So, the idea is to make a $10 tax deductible donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. Then, when they ask for an address for the donation, put in the McCain campaign headquarters:
McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202
This way, the McCain office will be flooded with hundreds and thousands of donation cards from Planned Parenthood, the very organization that McPalin is so against! And you are helping out a good cause at the same time. What could be better than that?
To donate, click here and then go to donate and honorary gifts
Read More......
There is a deliciously devious movement quickly spreading across the internet to "honor" Sarah Palin's candidacy. Here's the deal.
When you donate to Planned Parenthood, they send you a postcard thanking you for your support. So, the idea is to make a $10 tax deductible donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. Then, when they ask for an address for the donation, put in the McCain campaign headquarters:
McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202
This way, the McCain office will be flooded with hundreds and thousands of donation cards from Planned Parenthood, the very organization that McPalin is so against! And you are helping out a good cause at the same time. What could be better than that?
To donate, click here and then go to donate and honorary gifts
Read More......
Friday, September 19, 2008
Hurricaine Ike's St. Louis Devastation
Ike make its way powerfully through much of the Midwest, causing power outages in Cincinnati, flooding in Chicago, and a good deal of damage in our own back yard as well.
I don't know why this hasn't received much media play around town but...
Here is the pertinent info from the U City Manager
(http://mo-universitycity.civicplus.com/DocumentView.asp?DID=824)
On Sunday, 4.42 inches of rain fell in a very short period of time, causing flash flooding responsible for two fatalities, damage to hundreds of homes, and damage to city infrastructure and public facilities.
Thus far, the City condemned 275 homes; thirty have yet to be inspected, of the remaining homes, all but 10 single-family homes and 27 apartments have been cleared for re-entry. Assessments are underway to determine the full extent of the damage to public infrastructure and City-owned facilities. Public school buildings were damaged and are being assessed. The City and Red Cross are providing shelter and other emergency aide to flood victims. FEMA will arrive Friday morning for inspection.
Mayor Adams declared a State of Emergency on September 14, 2008. The declaration will be confirmed by City Council on September 22, 2008.
This Friday, September 19, from 7 AM to 1 PM at Centennial Commons, 7210 Olive Blvd (the location of the still existing Red Cross Shelter), there will be an aide station set up to provide special assistance to flood victims. The County Department of Public Health will provide tetanus shots to individuals seven years and older on a first come first serve basis. The Community Action Agency will be there to provide vouchers for food, clothes and transportation. There is a plan to have some legal aide assistance there as well. Read More......
I don't know why this hasn't received much media play around town but...
Here is the pertinent info from the U City Manager
(http://mo-universitycity.civicplus.com/DocumentView.asp?DID=824)
On Sunday, 4.42 inches of rain fell in a very short period of time, causing flash flooding responsible for two fatalities, damage to hundreds of homes, and damage to city infrastructure and public facilities.
Thus far, the City condemned 275 homes; thirty have yet to be inspected, of the remaining homes, all but 10 single-family homes and 27 apartments have been cleared for re-entry. Assessments are underway to determine the full extent of the damage to public infrastructure and City-owned facilities. Public school buildings were damaged and are being assessed. The City and Red Cross are providing shelter and other emergency aide to flood victims. FEMA will arrive Friday morning for inspection.
Mayor Adams declared a State of Emergency on September 14, 2008. The declaration will be confirmed by City Council on September 22, 2008.
This Friday, September 19, from 7 AM to 1 PM at Centennial Commons, 7210 Olive Blvd (the location of the still existing Red Cross Shelter), there will be an aide station set up to provide special assistance to flood victims. The County Department of Public Health will provide tetanus shots to individuals seven years and older on a first come first serve basis. The Community Action Agency will be there to provide vouchers for food, clothes and transportation. There is a plan to have some legal aide assistance there as well. Read More......
Thursday, September 18, 2008
My Son, the Doctor!
I may not have gone down the Jewish Doctor route, but it doesn't mean I'm not interested.
I took my lunch hour today to catch Fred Rosner, the preeminent Doctor and ethicist at the Washington University (in St. Louis) School of Medicine aka Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
It almost felt like a Torah lesson, but from the guy who wrote the book on Jewish BioMedical Ethics (literally), it was worth a listen.
That guy at the end of the table is Dr. Rosner.
He raised the point that Ethics are getting more, not less complicated, as the issues of ownership of one's own body, right to care, right to refuse care, right to die, right to live, right to party, etc. are blurred by new technologies.
Is it Jewish to be cryogenic-ly frozen, only to be reanimated at a later date?
If a terrorist carries out an attack but survives and is brought to the same hospital as the victims of the attack, does the terrorist get treated? At what priority level?
What about in-vitro fertilization, abortion, organ donation and transplantation?
The issues swirled around us almost as quickly as the Dr. spoke (which was pretty frickin fast).
The ultimate take away for me is the concept of 'Pikuach Nefesh', that a Jew can and must do anything and everything to save a life (any human life).
Every this, though is complicated by how we define life, both in cases of beginning and end.
In typical Jewish fashion, there were many questions raised, with few answers provided. I may make a habit of this.
Click here for more information about the Jewish Medical Ethics Lunch and Learn Discssions
Read More......
I took my lunch hour today to catch Fred Rosner, the preeminent Doctor and ethicist at the Washington University (in St. Louis) School of Medicine aka Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
It almost felt like a Torah lesson, but from the guy who wrote the book on Jewish BioMedical Ethics (literally), it was worth a listen.
That guy at the end of the table is Dr. Rosner.
He raised the point that Ethics are getting more, not less complicated, as the issues of ownership of one's own body, right to care, right to refuse care, right to die, right to live, right to party, etc. are blurred by new technologies.
Is it Jewish to be cryogenic-ly frozen, only to be reanimated at a later date?
If a terrorist carries out an attack but survives and is brought to the same hospital as the victims of the attack, does the terrorist get treated? At what priority level?
What about in-vitro fertilization, abortion, organ donation and transplantation?
The issues swirled around us almost as quickly as the Dr. spoke (which was pretty frickin fast).
The ultimate take away for me is the concept of 'Pikuach Nefesh', that a Jew can and must do anything and everything to save a life (any human life).
Every this, though is complicated by how we define life, both in cases of beginning and end.
In typical Jewish fashion, there were many questions raised, with few answers provided. I may make a habit of this.
Click here for more information about the Jewish Medical Ethics Lunch and Learn Discssions
Read More......
Steals and Deals
Looking to save some money? (Rhetorical question, I know)...
For those of us looking to save some money (i.e. everyone reading this blog) there is a great new website on the Post-Dispatch, called Steals and Deals. Basically, the blog hunts down all the best coupons and deals in the area and broadcasts them to the Frugal Nation. Is it just me, or is this just screaming our name?
This week, she highlights SavingsAngel.com, a website that indexes more than 1,800 manufacturers coupons and tracks sales at local supermarkets. She also points out a deal at the Y waiving the membership fee, and a 40% off sale at New York and Company. Certainly pertinent information to a young Jewish professional living in St. Louis I would say.
Here is the address for the site: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/steals-and-deals/
Shop on!
Read More......
For those of us looking to save some money (i.e. everyone reading this blog) there is a great new website on the Post-Dispatch, called Steals and Deals. Basically, the blog hunts down all the best coupons and deals in the area and broadcasts them to the Frugal Nation. Is it just me, or is this just screaming our name?
This week, she highlights SavingsAngel.com, a website that indexes more than 1,800 manufacturers coupons and tracks sales at local supermarkets. She also points out a deal at the Y waiving the membership fee, and a 40% off sale at New York and Company. Certainly pertinent information to a young Jewish professional living in St. Louis I would say.
Here is the address for the site: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/steals-and-deals/
Shop on!
Read More......
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Don't Drink and Drive... Drink and be Driven!
You wanna make the Metro-link sexy?
How about this:
The Urban League of St. Louis is hosting a MetroMargarita Happy Hour at Beso Wednesday the 24th on Washington Ave downtown.
They are actually incentive-izing taking public transportation. Not only do you get to feel great about saving the environment, you also get drink specials for showing your metro ticket (or U-pass).
Check the details http://here.
Because it's not illegal to be tipsy on the train! Read More......
How about this:
The Urban League of St. Louis is hosting a MetroMargarita Happy Hour at Beso Wednesday the 24th on Washington Ave downtown.
They are actually incentive-izing taking public transportation. Not only do you get to feel great about saving the environment, you also get drink specials for showing your metro ticket (or U-pass).
Check the details http://here.
Because it's not illegal to be tipsy on the train! Read More......
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Moishe's in the House
Monday morning, I returned from a very interesting experience in the nation's capital... having missed my flight the night before (damn yellow line)
What was this magical mystery tour, which paid for my flight, and threw me into a room with 20 or 30 twenty-somethings? It was none other than a Moishe House retreat.
After seeing college, camp, Cincinnati, and youth group friends, and some family... it was time to get down to Yidness.
I showed up at the predetermined address, not quite sure what to expect.
Here I am, a relatively new member of the MH crew, showing up in a well established House. Would I like the kids? Would they be the kind of Jewish kids who are quite nice, but wouldn't really make it onto my interesting list? Would they out Jewish Geography me?
The answers ended up being yes, remains to be seen, and everyone's a winner at Jewish Geography.
Really though, I have to admit that I enjoyed the group. All stereotypical Jewish mixers and discussions of Jewish identity blah blah blah aside, it was fun, and interesting.
And I was able to bring up a core incongruity that underlies the tension in the Jewish humanist leanings and feel comfortable about saying it (ask me later).
Not only that, I got to sit in with a jazz band at Adams-Morgan day, free-style, and connect with some people all over the country.
The retreat reinforced my belief that all over the US, and really the world, 20-some-year-olds are redefining and breathing new life into ancient traditions and culture, adding a new twist to an old standard, and finding any excuse to party with fellow MOTs.
As we move into our new Moishe House, to create an better space for us, we invite you to hit us up and join us in building an exciting young Jewish community.
Read More......
What was this magical mystery tour, which paid for my flight, and threw me into a room with 20 or 30 twenty-somethings? It was none other than a Moishe House retreat.
After seeing college, camp, Cincinnati, and youth group friends, and some family... it was time to get down to Yidness.
I showed up at the predetermined address, not quite sure what to expect.
Here I am, a relatively new member of the MH crew, showing up in a well established House. Would I like the kids? Would they be the kind of Jewish kids who are quite nice, but wouldn't really make it onto my interesting list? Would they out Jewish Geography me?
The answers ended up being yes, remains to be seen, and everyone's a winner at Jewish Geography.
Really though, I have to admit that I enjoyed the group. All stereotypical Jewish mixers and discussions of Jewish identity blah blah blah aside, it was fun, and interesting.
And I was able to bring up a core incongruity that underlies the tension in the Jewish humanist leanings and feel comfortable about saying it (ask me later).
Not only that, I got to sit in with a jazz band at Adams-Morgan day, free-style, and connect with some people all over the country.
The retreat reinforced my belief that all over the US, and really the world, 20-some-year-olds are redefining and breathing new life into ancient traditions and culture, adding a new twist to an old standard, and finding any excuse to party with fellow MOTs.
As we move into our new Moishe House, to create an better space for us, we invite you to hit us up and join us in building an exciting young Jewish community.
Read More......
Friday, September 12, 2008
Now that the Conventions are over, let's discuss some substance
I want discuss neo conservatism because Senator Obama is desperately trying to tie Senator McCain to President Bush, who is often called a neo conservative, and his policies. Senator Obama’s arguments fail because of the fact that that Senator McCain is, and has been, a true neo conservative, while the President has made only partial efforts.
Douglas Murray, one of the world’s most promising minds, has said that a neo conservative looks at the world with a blend of idealism and realism; that they look at the world as it is but act in the world to make it as they would like it to be. This is different from a conservative who likely will cling to the status quo, which they see as irrevocable, and different from liberals who see the world as they want it to be, and then act on the basis that it is that way.
President Bush can harbor neo conservative ideals, though in practice he is not always neo conservative. His wishy-washy neo conservative record is illuminated in his dealings with Iran and Russia. You see neo conservative twitches that are fatally not allowed to manifest themselves in action. This practice sends all kinds of wrong signals, creating terrible results, and through that creation misrepresents and undermines the reputation and capabilities of neo conservative policy.
What this distinction sets us up for is a debate on the virtues of neo conservatism and liberalism, stemming from the public’s misunderstanding that America’s policies over the last 8 years have been neo conservative in nature and practice, which they most definitely have not been.
Neo conservatives have goals for our country and the world, and these goals are scantly different, in details only, from that of the liberals: security, equal opportunity, a strong economy, heath care for all, and religious and personal freedom, to name a few. Policies may differ, such as the debate over affirmative action, but make no mistake: both sides want a system that gives anyone who desires an education an unbiased path to achieve it. Demonize as you may wish, but per capita conservatives (to include neo conservatives) give more money and volunteer more time via private charity than liberal demographics to support such “racist” and “exclusionist” issues as food, clothing, and shelter for the poor and inner-city education programs. This takes much more true, pure concern and effort than stumping on increased government programming and shows actual willingness to actively participate whereas liberals tend to support increased spending on government programming, often times sourced from increased taxes collected mainly from other people, which is a solution that requires little effort from them.
Motivations, likewise, do not differ in any significant way. Two examples: 1. Security: a homeland where people feel safe going about their daily lives, and 2. Equal opportunity: from birth, everyone should have the opportunity to achieve the heights that they dream of, meaning the foundation of a k-12 education, the ability to apply for college, and subject to job hiring processes based on merit and aptitude, and all this free of racial, gender, ethnic, religious, etc, bias.
Take the issue of health care. Both sides would prefer a situation where everyone has health insurance. Liberals project this vision on the world and come away with the attitude that because it is desired, it is only a matter of enacting government policies to make it happen – a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy doomed to failure. The liberal plan outlines a high-risk “all” strategy that, should it fail, delivers a corpse of the current program. Neo conservatives take this goal, look at the country, see its budget deficits, its incredibly complicated health care systems and laws, its high costs of providing good care, the dearth of trained nurses and doctors, and realize that government-provided health care at this time simply cannot be, for better or worse, and they develop realistic alternatives that help immediately and lay the foundation for a more comprehensive program when circumstances permit. Neo conservatism delivers a partial solution with a potential for more, far better than the inevitable nothing delivered by an idealized and unrealistic universal proposal.
When Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Ranch asked Senator Obama about his position on abortion, the Senator responded:
“I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.”
This is no doubt a liberal position, and that is not a judgment in itself. This author is pro-choice, and is happy the Senator is as well. Nonetheless, his point here is not wholly reflective of reality. A good number of women get abortions precisely because they do not have the support systems in place – they do not have pastors, spouses, a doctor, or a family. To say women considering an abortion consult these sources that comprise sound personal support structures is to selectively choose a self-serving sample set comprised of the ideals that embody the Senator’s hope that “women [do not] make these decisions casually” rather than a representative set including the substantial group of those who do not inhabit his world.
Let’s compare responses on whether we should give teachers performance-based pay from Senators Obama and McCain:
Senator Obama:
“I've said this publicly, that we should set up a system of performance pay for teachers…teachers are underpaid, so we need to pay them all more, but -- and create a higher baseline, but then we should also reward excellence.”
Senator McCain:
“Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work.”
Senator Obama’s answer focuses on pay raises for all, and bigger raises for those that perform at an “excellent” level. This presupposes that all teachers are good teachers, or without so much as a mention dismisses bad teachers as insignificant to the problem, or both. Conversely, while Senator McCain agrees that performance-based pay for teachers is a good thing, he also points out that an integral systemic problem is bad teachers, a perspective reflective of reality, thus producing a solution based on reality with a more systemic focus.
The opposite of neo conservatism is relativism. Relativism is the idea that one thing is relative to and dependant upon other things. This thought leads to statements like “one culture cannot be judged by the standards of another.” Relativism accepts ideas like hate crime designation; neo conservatism rejects them. Relativism is to Senator Obama what neo conservatism is to Senator McCain: embraced. Let us examine a situation that hits the Jewish home: the Arab-Israel conflict.
Relativists argue that Islamic extremists such as Hamas aim to hurt Israel because Palestinians are, as claimed, forced into poverty (among other reasons) by Israel. It is not difficult to illuminate upon the ignorance of this claim. One is more likely to become an Islamic extremist if one is educated or middle or upper class. Harvard and RAND, hardly bastions of Israel support, conducted a review of all terror attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2005 and concluded that educated and wealthy Muslims were responsible for the most devastating attacks, largely more successful in their attacks than uneducated and poor actors, and targeted for recruitment because of their higher likelihood for acting smart, leading to maximum terror while not getting caught. Omar Sheikh, the man responsible for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, was a middle-to-upper class citizen of London and a graduate of one of the world’s most prestigious universities, LSE. Nearly everywhere, the planners and executers of terror are educated, not poor, and often times privileged members of both their world (like the law school graduate Hanadi Jaradat of Palestine) and ours’ (Mahmoud Abbas got his graduate degree in Moscow). To say that these actions are motivated by poverty and lack of opportunity is to project an ideological version of truth as actual truth, to see the world as it is wanted to be seen, to see the world as a relativist and liberal.
Why would some idealize the world, distorting reality? Certainly this is not the goal of the liberals. It is due to an overwhelming sense that it is not right to criticize one side when you yourself have committed wrongs, that rights and wrongs are relative. When relativism reaches the end game, this moral equation leads to exclusion of guilt and implicit support of evil. In the aftermath of the July 7 Tube bombings, the relativist mayor of London entertained Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi, who is well known as one of the greatest inspirations to jihadists and suicide bombers. Relativism allows for groups that threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do act, and threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do not act, because in some way we have generated a source of their hatred, as if it is supposedly avoidable and excuses their actions and our tolerance of them (not only is our freedom, our fair treatment of women, our secular institutions and governments, our freedom of the press, and our freedom of speech unavoidable, but they are desirable and should never be compromised because people hate us).
When one receives threats over inaction, and from the same people receives threats over action, it would be illogical to entertain these people’s opinions. Yet that is the liberal policy, because no one’s voice should be discounted. We’ve heard Senator Obama reiterate this in as many words throughout his campaign. Neo conservatism has none of this. The realization that people who hold double standards are not reliable partners is extremely clear to neo conservatives, yet it eludes liberals. The realization that goals are often not achievable in their entirety is evident to neo conservatives, and that this has implications, is not seen by liberals. And what’s more, the idea that a goal is achievable simply because of its virtuosity is a far from a satisfactory reason for putting its solution in motion, though that never seems to stop liberals.
Goals and aspirations are fundamentally necessary for good leadership. I have no reason to doubt Senator Obama’s intentions are well placed, and I take him as a patriot. Yet to believe in his policies, to see them not only as plausible but as preferable, is to see the world through a relativist eye; that is, to allow oneself to fall into dementia. Neo conservatism is the tool box with which to properly address our world’s decrepit state, and Senator McCain gets this. It provides a clear vision of the world as it is, with no revisions or alterations, and in so doing establishes the accurate baseline on which to respond. It guides us to solutions that provide the best odds of working. The world is not as a liberal paints it, but as a neo conservative sees it. You cannot achieve your goals if you do not know where you are starting from.
Read More......
Douglas Murray, one of the world’s most promising minds, has said that a neo conservative looks at the world with a blend of idealism and realism; that they look at the world as it is but act in the world to make it as they would like it to be. This is different from a conservative who likely will cling to the status quo, which they see as irrevocable, and different from liberals who see the world as they want it to be, and then act on the basis that it is that way.
President Bush can harbor neo conservative ideals, though in practice he is not always neo conservative. His wishy-washy neo conservative record is illuminated in his dealings with Iran and Russia. You see neo conservative twitches that are fatally not allowed to manifest themselves in action. This practice sends all kinds of wrong signals, creating terrible results, and through that creation misrepresents and undermines the reputation and capabilities of neo conservative policy.
What this distinction sets us up for is a debate on the virtues of neo conservatism and liberalism, stemming from the public’s misunderstanding that America’s policies over the last 8 years have been neo conservative in nature and practice, which they most definitely have not been.
Neo conservatives have goals for our country and the world, and these goals are scantly different, in details only, from that of the liberals: security, equal opportunity, a strong economy, heath care for all, and religious and personal freedom, to name a few. Policies may differ, such as the debate over affirmative action, but make no mistake: both sides want a system that gives anyone who desires an education an unbiased path to achieve it. Demonize as you may wish, but per capita conservatives (to include neo conservatives) give more money and volunteer more time via private charity than liberal demographics to support such “racist” and “exclusionist” issues as food, clothing, and shelter for the poor and inner-city education programs. This takes much more true, pure concern and effort than stumping on increased government programming and shows actual willingness to actively participate whereas liberals tend to support increased spending on government programming, often times sourced from increased taxes collected mainly from other people, which is a solution that requires little effort from them.
Motivations, likewise, do not differ in any significant way. Two examples: 1. Security: a homeland where people feel safe going about their daily lives, and 2. Equal opportunity: from birth, everyone should have the opportunity to achieve the heights that they dream of, meaning the foundation of a k-12 education, the ability to apply for college, and subject to job hiring processes based on merit and aptitude, and all this free of racial, gender, ethnic, religious, etc, bias.
Take the issue of health care. Both sides would prefer a situation where everyone has health insurance. Liberals project this vision on the world and come away with the attitude that because it is desired, it is only a matter of enacting government policies to make it happen – a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy doomed to failure. The liberal plan outlines a high-risk “all” strategy that, should it fail, delivers a corpse of the current program. Neo conservatives take this goal, look at the country, see its budget deficits, its incredibly complicated health care systems and laws, its high costs of providing good care, the dearth of trained nurses and doctors, and realize that government-provided health care at this time simply cannot be, for better or worse, and they develop realistic alternatives that help immediately and lay the foundation for a more comprehensive program when circumstances permit. Neo conservatism delivers a partial solution with a potential for more, far better than the inevitable nothing delivered by an idealized and unrealistic universal proposal.
When Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Ranch asked Senator Obama about his position on abortion, the Senator responded:
“I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.”
This is no doubt a liberal position, and that is not a judgment in itself. This author is pro-choice, and is happy the Senator is as well. Nonetheless, his point here is not wholly reflective of reality. A good number of women get abortions precisely because they do not have the support systems in place – they do not have pastors, spouses, a doctor, or a family. To say women considering an abortion consult these sources that comprise sound personal support structures is to selectively choose a self-serving sample set comprised of the ideals that embody the Senator’s hope that “women [do not] make these decisions casually” rather than a representative set including the substantial group of those who do not inhabit his world.
Let’s compare responses on whether we should give teachers performance-based pay from Senators Obama and McCain:
Senator Obama:
“I've said this publicly, that we should set up a system of performance pay for teachers…teachers are underpaid, so we need to pay them all more, but -- and create a higher baseline, but then we should also reward excellence.”
Senator McCain:
“Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work.”
Senator Obama’s answer focuses on pay raises for all, and bigger raises for those that perform at an “excellent” level. This presupposes that all teachers are good teachers, or without so much as a mention dismisses bad teachers as insignificant to the problem, or both. Conversely, while Senator McCain agrees that performance-based pay for teachers is a good thing, he also points out that an integral systemic problem is bad teachers, a perspective reflective of reality, thus producing a solution based on reality with a more systemic focus.
The opposite of neo conservatism is relativism. Relativism is the idea that one thing is relative to and dependant upon other things. This thought leads to statements like “one culture cannot be judged by the standards of another.” Relativism accepts ideas like hate crime designation; neo conservatism rejects them. Relativism is to Senator Obama what neo conservatism is to Senator McCain: embraced. Let us examine a situation that hits the Jewish home: the Arab-Israel conflict.
Relativists argue that Islamic extremists such as Hamas aim to hurt Israel because Palestinians are, as claimed, forced into poverty (among other reasons) by Israel. It is not difficult to illuminate upon the ignorance of this claim. One is more likely to become an Islamic extremist if one is educated or middle or upper class. Harvard and RAND, hardly bastions of Israel support, conducted a review of all terror attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2005 and concluded that educated and wealthy Muslims were responsible for the most devastating attacks, largely more successful in their attacks than uneducated and poor actors, and targeted for recruitment because of their higher likelihood for acting smart, leading to maximum terror while not getting caught. Omar Sheikh, the man responsible for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, was a middle-to-upper class citizen of London and a graduate of one of the world’s most prestigious universities, LSE. Nearly everywhere, the planners and executers of terror are educated, not poor, and often times privileged members of both their world (like the law school graduate Hanadi Jaradat of Palestine) and ours’ (Mahmoud Abbas got his graduate degree in Moscow). To say that these actions are motivated by poverty and lack of opportunity is to project an ideological version of truth as actual truth, to see the world as it is wanted to be seen, to see the world as a relativist and liberal.
Why would some idealize the world, distorting reality? Certainly this is not the goal of the liberals. It is due to an overwhelming sense that it is not right to criticize one side when you yourself have committed wrongs, that rights and wrongs are relative. When relativism reaches the end game, this moral equation leads to exclusion of guilt and implicit support of evil. In the aftermath of the July 7 Tube bombings, the relativist mayor of London entertained Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi, who is well known as one of the greatest inspirations to jihadists and suicide bombers. Relativism allows for groups that threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do act, and threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do not act, because in some way we have generated a source of their hatred, as if it is supposedly avoidable and excuses their actions and our tolerance of them (not only is our freedom, our fair treatment of women, our secular institutions and governments, our freedom of the press, and our freedom of speech unavoidable, but they are desirable and should never be compromised because people hate us).
When one receives threats over inaction, and from the same people receives threats over action, it would be illogical to entertain these people’s opinions. Yet that is the liberal policy, because no one’s voice should be discounted. We’ve heard Senator Obama reiterate this in as many words throughout his campaign. Neo conservatism has none of this. The realization that people who hold double standards are not reliable partners is extremely clear to neo conservatives, yet it eludes liberals. The realization that goals are often not achievable in their entirety is evident to neo conservatives, and that this has implications, is not seen by liberals. And what’s more, the idea that a goal is achievable simply because of its virtuosity is a far from a satisfactory reason for putting its solution in motion, though that never seems to stop liberals.
Goals and aspirations are fundamentally necessary for good leadership. I have no reason to doubt Senator Obama’s intentions are well placed, and I take him as a patriot. Yet to believe in his policies, to see them not only as plausible but as preferable, is to see the world through a relativist eye; that is, to allow oneself to fall into dementia. Neo conservatism is the tool box with which to properly address our world’s decrepit state, and Senator McCain gets this. It provides a clear vision of the world as it is, with no revisions or alterations, and in so doing establishes the accurate baseline on which to respond. It guides us to solutions that provide the best odds of working. The world is not as a liberal paints it, but as a neo conservative sees it. You cannot achieve your goals if you do not know where you are starting from.
Read More......
Living Jews Part III: Dave Simon
There are certain types of people that you expect to find in New York, or California, maybe Austin or Chicago. These are the people who are doing things that are often viewed as bizarre or naive.
Another way of seeing these people is as they are, people who are chasing and living out their dreams. David Simon is one such dream chaser, and happens to be right here in St. Louis
Leader of Zeda's Beat Box, a reggae/ska based rock band that pulls on traditional Jewish liturgy for its inspiration, and Founder of Dave's Simon's Rock School, Dave leads a musical life.
Dave started the Rock school as a way to be heavily involved in music in a way that could simultaneously keep him involved with creative and musical people, but also as a way to actually support himself.
Zeda's Beat Box grew out of a conversation with his Shul (temple) in which they asked him to prepare some upbeat music for Kabbalat Shabbat (literally, receiving the Shabbat, aka the service signifying the arrival of the Sabbath). He turned to all-star rockers from his school to fill out the band's ranks, and hasn't looked back since.
No stranger to playing in synagogues, or AEPi houses, the group recently played with Cincinnati based Ska-Reggae Super-heroes, The Pinstripes, at Off-Broadway, and last weekend, Zeta's Beat Box was the closing act at the St. Louis Art Festival in Clayton.
It is almost taken for granted by those who know about Heeb magazine, JDub Records, Jewlicious, Mattisyahu, etc that there is an entire culture of Cool Jews.
This positive and empowering idea is something that Dave wants to bring to the surface in St. Louis. Dave pointed out that even if a person doesn't really self-identify as being Jewish, often they feel comfortable around other Jews, and knowingly or unwittingly find themselves spending a lot of time with other Jews.
"The idea of Jewish Cool wasn't always there," says Dave, "growning up, we weren't as open about being Jewish, and we didn't have the same pop culture figures who make being Jewish part of their shtick."
To Dave the Beastie Boys were the first cool Jewish kids, even if there weren't any Jewish themes in their music. They were doing something unique, creative, and urban.
The power of music to connect people is really central to Dave's mission to empower Jews to pride in their heritage, and to educate people of other faiths and backgrounds about certain aspects of Jewish culture.
Be sure to catch Dave and Zeda's Beat Box at Cicero's on October 11th at 8PM.
Meet me there for the best selection of draft beer IN THE CITY! Read More......
Another way of seeing these people is as they are, people who are chasing and living out their dreams. David Simon is one such dream chaser, and happens to be right here in St. Louis
Leader of Zeda's Beat Box, a reggae/ska based rock band that pulls on traditional Jewish liturgy for its inspiration, and Founder of Dave's Simon's Rock School, Dave leads a musical life.
Dave started the Rock school as a way to be heavily involved in music in a way that could simultaneously keep him involved with creative and musical people, but also as a way to actually support himself.
Zeda's Beat Box grew out of a conversation with his Shul (temple) in which they asked him to prepare some upbeat music for Kabbalat Shabbat (literally, receiving the Shabbat, aka the service signifying the arrival of the Sabbath). He turned to all-star rockers from his school to fill out the band's ranks, and hasn't looked back since.
No stranger to playing in synagogues, or AEPi houses, the group recently played with Cincinnati based Ska-Reggae Super-heroes, The Pinstripes, at Off-Broadway, and last weekend, Zeta's Beat Box was the closing act at the St. Louis Art Festival in Clayton.
It is almost taken for granted by those who know about Heeb magazine, JDub Records, Jewlicious, Mattisyahu, etc that there is an entire culture of Cool Jews.
This positive and empowering idea is something that Dave wants to bring to the surface in St. Louis. Dave pointed out that even if a person doesn't really self-identify as being Jewish, often they feel comfortable around other Jews, and knowingly or unwittingly find themselves spending a lot of time with other Jews.
"The idea of Jewish Cool wasn't always there," says Dave, "growning up, we weren't as open about being Jewish, and we didn't have the same pop culture figures who make being Jewish part of their shtick."
To Dave the Beastie Boys were the first cool Jewish kids, even if there weren't any Jewish themes in their music. They were doing something unique, creative, and urban.
The power of music to connect people is really central to Dave's mission to empower Jews to pride in their heritage, and to educate people of other faiths and backgrounds about certain aspects of Jewish culture.
Be sure to catch Dave and Zeda's Beat Box at Cicero's on October 11th at 8PM.
Meet me there for the best selection of draft beer IN THE CITY! Read More......
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A Beacon of Hope (for MidWestern Jews)
A lot of Mid-Western Jews (myself included) like to bitch and moan about the fact that all the young Jews graduate and move to the coasts, or Chicago. Communities like Detroit reported that there are more Detroit-born Jews living in LA than Detroit itself (who would wanna leave Detroit?).
It may seem bleak for those of us who remain more than a 5 hour drive from a beach, but all is not lost.
A recently released report from the Cincinnati Jewish Community Study had a few surprising results.
First, the community is relatively stable. That is to say that the Jewish population of Cincinnati is stable, sort of. More than 50% of those surveyed were born outside of Cincinnati and decided to move to the City of Cin. Another 16% were born in da Nati, left, and then returned.
This report is important in a few ways.
The first is that St. Louis and Cincinnati are similar. Very similar. I mean like post-industrial-rust-belt-river-cities-with-a-lot-of-large-corporations-who-are -trying-to-figure-out-how-to-attract-young-talent-to-a-place-with-an-image-problem-similar.
Cincinnati has some things going for it that STL doesn't, many more fortune 500 companies that attract a lot of talent, for sevaral.
St. Louis has some things that Cincinnati doesn't, like Washington University/BJC, a rudimentary light rail system (Vote YES on Proposition M if you want to see it become useful), and about 10 more years of investing in lofts and development downtown, made possible by a historic tax credit.
These differences aside, both live in the shadow of place like Chicago, New York, DC, LA, and Boston, to name a few. These are cities in which young adulthood is played out without regard to the future, responsibilities, or savings.
Young adulthood, particularly Jewish young adulthood is difficult in places like Cincinnati, St. Louis (Minneapolis, Detroit, etc.) particularly because you don't have the mass of young Jews that can feed fresh energy into the community.
You end up seeing the same people at every event, which can be great, but can also be stifling (see Rosh's post on dating in STL).
The real importance that I see in this study, however, is that we matter to the current generation. A lot. You can see it in the choice of Rabbi Davids and his speech on Gen Next in the community (which you can read about here). It is apparent when communities like Dotan, Alabama offer Jews $50,000 to move in.
The established federated community is foaming at the mouth to outreach to us, connect with us, and bring us into the fold.
This is the beacon of hope. That the these people are starting to come around and embrace our reality. But they can't do it without us.
Knowing that the interest, and money, is out there.... How do we take advantage of it?
Read More......
It may seem bleak for those of us who remain more than a 5 hour drive from a beach, but all is not lost.
A recently released report from the Cincinnati Jewish Community Study had a few surprising results.
First, the community is relatively stable. That is to say that the Jewish population of Cincinnati is stable, sort of. More than 50% of those surveyed were born outside of Cincinnati and decided to move to the City of Cin. Another 16% were born in da Nati, left, and then returned.
This report is important in a few ways.
The first is that St. Louis and Cincinnati are similar. Very similar. I mean like post-industrial-rust-belt-river-cities-with-a-lot-of-large-corporations-who-are -trying-to-figure-out-how-to-attract-young-talent-to-a-place-with-an-image-problem-similar.
Cincinnati has some things going for it that STL doesn't, many more fortune 500 companies that attract a lot of talent, for sevaral.
St. Louis has some things that Cincinnati doesn't, like Washington University/BJC, a rudimentary light rail system (Vote YES on Proposition M if you want to see it become useful), and about 10 more years of investing in lofts and development downtown, made possible by a historic tax credit.
These differences aside, both live in the shadow of place like Chicago, New York, DC, LA, and Boston, to name a few. These are cities in which young adulthood is played out without regard to the future, responsibilities, or savings.
Young adulthood, particularly Jewish young adulthood is difficult in places like Cincinnati, St. Louis (Minneapolis, Detroit, etc.) particularly because you don't have the mass of young Jews that can feed fresh energy into the community.
You end up seeing the same people at every event, which can be great, but can also be stifling (see Rosh's post on dating in STL).
The real importance that I see in this study, however, is that we matter to the current generation. A lot. You can see it in the choice of Rabbi Davids and his speech on Gen Next in the community (which you can read about here). It is apparent when communities like Dotan, Alabama offer Jews $50,000 to move in.
The established federated community is foaming at the mouth to outreach to us, connect with us, and bring us into the fold.
This is the beacon of hope. That the these people are starting to come around and embrace our reality. But they can't do it without us.
Knowing that the interest, and money, is out there.... How do we take advantage of it?
Read More......
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The establishment asks: Is Israel Relevant to the Next Gen?
The federated, organized community is going bananas trying to figure out how to impress upon us, the 'next generation' their views and values on Israel.
This time, though, the gennext was brought in on the discussion and was able to weigh in on their own terms... mostly.
Before the Federation's annual meeting, last week, a discussion was held with students at local universities, young professionals, and community leaders.
Surprisingly, the discussion was honest and progressive. I say surprisingly because I have been witness to a great many discussions on Israel, and a great many more programs lead by the community in terms of camps, youth groups, Sunday schools, etc. and there most programs are a means of getting a discussion from point A to point B.
After reviewing the podcast, its clear that this was a true discussion, no agenda, just, present an interesting viewpoint and let the target demographic tell you exactly the type of information that should be capitalized on.
Honest questions include, "Is a Pro-Palestinian stance necessarily anti-Zionist?" and "Is anti-Zionism anti-semitism?"
These are area which are worth our time and discussion, and I hope that this type of discussion occurs more as the Federation invests more resources in engaging the next generation.
Pictures and a podcast can be found here
Direct link to the podcast here
A video of Rabbi Davids' speech can be found here
Read More......
This time, though, the gennext was brought in on the discussion and was able to weigh in on their own terms... mostly.
Before the Federation's annual meeting, last week, a discussion was held with students at local universities, young professionals, and community leaders.
Surprisingly, the discussion was honest and progressive. I say surprisingly because I have been witness to a great many discussions on Israel, and a great many more programs lead by the community in terms of camps, youth groups, Sunday schools, etc. and there most programs are a means of getting a discussion from point A to point B.
After reviewing the podcast, its clear that this was a true discussion, no agenda, just, present an interesting viewpoint and let the target demographic tell you exactly the type of information that should be capitalized on.
Honest questions include, "Is a Pro-Palestinian stance necessarily anti-Zionist?" and "Is anti-Zionism anti-semitism?"
These are area which are worth our time and discussion, and I hope that this type of discussion occurs more as the Federation invests more resources in engaging the next generation.
Pictures and a podcast can be found here
Direct link to the podcast here
A video of Rabbi Davids' speech can be found here
Read More......
Monday, September 8, 2008
Nasty Boys..or not
My mom forwarded me this article (Wesley Yang's review of Michael Kimmel's book on American 'Guyhood') as if to say, you and your friends aren't like this right? Was fraternity hazing really like this? And, in a way, What's up with your generation?
My first response is that I can only speak for my experiences in Alpha Epsilon Pi at Washington University in St. Louis. I know what I went through, and what my pledge brothers went through. And we never did anything remotely close to what Kimmel describes in his book.
Certainly nothing barbaric.
There may have been a few nights standing around in our boxers, but that's pretty normal for a group of Jewish guys, most of whom went to some form of sleepover camp or another.
The 'bros before hos' was a very specific message, but I would argue that, especially in a fraternity house known for being the kind of guys you want to date and party with, the message was really to support your brothers more than as a message to belittle women.
Yang's article is summed up in the opening sentence:
I would argue that American-Jewish men of our generation have a certain level of distinction when it comes to this 'emotional misshapen'ness Yang describes above.
In fact, as mentioned in earlier posts, it has been noted that often, non-Jewish women seek out Jewish men because of this stereotype of emotional availability and stability, and a desire to please their mate.
This isn't to say that young Jewish adults aren't influenced by the hook-up culture, or that it didn't take place in my fraternity.
I'm just not convinced that what takes place between consenting adults who understand the situation is something to be worried about.
In fact, I think this line of reasoning does a great disservice to women, by effectively denying their agency in the equation. Both the men and women have bought into and participate in the culture, willingly.
The fact that people are waiting to get married, moving in with college/fraternity buddies after school for a few years, or generally bumming around has more to do with societal and parental acquiescence and influence than it does with some new kind of masculinity.
Look, our parents made it to the tops of American society, saved up enough to put us through college, and to generally live the good live. So many of us are going to college now, that a college education doesn't really get you the same opportunities it once did, and with so much more competition amongst so many more equally qualified people, there are going to be affluent and well educated people who don't have the types of jobs expected for affluent, educated people.
Times are changing, America is losing some of its position in the world to the very globalization it championed. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but it doesn't make it any easier.
Gender studies aside, American beliefs about gender and sexuality are changing.
Despite what you may think of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin as candidates, women have made a strong showing in this year's election, and have forced the issue of sexism to be discussed at the highest levels.
This is forcing men to rethink their position as well, as one the male gender construct does not exist in a vacuum without the female gender.
While our specific connotations for male and female have changed, we are still playing effectively a zero sum game with gender. If females become more assertive, it is assumed that men must be losing some level of assertiveness. It is this level of reasoning that I believe stifles the discourse on gender.
To conclude this rather unorganized piece, I find it pretty ridiculous to assume that the men of this generation are somehow any worse than men of any other generation.
After watching Mad Men for a take on sexism, misogyny, etc., which is set over 40 years in the past, perhaps it would really be a better question to ask, What was up with your generation?
I would be interested to read the book, but you can believe I'd be looking incredulously at every assertion.
Read More......
My first response is that I can only speak for my experiences in Alpha Epsilon Pi at Washington University in St. Louis. I know what I went through, and what my pledge brothers went through. And we never did anything remotely close to what Kimmel describes in his book.
Certainly nothing barbaric.
There may have been a few nights standing around in our boxers, but that's pretty normal for a group of Jewish guys, most of whom went to some form of sleepover camp or another.
The 'bros before hos' was a very specific message, but I would argue that, especially in a fraternity house known for being the kind of guys you want to date and party with, the message was really to support your brothers more than as a message to belittle women.
Yang's article is summed up in the opening sentence:
The great question haunting our lifestyle journalists — are our daughters having healthy, empowering sex? — has an implicit counterpart: If not, are the emotionally misshapen men of their generation to blame? Michael Kimmel, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, the author previously of the cultural history of “Manhood in America” and one of the leading lights of the emerging academic subfield known as men’s studies, has finally asked, and even tried to answer, that question, at book length.
I would argue that American-Jewish men of our generation have a certain level of distinction when it comes to this 'emotional misshapen'ness Yang describes above.
In fact, as mentioned in earlier posts, it has been noted that often, non-Jewish women seek out Jewish men because of this stereotype of emotional availability and stability, and a desire to please their mate.
This isn't to say that young Jewish adults aren't influenced by the hook-up culture, or that it didn't take place in my fraternity.
I'm just not convinced that what takes place between consenting adults who understand the situation is something to be worried about.
In fact, I think this line of reasoning does a great disservice to women, by effectively denying their agency in the equation. Both the men and women have bought into and participate in the culture, willingly.
The fact that people are waiting to get married, moving in with college/fraternity buddies after school for a few years, or generally bumming around has more to do with societal and parental acquiescence and influence than it does with some new kind of masculinity.
Look, our parents made it to the tops of American society, saved up enough to put us through college, and to generally live the good live. So many of us are going to college now, that a college education doesn't really get you the same opportunities it once did, and with so much more competition amongst so many more equally qualified people, there are going to be affluent and well educated people who don't have the types of jobs expected for affluent, educated people.
Times are changing, America is losing some of its position in the world to the very globalization it championed. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but it doesn't make it any easier.
Gender studies aside, American beliefs about gender and sexuality are changing.
Despite what you may think of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin as candidates, women have made a strong showing in this year's election, and have forced the issue of sexism to be discussed at the highest levels.
This is forcing men to rethink their position as well, as one the male gender construct does not exist in a vacuum without the female gender.
While our specific connotations for male and female have changed, we are still playing effectively a zero sum game with gender. If females become more assertive, it is assumed that men must be losing some level of assertiveness. It is this level of reasoning that I believe stifles the discourse on gender.
To conclude this rather unorganized piece, I find it pretty ridiculous to assume that the men of this generation are somehow any worse than men of any other generation.
After watching Mad Men for a take on sexism, misogyny, etc., which is set over 40 years in the past, perhaps it would really be a better question to ask, What was up with your generation?
I would be interested to read the book, but you can believe I'd be looking incredulously at every assertion.
Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
