Art is 80

As some of you know, I belong to a men’s group that meets (sometimes on Zoom and sometimes now again in person) every Thursday morning. There are about 50 members and about 30 show up each week to hear one of the members make a presentation.

I am going to talk on the proposed changes to the Israeli Supreme Court next month, and am beginning to put together my material.

Looking at it from an American perspective, one needs to keep a couple of things in mind. First, while the United States has a federalized court system, with each of the 50 states (and DC) having their own courts, in Israel there is just one court system. Secondly, where our system has three quite separate governmental branches (executive, judicial and legislative), and where our legislative branch is bicameral with each chamber often controlled by different parties, Israel in effect has two governmental branches only. It has a parliamentary system, where the party (or coalition) which controls the Knesset also controls the executive branch, and its legislature is not bicameral, but has only one chamber. Thirdly, the United States has a written Constitution, Israel does not. Instead, the Knesset gets to classify certain laws as “basic laws”, which in theory (and largely in practice) are a bit more sacrosanct as other laws, but do not rise to the level of a constitutional provision.

In the United States, the Supreme Court (and in fact the lower courts as well), as a matter of regular practice, review decisions of the legislature and either bless them as lawful and constitutional, or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Israel has been doing the same.

How did the United States courts, our judicial branch, obtain the power over the legislative branch (or, when it comes to, for example, executive orders or administrative regulations) over the executive branch? You might think that the Constitution set it up that way, but that is not the case. In 1803, The United States Supreme Court, under then Chief Justice John Marshall, simply gave itself that power in deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison. And it has maintained that power until today. And that’s it.

Similarly, in Israel, the Court took upon itself to determine when a law, or an administrative decision, abrogated a Basic Law.

There is little talk about curbing the authority of the Supreme Court in this country, other than the occasional polemics about whether the number of justices should be changed. But in Israel today, there is a lot of talk about limiting the authority of the Supreme Court. In fact, the current new right wing government, under Benyamin Netanyahu is hell bent on accomplishing radical changes. And radical they would be.

In the United States, we certainly do not have a perfect system, and we can all too easily see how the Court becomes politicized in many ways. In Israel, this politicization of its Court was less possible, because the method by which judges have been selected has been less political. Justices are nominated by the President and approved (or struck down) by the a mere majority of the Senate. When the Senate is controlled by the party of the President, it is easy to see how political allies could be appointed to the Court. And this is what has occurred, especially recently.

In Israel, this does not occur. There is a body of 9, who selects new judges for the country’s Supreme Court. Only 4 of the 9 are representatives of the party in power. 3 of the members of the committee are current judges of the Court and 2 are representatives of the Israeli bar association. The Court, therefore, is by design, not political per se.

But the change proposed by the government would create an 11 member body to select Court members. You would still have the 3 current Supreme Court judges on the committee, but the bar association would be eliminated, and all of the remaining 8 members would be representatives of the current government. Quite a change, as you can see.

Similarly, the Court would no longer have complete authority to strike down laws passed by the Knesset, or administrative orders of the Executive. Under the proposed new structure, the Knesset, again by simple majority vote, could simply override any such decision of the Courts. While the precise mechanism for this is a bit complicated, generally any such override would last for 4 years, when a new Knesset could either extend or reverse it.

Israel is a land of many delicate issues. Issues of settlements in the Occupied Territories, issues of Arab civil rights within Israel proper, issues of religious freedom, issues of free speech, to name just a few of the more important.

You can see how this change, with a right wing government in control, whose coalition depends on some of the more extreme elements of Israeli political thinking as to the West Bank and as to religious freedom, could cause panic in Israel and in the Diaspora.

The government, by the way, counters these fears by saying that the current system, which gives unbridled authority to unelected judges over the elected Knesset is undemocratic, and it is time to let the people’s votes count. They say that this problem has become more troublesome because the Court has become more and more active and acts as an unelected legislative body. They also point to Court systems other than the Israeli and American ones, where Courts have limited abilities to alter laws of legislative bodies; these systems include those of Canada and the United Kingdom, just to name a few. And the Courts in these countries seem to operate successfully. Is there any reason why these systems would not work in Israel?

OK, this is enough for a teaser. I may post more after I complete my presentation next month.

Like many people, when I read I often keep a dictionary (or its electronic 1. an 1equivalent) next to me and use it to look up words or allusions that I don’t understand. The reasons are obvious.

But yesterday, I came across the word “monad”. Here is what it said on Dictionary.com:

1. An unextended, indivisible, and indestructible entity that is the basic or ultimate constituent of the universe and a microcosm of it.
2. a basic and irreducible metaphysical unit that is spatially and psychically individuated.
3. any basic metaphysical entity, especially having an autonomous life.

Sometimes, it doesn’t pay to get out of bed.

The book, by the way, is a English translation of Andre Maurois’ “Ariel”, his biography of Percy Bysshe Shelley. I’m only about half way through the book. So far, I conclude that (1) Shelley’s short life was interesting, although not to be recommended or applauded, and (2) Maurois’ writing style is a bit simplistic. But it is a quick read with short chapters, and does paint a picture you can almost visualize.

I remember when Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled “You lie” at Barack Obama during his State of the Union address. I was aghast at such disrespect, as apparently were most of his House colleagues, because he was sanctioned by the House.

When many Republicans yelled at Joe Biden Tuesday as he was delivering a State of the Union address, I was not aghast. I was not even surprised. Subconsciously, I think I even expected it. And I enjoyed it, as I think did Joe Biden.

Yes, times have changed. We seem to expect entertainment in our politics now. And I guess that is fine, as long as it isn’t dangerous. During the Trump years, the entertainment was very dangerous. The banter at this week’s SOTU seemed to me harmless.

This does not excuse Marjorie Taylor Greene’s yelling “Liar”. That is rude and uncalled for. There are ways to do everything, and this is not an acceptable way.

Now Joe Biden played the Republicans well during his speech. By stating that some Republicans want to curtail Social Security and Medicare, he baited the left side of the room. But Florida Senator Tim Scott, who holds a leadership position in the Republican Senate, did suggest that all government programs be sunset every five years. This naturally would include these two programs. Can you imagine if programs died without Congressional reauthorization every five years? With our divided Congress that can do nothing?

So what Biden said was legitimate. And he said that not all Republicans favored this. But the GOP went crazy. And Biden smartly turned that around and said – well, I guess we all agree that this is wrong then, that’s great. And he went further to state that he will stand up for seniors, which was followed by the Democrats in the room physically standing up and applauding. And because the Republicans could not just sit by and not “stand up for seniors”, soon everyone was standing, and everyone was applauding. I thought it brilliant.

I thought that this year’s State of the Union address was excellent for two reasons, in addition to Biden winning the bantering. First, because of the statistical success of the American economy (whether or not that has been appreciated by all), and because so many of the bills passed last year by the Democratic Congress only come into effect this year or in the future, it was very important that Biden not only talk about what he was planning to do, but what he had already done, even if some of that is not yet visible. Secondly, I thought (and maybe this was by chance) there were many spots which can become short term film clips that can be used again and again, as well as giving Democratic supporters talking points that won’t be overlooked.

As to the unnecessary Republican response given by the Governor of Arkansas who cannot help but being both disingenuous and nasty, I will say no more……now.

I reported some time ago that I was reading through my collection of old English Penguin paperbacks, and I mentioned a couple. But maybe it is time for an old fashioned book review. Not like the ones that you fall asleep to in the New York Review of Books. Just a quickie or two or three.

The last book I read was “The Heat of the Day” by Elizabeth Owen. It was originally published in 1949, but was a World War II book. The year is 1943. Set primarily in London, the main character is Stella, a woman of about 40, living by herself, her husband having first divorced her and, second, died. She has one son, 17 serving in the army, stationed in England. She has had a boyfriend for the past two years, Robert. It seems that both Robert and Stella work for the government, but you don’t hear much about that. But you do hear about Harrison. Harrison is rather mysterious. He shows up at various times in Stella’s life and he often irritates her, but she keeps seeing him and talking with him. She knows little about him, doesn’t know where he works or where he lives.

One day, Harrison tells Stella that he is a British intelligence agent, that he believes Robert is passing on military secrets to the Germans, that she better not say anything to him, and that he needs her help to get enough evidence to arrest him. Robert is as English as they come, and of course Stella doesn’t believe this, particularly as it seems that Harrison has designs on Stella (which Stella for the most part rebuffs) and perhaps just wants Robert out of the way.

I won’t tell you how it ends, but this is the basic story line. There are, as you probably suspect, other story lines that waft through the book (a cousin of Stella’s dead husband also dies, and leaves a house and land in Ireland to her son; Robert’s mother and sister live in the big, old family house and don’t know if they should keep it or sell it; Harrison met another young woman at a Sunday park concert, who appears now and then), but all of these side stories could have been omitted in favor of the main one, and the book shortened from 320 pages.

It’s an interesting book, even if Bowen has a tendency to overwrite, and to be a bit too dense, and to use words that maybe I would know if I had lived in London in 1943, but which baffle me now (I should have made a note of them).

It isn’t a must read, but it is worth reading to find out what has happened to Robert and Harrison. And Stella.

A television film was made in 1990. Available on YouTube. I will probably watch it.

Before that, I read another novel, “Nightrunners of Bengal”, by John Masters. This is the second Penguin by Masters I have read. The first was called “The Lotus and the Wind”. I went into it with low expectations, but found it surprisingly enjoyable. Set in the 1880s in India, written in 1953, it tells the tale of a young British soldier who doesn’t like soldiering very much, but who is the son of a modern major general, who really likes fighting and all that goes with it. The young man is married, living in a military compound, hoping to get out of the army in one piece. But then he is asked to take an assignment, a dangerous assignment. To go into the hills of northern India, in disguise, and track down an elusive Russian spy. After a lot of hand wringing he agrees, hoping this way to prove something to his father.

It’s a long mission, and he has to leave his wife behind, and travel into very rough country, alone. His mission, described in interesting detail in the book, is successful. His sense of self esteem is raised, and he feels like he can now retire from the army filled with pride. Before he can do that, he is asked if he would take on another assignment – also a tracking down task, but longer and even more dangerous. Of course, he will turn it down. Or won’t he?

The second Masters book, written two years before “The Lotus and the Wind”, is called “Nghtrunners of Bengel”, again set in India, this time earlier, in the 1850s. A placid military camp south of Bombay, a ho-hum existence for the British soldiers and their families. Yes, occasional problems with the natives, but nothing that can’t be handled. A local rajah is killed – what will that mean? It looks like the rajah’s wife might be involved. She denies involvement, but believes she needs protection. She asks Rodney, a talented British officer to leave the army and work for her. He refuses. Life goes on, but one day (after a lot of rumors swept around), the British settlement is attacked, in the middle of the night, by armed Indan natives. It’s a slaughter. Rodney’s wife is among the many who are murdered. He doesn’t seem to mind (he didn’t cheer, but he also didn’t mourn), because he is already interested in Caroline, who also survived, as did Rodney’s young son. They escape, they hide, the enemy draws closer. What happens now?

I didn’t like this book as much as the first one. To be sure, some of the scenes were very exciting and very well written. But Rodney’s lack of grief over the many deaths, including his wife’s, and the awkward relationship he has with the totally inexperienced Caroline, lack credibility. If you want to try out Masters, go to the Lotus and avoid Bengal.

Finally, I read George Bernard Shaw’s “Caesar and Cleopatra”. Of course, reading a play and seeing a play are very different things. But reading this play was, for me, a bore. Young, stupid Cleopatra and smarmy Caesar just don’t seem to make sense in this one, either as a drama (the four scenes have little to do with each other) or a drama.

This is the 5th Shaw play I have read in my Penguin Quest. Need I saw that Pygmalion (the base on which My Fair Lady was built) was first class. So was The Doctor’s Dilemma, not only the play, but Shaw’s lengthy essay which accompanies it and tears apart the capability and sincerity of the medical profession, as well as the science behind it. The Devil’s Disciple was another disappointment. But Joan of Arc, which I assumed would be not to my liking, turned out to very clever, very well constructed and, I am sure, a delight to watch.

The death toll in the Turkiye/Syria earthquake is now over 5,000 and climbing. It hit major cities, as well as smaller villages and rural areas. Do you know, for example, that Gaziantep, Turkiye, has over 2,000,000 residents? Do you know that the areas of northern Syria have been torn apart by the civil war there and that there were thousands of people already displaced and jobless and (in Turkiye) refugees from Syria? And that part of the area affected in Syria are “rebel” held and not under control of the Damascus? And that the temperatures drop to the 20s Fahrenheit at night, with a significant amount of snow in some places?

Earthquake thoughts:

1. 5,000 sounds like a lot. But in 2004, the earthquake in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia caused over 200,000 deaths, the 2010 Haitian earthquake caused well over 100,000, and recent earthquakes in China and Pakistan each led to over 85,000 deaths. How quickly we forget.
2. There have been over 150 recorded earthquakes rated at 6.0 or higher in the United States. The big San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was approximately the same size as yesterday’s Turkish earthquake. The 1811 New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake was more powerful. Because population of southeast Missouri was so small at the time, the casualty statistics were low.
3. I saw a map yesterday of earthquake prone areas in the United States, and, as to serious earthquakes, the areas are up and down the West Coast, in southern Missouri and, to an extent, along the South Carolina shore. At some point, it seems clear to the experts that a major earthquake in California, and most likely one in Missouri, is inevitable.
4. The Turkish earthquake was felt in Lebanon and Israel. It has long been assumed in Israel that a major earthquake is coming. How that will roll out is not clear. Israel has serious building standards to enable most of its newer buildings to withstand major quakes, but yesterday I read that there are about 600,000 residences in the country which were not constructed to withstand major earthquakes.
5. There was an earthquake that affected Washington DC in 2011. We were in Europe at the time, and there were no casualties, but some buildings were affected, including the Washington Monument and the National Cathedral. The Cathedral is just finishing up its repairs, which were quite extensive, now.
6. There was an earthquake on the Big Island of Hawaii in 2006. We were there at the time, staying at a remote house we had rented in the hills off the Kona coast, and clearly felt it. Shortly after, we left this house and went to the Mauna Kea resort on the coast, half of which was shut down because of damage, and which closed in its entirety shortly after we left.
7. There was a minor earthquake that hit St. Louis in 1968. It was on a Saturday morning and I was doing some research for an Urban Studies degree I was then pursuing at Washington University, walking through the commercial area on Woodson Road in the suburb of Overland, not far from the St. Louis Airport (I can’t remember exactly what I was looking for). All of a sudden, I though that something was wrong with me, perhaps I was having a stroke. Because as I was walking along, I saw all the storefront plate glass windows waving in and out. I felt nothing on the ground, and was sure that I was imagining what I was seeing until I saw people running from buildings out onto the street. I didn’t know, until then, that you could feel the earthquake stronger inside than if you were outside on the street.

It’s starting to fade. I better hurry.

I am at a lecture hall somewhere in Virginia. I am not sure how I got there (I think I took a long walk), but I left the car for Edie. At the end of the lecture, I realized that I didn’t know how I was going to get home. It was now night time, and it seemed dangerous to do any length of walking. The lecture hall was down a rural road, quite remote from, say, public transportation.

A woman was walking out of the lecture hall, and I asked her if she was going into Washington. She told me she was and that she would be happy to give me a lift. I asked her where in Washington she was going; she wasn’t sure, she said, she was passing through and following her GPS’ directions. No problem, I could get home from anywhere once I was in the city.

We got to her car, an old fashioned station wagon, and I realized it wasn’t just her. She was part of a group, maybe a family. I got into the back seat with three others. Next to me was a young (maybe college age) blonde. In front, I remember a younger boy, about 12. The woman from the lecture hall was driving.

It is very quiet in the car. No one is saying much. I try to make small talk. Where do you live? Where are you going? The answer to the first question was: Wisconsin. The answer to the second: we are going northwest. Where northwest, I asked, trying to draw out more conversation. Wisconsin. That’s all I got.

We cross the Potomac. Washington seems busy and somewhat familiar – although something is off. I ask again how she is going through the city. The driver tells me Highway 3. I know of no highway 3 and tell her so. We keep driving, and things lose their familiarity. We are on a commercial street, driving through a very busy commercial neighborhood. Cars on the street, people on the sidewalks, every storefront is occupied, small stores, big stores, each with many signs, some neon lighted. I tell her I have never been in this neighborhood, and in fact I was very confused. I tried to read the street signs, but they weren’t clear. We may have been on Seton Avenue. Something like that.

I asked her to look for a Metro sign, but there were none. Finally, I said that I would get out and find my way home from here. No problem, she said, and stopped the car so I could get out.

A young couple approached me on the street, another college age looking woman and, presumably, her boyfriend. He seemed distracted and wandered (short distances) here and there. She asked me if I knew the people who had given us a ride. Us?, I asked. She said she got a ride with the same people but that, while I was in the car, she was in the truck that followed them. I hadn’t seen the truck.

She was also trying to get to Wisconsin. I am not sure why she got out of the truck. But I told her I was going home and that I was sure we had room for her and her boyfriend if they wanted to spend the night. She was glad and said they would. He was still wandering. I never did speak with him, I don’t think.

I didn’t really know what direction to go, but (from my memory of our route once we got to DC), I suggested we go to the left and look for something familiar. We went through one or two blocks of low apartments, and then got to what at first looked like a park, until we could see, down the green hill, a fairly broad river. We both knew at once that this was the Missouri River.

There was no bridge. but there were a series of logs crossing the river. And there were people walking and crawling on the logs (in both ways) to cross.

It was then I saw Edie and, I think, Michelle. They were on our side of the river, near the logs, and they began to walk across. I told the young woman I was with that that was my wife and my daughter. And then I said “They would never do this in real life. They only do this in a dream”.

We went down the hill (her boyfriend had now disappeared, I think) to the logs. She said: come on. I was skittish, but she convinced me it would be all right. We started across the logs (I may have crawled, rather than walked), and about a third of the way across the river, the logs began to sink into the water. Soon, we were swimming to the other shore. I had no concern about making it or not. The water temperature was perfect; there was virtually no current. At some point, I realized that if I put my feet down, I could feel the bottom and we could walk the rest of the way.

Edie and Michelle were waiting on the other side. Once the four of us were together, we started to go home.

That’s all I remember.

One. I read this morning that Marjorie Taylor Greene said that if she or Trump were running the zoo, the Chinese would never have dared send a balloon the U.S. Did she say that, or is it fake news? I don’t know. Then I read that, in fact, the Chinese sent three balloons over the country when Trump was president. Did they do that, or is that fake news? I don’t know the answer to that, either. But let’s go further. If the Chinese sent three balloons over during Trump’s years, was he correct in letting them go across the country without interference, or should he have shot them down? Did Biden make a mistake shooting down the balloon? Did he make a mistake not shooting it down over Montana, where there really aren’t any people anyway? Why hasn’t Marjorie Taylor Greene asked whether or not the balloon was really Chinese or whether it might have been another platform for Jewish space lasers? Or has she? Was it in fact a platform for Jewish space lasers and, as such, should Biden have shot it down or not? And what if, instead of shooting it down, we had simply sent our balloons across China? And what about this green comet that everyone is talking about? Who sent it? Is it part of an alien civilization’s Green New Deal? And what does Marjorie Taylor Greene have to do with a Green New Deal, anyway. Is this just a question of the age old rivalry of Green vs. Greene? Or is it something more sinister?

Two. Enough about her. What is the College Board trying to do? By creating this AP Black History Course, they knew they would be creating controversy, right? Why did they do that? Why didn’t they simply create an AP course called The Evils of the American Government. Conservatives would have loved it and made certain assumptions about the evils that it covered. They never would have looked into the course, and the College Board could have used the same curriculum it developed for the Black History Course. As you look at it, everything that creates the need for a Black History Course can be traced to an Evil of the American Government. Oh, you think that the Conservatives would have looked at the curriculum? Maybe so – but do you think they would have said that anything in the course (slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, lack of fair hiring practices, redlining, housing discrimination, etc.) would be something that even Conservatives would want to defend and support? I don’t think so.

Three. Let’s all get excited about the Democrats deciding to let the South Carolina primary go before the Iowa caucuses. Do we really care? If so, guess what. We shouldn’t. It should be very simple. There should be one primary day, the same day in every state across the country. The primaries should not be party related, but should have everyone compete in the same primary. We should have ranked voting in the primary with the top three candidates running in the general election. We should also have ranked voting in the general election. The primaries should be the Tuesday after Labor Day, with the general election campaign limited to 8 weeks. Thank you. You heard it here first.

By the way, I have many other suggestions for the improvement of the country. All that is needed to implement them is for everyone to agree with me.

Having had dinner last night with two friends who had serious illnesses this year, hearing that one friend who has been quite sick is now that much sicker, hearing another friend is now in home hospice, and speaking to a friend at the synagogue this morning who is in the middle of chemotherapy, I realized once more that getting old is not necessarily fun.

Today’s monthly jobs report saying that the economy added more than 500,000 new jobs in January, combined with the recalculation of some prior months to add an additional aggregate 500,000, is hard to process. Generally, I didn’t think January is a big employment month – the seasonal jobs created for the Christmas season are gone, the weather is cold, and businesses are just beginning to think how to approach the new year.

In addition, as you may know, there are a number of private companies who do their own polling and are usually pretty accurate. Earlier this week, I heard a report of one of those surveys, suggesting that the job increase in January this year would be about 150,000, much lower than previous months, with a suggestion that one week of winter storms had led to the low estimate, with the other weeks showing more hiring.

Isn’t it unusual for this private estimate to be so far off?

Well, get this……

I asked Professor Google what they thought (they, the appropriate pronoun for the singular, non-binary professor), and they told me that one year ago, in January 2022, the estimates of the private polling companies was that the job growth would be about 150,000 at best, with some even predicting job losses, but that in fact the real number turned out to be 467,000 new hires. And, to top it off, last year, like this year, the numbers for December and November were recalculated, adding another 700,000 jobs.

Someone needs to explain how the two January results could be so hard to understand, yet so strikingly similar.

I have written before about the way jobs are calculated. I posted on Facebook on February 4, 2022, when the 467,000 was released, just a year ago. Even that was not the first time I addressed this topic, but here is what I said:

“I have written in detail before about the problems in the way the government reports employment data. Not taking into account people who decide not to look for jobs, not showing the difference between long term and short term employment. And who knows what they do about gig work, self employment, part time work, etc. But today’s good job news does sort of take the cake. 467,000 new jobs in January in spite of Omicron (with over 7,000,000 saying that they missed time last month because of Omicron), many more than the expected 150,000.

But what was more surprising were the increases in the December and November figures. 300,000 more jobs in December and 400,000 more jobs in November than originally reported. OK, great, another 700,000.”

What explains the two parallels? First, that the private estimates of January hiring were so much lower than the official calculations, and by virtually the same amounts? And, second, what was it about the November and December calculations each year that led to such enormous revisions?

Are there problems with the calculations themselves, or with the premises on which the calculations were based? Until we get an answer to these questions (which I assume somebody other than me is asking), what can we trust?

Part 1: I don’t know how many of you listened to former Chief of Staff Ron Klain saying goodbye yesterday. He listed the accomplishments of the Biden administration during its first two years, even though (a) it came into office with the smallest majority in Congress of any Democratic president in the last 100 years, (b) while helping fight the largest land war in Europe since World War II and (c) fighting the biggest pandemic in the United States since Woodrow Wilson. Here is his list:

1. The most ambitious economic plan since FDR
2. The largest infrastructure bill since Dwight Eisenhower
3. Confirmed the largest number of judges in first two years since JFK
4. The second biggest healthcare bill since LBJ
5. The most significant gun control bill since Bill Clinton
6. The biggest climate control bill passed by any country anywhere anytime.
7. Student loan relief
8. Most health care coverage any time
9. Marijuana pardons
10. Most Black and Brown employment ever
11. Lowest number unemployed in 50 years
12. National debt relief
13. Less child poverty

As Klain said: not bad.

Part 2: Did you hear Congresswoman Ilhan Omar speak today on the House floor before she was kicked off the Foreign Affairs Committee by a totally partisan vote? Like Ron Klain’s speech, it is worth listening to. How a 9 year old Black Muslim war refugee from Africa is being targeted for attack by the Republicans, after the same Republicans attacked former Black President Obama as being Muslim (which he wasn’t) and born in Africa (which he wasn’t). How as a young girl hiding under a bed waiting for the bullets to stop is going to stand up for other young children hiding under beds waiting for bullets to stop. How she epitomizes the American immigrant who believes in the promise of America.

Part 3. Examples of apples and oranges:

1. Raising the debt ceiling to satisfy existing obligations v. holding down future spending.
2. Controlling the border v. guaranteeing the rights of asylum seekers.

Conflating both of these items by the Republicans is simply forestalling progress on any of them.

Part 4. How will the Republican House carry on this term? If today is an example, they will spend our money arguing whether a member should or should not be allowed on a particular committee, and then they will have another vote to “denounce socialism”. And I myself can’t wait until they get to Hunter Biden.

If you didn’t watch the interview last night between CNN’s Jake Tapper and Benjamin Netanayu, you should. I am sure it will be played again and again over the next few days.

Here are my takeaways:

1. Netanyahu is still a very smooth talker and a very good diplomat.
2. Jake Tapper asked some very good questions, although he did not touch on most of the domestic issues that are arising as a result of the extreme right wing elements in the current government, with the exception of the plans to curtail the strength of the Supreme Court. Perhaps, this is because the other internal Israeli issues are not of interest to the greater public; perhaps there just wasn’t time; perhaps he did ask the questions and they were edited out.
3. In talking about the Supreme Court, Netanayu made the following points: (1) The Supreme Court has become too strong and, with the ability to cancel decisions of the Knesset, has made Israel less democratic, not more, (2) to allow the Knesset to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court would bring Israel in line with countries such as Canada, the UK, and New Zealand; it is the US that is the outlier, (3) there are details in the government’s reform proposal that people aren’t paying attention to, because they are acting on instinct, and some of the critiques are just not accurate, and (4) he is waiting for a counter-proposal, and would be happy to consider any modifications, including modifications which would increase the number of Knesset members who could vote to overrule the Supreme Court from his proposal’s simple majority. (I realize that I know nothing about how the highest courts work in the former British colonies or elsewhere and I certainly realize that the American system has its flaws; maybe I should study and rethink this.)
4. He believes Putin was completely wrong in invading Ukraine, but Israel’s position is complicated in part because Russians are in Syria and Israel wants to make sure that Iran stays out of Syria, so Russians and Israel together control Syrian airspace, and they need to keep cooperating or Iran may get a stronger foothold.
5. The Americans have taken American weaponry that they have placed in Israel and moved it to Ukraine (It’s the US perogative to do so, and Israel hasn’t complained), and Netanyahu’s job is to keep Israel safe, but Israel has been taking action against Iran’s manufacture of non-nuclear weapons, which would otherwise go to Russia for use in Ukraine.
6. Israel kept Iraq and Syria from getting nuclear weapons; it will keep Iran from becoming nuclear, as well. Iran does not want war with Israel because it knows it will lose.
7. Don’t worry about Ben Gvir or Smotrich, because Netanyahu has both hands on the government steering wheel. Some of these right wing guys say things before they are in public office, but then moderate.
8. Netanyahu and Biden have been friends for 40 years, even when they disagree. He thinks Biden is, from his heart, a strong supporter of Israel. Trump did great things for Israel, but he isn’t going to comment on who should be the Republican candidate in 2024. Trump’s meetings with Kanye West and Fuentes were big mistakes.
9. Because the Palestinians want to eliminate Israel, working anything out with them seems to be impossible. So Netanyahu thinks that the way to go is for Israel to work things out with the other Arabs and then they will all be in position to get to Palestinians to face reality and negotiate.
10. Any Palestinian state would give the Palestinian full autonomy to run their economy and their country, BUT security has to remain in the hands of Israel. Presumably, that would mean that raids, such as the raid in Jenin last week, could continue.
11. He didn’t say that he still favors a full Palestinian state. They didn’t talk about the relationship between the West Bank and Gaza, only that every time Israel pulled away (Lebanon and Gaza), militants took over.
12. He is not going to change the rules governing the Temple Mount. He is not going to change the Right of Return. (Remember, he has both hands on the steering wheel). He doesn’t believe in collective punishment, but believes that taking action against the family members of terrorists, those who condone, participate or support the activities, acts as a deterrent.
13. He has been chosen prime minister for the 6th time, because during his other 5 times, Israel has been safe and prosperous.
14. You have to have a strong military and create a credible threat to reach peace with others in Middle East.
15. If asked by all parties, he’d consider acting as a Russian/Ukrainian mediator, as long as it didn’t take him away from his responsibilities towards Israel.
16. Response to antisemitism abroad? Keep Israel strong and cooperate with the many governments which are fighting antisemitism.
17. He also wants to keep Israel’s economy strong.

I remember my first trip to Washington. In the Spring of 1959, with my high school junior class. I was 16.

Believe it or not, it was my first time on a plane. We had two chartered TWA jets – just for us. And it was a great trip. I remember it well.

One of the things we did was go to Mt. Vernon. It was a beautiful day – temperature in the high 70s or low 80s, everything was blooming as we bused down the GW Parkway.

All of a sudden, there arose such a clatter that we jumped from our seats to see what was the matter!

Sirens blaring, we saw a number of police escort motorcycles and cars rushing past us, surrounding a black Cadillac limousine with two flags fluttering, one a flag of the United States, one not. It turned out it was 23 year old King Hussein and his entourage. They came with us on our tour of Mt. Vernon.

Skip forward a few days. It was the last night of the trip and we had a formal-ish dinner/dance at the Shoreham (now Omni-Shoreham) Hotel on Calvert Street. I don’t remember the menu, but I remember the after dinner dance, when our party was crashed by a number of outsiders (all male). They were King Hussein’s party – I assume some were security, some were diplomatic. But no one told them to leave, I don’t think. And they didn’t leave.
I remember one who danced with one of my classmates for more than one dance. They seemed to get on quite well. He didn’t know, I guess, that her father was a leader of the national Israel Bond drive that year.

Or…..maybe he did?

Professor Arieh Saposnik of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke for the Haberman Institute yesterday on the topic (and I am paraphrasing) of whether Zionism was a movement of national construction, or of religious redemption. I introduced the speaker.

He brought up a number of points that are worth pondering. His conclusion, of course, is that Zionism is a little of this and a little of that, and that the problem of attaining a common acceptable definition of Zionism continues to this day.

If Zionism is a national movement, the providing a place for members of the Jewish nation, formerly all in exile, to come together and live with national autonomy, that’s one thing – then you can leave God and religion out of the equation.

If on the other hand, Zionism is a spiritual or redemptive movement, which enables a formerly colonized people to change their ways and become a new type of Jewish people, with a stronger moral and ethical basis, that is something else.

And in fact, there is a third hand. And that would be a messianic Judaism – paving the way for the Messiah and the Messianic Age to come.

And, yes, he did talk about Jews as being “colonized” in Europe – not in the sense, perhaps, that Africa was colonized, but colonized none the less. But did the Jews go from being colonized to being colonizers? That is another question – but Saposnik points out that the early Zionists were not trying to displace anyone, and that all the land that came into Jewish hands were purchased, not taken, from previous owners. Today, of course, for all sorts of reasons, things are a mess – but maybe this was not the necessary result.

The Balfour Declaration, he says, was not meant to become the central document that it quickly became. Saposnik says that its centrality was mainly the result of Chaim Weitzmann and Nahum Sokolow making it such, and once it was central, its importance could not be denied. He also says that, at first, British (Christian) and Jewish interests were allied in bringing the Jews back to the Holy Land – it fit the needs of both – politically, culturally and religiously. This is one of the reasons the Balfour Declaration became so important. But this amity didn’t last long, as the reality of the Mandate period set in.

Finally, he said that Jews – whether “religious” or not – always felt a connection to The Land, always felt themselves living in exile. He did not try to answer the political question as to whether the Jewish settlement was in fact appropriate, but simply that, in the minds of the Jews, it clearly was. They did not believe they were taking someone else’s land, even though others were living on part of it. Whether the Jews as a whole knew how hostile the Arabs would be to their coming, he did not discuss.

I have not done justice to Prof. Saposnik’s presentation. In a day or two, it will be available for you to watch on YouTube, or on the Haberman website: http://www.habermaninstitute.org. It would be worth your while.

To add a few of my own thoughts. These are fascinating questions, to be sure, but do they have any relevance to today? Israel is a nation of over 6 million Jews and over 2 million non-Jews. Does it really make a difference how the Jews got there? I would suggest that it does not with regard to Israel “within the green line”, but that when you get to the West Bank, it does. Not a part of the State of Israel, it is the home of almost 700,000 Jews (about 25% of the West Bank population), who live in specially protected areas and settlements, and who are treated in every respect as citizens of Israel. If there is to ever be a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, the question of boundaries and the rights of the Jewish residents who will live outside the boundaries of the Israeli state will loom large. And then there is Jerusalem. I think the boundaries of Jerusalem are set, as are the boundaries of West and East Jerusalem. As an entire city, Jerusalem is about 60% Jewish and 40% Muslim (yes, there are some Christians, but not enough to distort this ratio), but West Jerusalem is about 100% Jewish and East Jerusalem majority Muslim, except again for Jews in particular urban settlements in the city. But here, Israel has “annexed” East Jerusalem, and considers it part of Israel proper. The Palestinians deny the validity of this annexation.

All of this is so confusing, that I can’t figure out how to understand any of the population figures. When you ask about the Jewish population of Israel, I am sure they include the Jews in East Jerusalem and I believe they must also include the Jews in the West Bank, although the West Bank is not part of Israel. When you ask how many Arabs live in Israel, I presume you get figures including the Arabs in East Jerusalem (although I don’t know that for sure), but I know you don’t get the 2 to 3 million Arabs living in the West Bank.

You see how confusing this is. And you see that, by increasing Jewish population in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Zionism is still alive. But as to how to define that Zionism – that’s another question. Is it religious? Is it nationalism? Is it simply a land grab? Is it required for the defense of the State of Israel?

As Israel’s critics and enemies decry this continuing movement on the ground, how does Israel defend against these criticisms ideologically? I think, in fact, it doesn’t try to. It just keeps on keeping on.

All of this is worthy of a lot of discussion and soul searching, to be sure. This may be the place for it, but today, I guess, is not the time.

The Washington Post this morning reminded us that Donald Trump, in the last several years, has said a number of things on his Truth Social website in support of the Q movement. It said, for example, that Q’s motto “The storm is coming” was used by Trump. And it reminded us that Q believes that many or all high level democrats are pederasts who kidnap and eat small children. Apparently, a surprising number of people either believe this, or wonder if it might be true. And for most of these people, belief will be hard to shake.

Take another example. All those people who believe that the world, or at least civilization as we know it, is about to come to an end because God has deemed it so. That there will be major battles, that Jesus will return to the earth, and the good folks will be raptured up into heaven. For these people, too, belief is hard to shake.

Or look at those fierce antisemites who believe that Jews control the world and are the cause of all evil. They believe that Hitler was correct, and that today’s Jews, like the Jews of the early 20th century, should not only be isolated, but should be murdered. Their belief, too, is hard to shake.

To cite a much less important case, remember years ago when the DC area was afraid of the Beltway sniper? During those days, the first reports stated that it appeared that the sniper was driving around in an unmarked white panel truck. We were warned to be very wary when he saw any such vehicle. It turned out that the snipers were using a dark red Chrysler station wagon, or something like that. White panel truck owners were exonerated. Today, 20 years later, I am still suspicious of unmarked white panel trucks. Even this belief is hard to shake.

No great moral here. Just that we need to learn how to sort through our beliefs, identify the ridiculous ones, fight against our continuing impulses to stick to such beliefs, no matter how ridiculous or how dangerous.

1. I didn’t know if I was going to watch the videos of five Memphis police officers beating up Tyree Nichols, leading to his death. It seems, among other things, an unnecessary invasion of privacy to me. But his family apparently wants the world to view it in the hopes that it will do some good in keeping this sort of thing from continuing to happen. Last night, when the videos were released, we did watch them. Probably a mistake. Who wants to see a man being assaulted in this way?
2. Nichols’ funeral is going to be next Wednesday. Will his mother decide here, too, that his casket should be open for the same reasons she wanted the videos made public? We shall see.
3. I just watched an absolutely fascinating (I mean absolutely fascinating) interview on TV on the Christiane Amanpour Show with Michele Norris interviewing Rev. Wheeler Parker of Chicago. Rev. Parker was Emmett Till’s first cousin, and was with him in Mississippi at the country store where Emmett got in trouble for whistling at a white woman, and was staying at their grandparents’ house the night Emmett was dragged away and then murdered. You may remember that Emmett Till’s mother insisted on an open coffin funeral, so that people could see the condition of his body, in the hope of keeping this sort of thing from continuing to happen. Parker, after all these years, has just released a book of his recollections. I think this is very important and hope that people read it and watch the interview.
4. That led me to thinking about that old joke about the elderly Jewish couple who moved to Miami to enjoy their golden years. But shortly after they moved, the husband passed away. At his funeral, too, was an open coffin. A friend of the widow said to her at the funeral “Bernie looks so good”. “Yes”, she replied “Florida did wonders for him.”
5. Then, I thought back to my grandparents’ funerals in the 1950s and 1970s, where all the caskets were open. And how much things had changed by the time my parents passed away, when most Jewish funerals, at least, had closed caskets, as they do today.
6. And my mind went to Lenin, and Mao, and Ho Chi Minh, whose bodies today can still be viewed, and whose bodies are today still carefully tended to make viewing possible.
7. And finally to King Tut and the exhibit we saw this week at the National Geographic Museum and whose mummified body was discovered 3000 years after he died. One of the most interesting part of that exhibit was the explanation of how mummification was accomplished – including taking the organs out of the body. Like Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, the “person” was no longer there.

Should a dead person’s body be displayed? What is the right way to do things? What is the wrong way? It just isn’t an open and shut case.

I don’t remember before ever having a baseball dream. It wasn’t a long dream. Just one scene. But so unique.

I don’t know what team it was, but it was early in the season, and the manager decided to do something unexpected. It was time for a pinch hitter and he chose himself to be that pinch hitter. He was an older man, a one time star with a lot of power, but no one thought he could play the game today.

He hit the first pitch. It didn’t leave the park, but it hit the wall in left field and then, luckily, it rolled into a crevice in the wall, making it very difficult, possibly impossible, for the left fielder to retrieve it.

I said luckily because the old manager was no longer a Speedy Gonzalez (did I just make up Speedy Gonzalez, or is that a thing?) and he limped about at walking speed around the bases. The difficulty in picking up the ball in left field enabled him to get an in-the-park home run, to the wild cheering of the sold out stadium.

That’s it. I remember one other dream, more typical for me, but with a twist. Something happened to my law firm and we had merged (I think we had to, for some reason) with a larger firm about which we knew very little. Our new firm took in all sorts of lawyers and was enormous – much to big for its offices which were over crowded. To the confusion not only of people from my firm, but from all these other peoples, crowded on rows of chairs and in narrow hallways.

Work was impossible. I had a client in Toronto who needed to hear from me, but I had no time to call him, didn’t know where his files were, etc. (There were no computers in this dream).

Where would be our offices? Clearly, there was no room for us here. The head of the firm told us that we would all be moving into our new offices on Tuesday. But he also said that he did not know where they were going to be. It was Thursday – how would he find office space by Tuesday?

It slowly became clear to all of us. There would be no offices. There would be no new firm. This firm was going out of business.

The next day I walked by the building where we were so crowded the day before. The parking lot was full. Not with cars, but with furniture and other items for sale. The head of the firm was in charge of the sale.

I saw my red leather couch and red leather chair from my office on the parking lot. I told the head of the firm that those were my personal items, that they didn’t belong to his firm. I waited for an argument, but he gave me two stickers and told me to put them on the furniture, so no one else would take them. I knew I had to remove the two pieces that day – I needed a pickup truck. I didn’t know anyone with a pickup truck. And I needed to find a place at home to put the pieces. I couldn’t think of any place where they would fit.

By the way, I did have these two red pieces in my office. They were great. I don’t have them now. Someone else does.

My other dreams? Less clear. I was advising a group (a committee or something) on which young person they should sponsor or hire. There were a number of candidates, but the favorite was a young man, who had a rather unique background (don’t remember what) and personality. But he blew it. The first questioner said “I hear you have quite an Irish humor”. The young man looked at him and said: “It is OK for you to ask me that if you are Irish. But otherwise it is very very insulting. Are you Irish, Mr. KOWALSKI?”

The next candidate was a young woman, who told me that she didn’t want to meet the group because she just got a job. “Where?”, I asked? “At ‘Vogue’”, she said. “Oh, I said,”, you are becoming a journalist?” “I don’t know what the job is”, she answered, walking away from me.

Maybe it’s because I am 80 and it’s all my perception, but I really think that time is moving faster and faster and faster and faster.

For example, on Sundays I have to take out the trash. But it seems to me that as soon as I take out the trash, it is time to take out the trash again. Why? Because it is already Sunday.

On Friday mornings, the sheets and pillow covers get changed. But it seems to me that it is time to change the bed clothes again by the time I go to sleep. Why? Because it is already Friday.

I remember when Shabbat came only once a week. Now, as soon as the sun goes down on Saturday, it is Shabbat again. Why? Because it is again Saturday.

Yet, nights are still very, very long. And days themselves seem the same length that they used to be. I think the problems arise only when you calculate weeks (which are now about three days long), months (which now have about 2 weeks), years (which last about 150 days now) and decades (which, in spite of their name, last only 5 or 6 years).

And centuries? The 21st century is now almost 25% over. How can that be? Wasn’t last year 2000? It wasn’t very long ago that we were worried about the turn of the millennium. I remember that New Years Eve, sitting with friends waiting for all the computers to blow up.

And, speaking about the millennium. The last one lasted1,000 years. But the current one will be different. Even though I am 80, I expect to live to see the year 3000. It’s only a decade or so away. And I will be more relaxed on the evening of December 31, 2999 than I was on December 31, 1999, because I know that the computers will be just fine when the clock ticks midnight in the eastern time zone.

Yes, tempus keeps fugitting at an ever increasing speed. And having fun or not seems not to have any effect on it.

Did you know that I am a member of the Silent Generation? Perhaps not, because we never talk about it.

The Silent Generation includes people born between 1925 and 1945. We were preceded by the Greatest Generation (you can’t top that) and followed by the Baby Boomers.

I am not the only member of the Silent Generation (you may think that because we members never talk about it for fear of having our tongues cut out). Joe Biden is just as Silent as I am. (As is probably clear, we were born just one week apart.)

Joe Biden is (shh, don’t tell anyone) the only Silent president. Our most recent presidents have otherwise all been BOOMERS! Can you imagine Donald Trumpet being a BOOMER? Or Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush, or Barack Obama? All BOOMERS. (In fact, Trumpet, Clinton and Bush are Barely BOOMERS – all were born in 1946, the first year of the BOOMER generation. Born in June, July and August, they were among the original BOOMERS. They were extremely young when they were born; perhaps this is why they have earned the title Baby BOOMERS.

I looked up the Silent Generation on Wikipedia to see what we were like. Here we go. Does this sound like me?

1. We want to work within the system, not change it. (Sounds like me)
2. We are not risk takers. We want to play it safe. (Sounds like me)
3. We are thrifty and sometimes miserly (Sounds like me only on those days when the stock market falls)
4. We tend to have hoarding behavior (who? me?)
5. We married young (not me, but I came close)
6. We had our children young (my children were both babies when born, so I guess so)
7. We had a lot of divorces (not me)
8. We have generally been optimistic and not part of the counter culture (that’s me)

What about those who were born after the BOOMERS? Generation X. Millennials. Generation Z. Gen (not Generation, just Gen) Alpha. What can we say about them? We can say that they have bad titles. And that says it all.

The world today is under the control of BOOMERS and Xers. Look at the mess that it’s in. Don’t blame us Silent types. We just look and shake our heads. And keep our criticisms to ourselves.

This is where dreams get complicated. Last night, I dreamed that I went outside to drive somewhere and my car was not there. I knew it had been stolen. And not only had it been stolen, but it was the second time that week that I had a car stolen (my green car had been stolen on Thursday; I think this was Sunday and my tan car was now gone). I was supposed to pick up my daughter no later than 6 p.m. How was I to do that? And, yes, there was an old, banged up, blue station wagon in the driveway, but it had been so long since that car had been driven that I didn’t know if even could be driven. And think how long it has been since I had seen the key.

I was very angry about my cars. I knew that I was the only one who had cars stolen on a regular basis. Yes, these two cars were not the first that I had taken from me. I kept thinking of more that had disappeared over the years, of all the claims I had made on the insurance company. I even thought of the car that had been stolen and then found, and that was sitting at the gas station/repair place on Rhode Island Avenue near the Subaru dealer. Why didn’t I go to pick up that car? Repairs should be finished by now. Oh, yes, I remembered. I went there several times, and each time they looked for my car, but couldn’t find it and told me to come back later.

When I woke up I thought about this dream. And I realized that this was a recurrent pattern. That I often dreamed of stolen automobiles. And that this was just the most recent. That’s one thing I was sure of. But…..was it true?

During the pandemic, for a period of months, I kept an informal dream diary, to write down dreams that I remembered after I awakened. During this period of time, I had many “recurrent dreams”. By “recurrent dreams”, I mean dreams that at least were closely related to past dreams, often related closely to a series of past dreams.

But, as I said, was it true?

During the period of time that I was writing down my dreams, each dream was different. No two dreams were closely related to each other. Certainly none were clones. There were none which I could identify as recurrent.

So the question is: does one have recurrent dreams, or does one only think that a dream is recurrent?

You may think you have an answer to that question, but I will tell you this. Whatever your answer is, I, for one, don’t trust it at all.

Gotta close now. Going somewhere. Hope my car is still in the driveway.

And now for a diversion – Read on.

I had to stick to my desk yesterday afternoon to get a bunch of things done, so I decided to put a movie on TV. The trick was that I needed something in English (can’t watch subtitles and not watch at the same time) and I didn’t want it to be too good (again, because I didn’t want to be diverted). I had no idea what I wanted to watch.

I turned on On Demand and looked at the various networks I subscribe to. I chose EPIX, because I figured that most of its films would fit my bill. Not good, but not too bad. Not surprisingly, I had heard of very few of the ones that popped up on my screen, and I chose one called “Ghosts Can’t Do It”. You have probably never heard of it, but its lead characters were the odd couple of Anthony Quinn and Bo Derek. I had never seen a Quinn film I didn’t like, and I only remember one Derek film, which was quite bad.

It turned out that “Ghosts Can’t Do It” is the worst film ever made. It was filmed in 1990. Bo Derek was 33 years old; Anthony Quinn was 75. They were extraordinarily happily married, but Quinn dies, and Derek doesn’t know what to do (she is totally hapless on all accounts). Quinn works it out with his angel (his angel is Julie Newmar, and he is her first dead human client) that he can communicate (by clear sound and blurry vision) with his beautiful widow, and help lead her through life. Now, I can’t tell you all the ins and outs, because I was only paying half attention for most of the movie. But……

at some point, Derek learned that she was the CEO of all of Quinn’s businesses and that there was a deal she had to negotiate in Hong Kong. She flew there with her business advisor (Don Murray) and she was not concerned about making any missteps because Anthony Quinn, from afar, was telling her what to do (Murray didn’t know this was going on, of course).

She enters a conference room in Hong Kong and sits opposed to her opponent in these negotiations. He is DONALD TRUMP!!!

We don’t see most of the negotiations, but she apparently succeeds, and Trump tells her that “she has won the situation”, but that there is more to come. She looks at him and says something like “You just like to make trouble, don’t you?”. He smiles back and says, “So you’ve noticed.”

Yes, you can’t make this up! But of course, someone did. And, in the credits, after all the the actors were listed, the next item was “Yes, that really was Donald Trump”.

Watching the film, I wondered how in God’s name, Anthony Quinn ever agreed to this dumb film (I don’t know the answer to that), and I was sure no one could be as bad an actor as Bo Derek. Until, I saw Donald Trump. You would think he could act, right? No, he can’t. I assume it’s because an actor has to take direction from someone, and that’s the last thing he could do.

I then went to Wikipedia and learned the following:

1. Donald Trump won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor.
2. The film won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture.
3. Bo Derek won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress
4. John Derek won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director

Now I know that the Golden Raspberries have been given every year for over 40 years. And I don’t know if they have ever taken all their Raspberries and ranked them against each other.

But if they had, “Ghosts Can’t Do It” would outrank them all.

I am not an alarmist on the topic. I understand the statistics well: there has been a significant uptick in antisemitic attacks over the past several years (thank you, Donald Trump), and this is a matter of serious concern. But I have seen other statistics as well. They show (see the recent ADL study) that about 20% of the American public consists of people who harbor significant misgivings about Jews. But they also show that this is not a recent increase. For some years, 20% of the American public has been in this category.

During the first half of the twentieth century, a larger percentage of Americans undoubtedly were antisemitic, and they showed it. Not only in ways that are seen today, but in deed restrictions that did not permit Jews to buy properties in a large segment of American cities, in the creation of country clubs for Christians only, in hotels and other establishments that would not allow Jews to enter, in corporations and law firms and the like who would not hire Jews, in universities with strict quotas on Jewish students and Jewish faculty. None of these problems exist today and, in fact, polls show that the vast majority of Americans respect Jews (presumably for their accomplishments and contributions to society), and certainly many (perhaps, most) don’t mind if their children marry Jews, or if their grandchildren are brought up Jewish. I have seen statistics showing that more people convert into Judaism (as hard as that sometimes is) than convert from Judaism. This was certainly not the case one hundred years ago.

Yes, we may not have these earlier problems, but we have others. Right wing crazies (I know no other way to describe them) have been given free rein by virtue of Donald Trump’s presidency to come out of the closet, and many of these right wing crazies are anti-everything, including antisemitic. Our social media enable antisemitic messages to be spread widely and quickly, something that was not true even twenty years ago. And finally, our love affair with the Supreme Court’s erroneous understanding of the Second Amendment, and with the guns it permits, have enabled the right wing crazies to have weaponry at their disposal that would not have been dreamed of, say, fifty years ago. So, yes, we have problems.

But I know so many Jews who think that Auschwitz is just around the corner. What they don’t realize (or what they don’t find significant) is that every place (I think, every place) where Jews have been significantly adversely dealt with, the antisemitic elements of that society have been ignored by, and often encouraged by, the government. It was the Soviet government which was attempting to abolish Judaism and all other religions, it was the governments of the Muslim states which began to crack down on their Jewish populations in the 1940s. It was certainly Hitler and the Nazis who encouraged the German people, and the conquered European peoples, to act against the Jews (even to the point of exterminating them) in Europe between 1933 and 1945. Up until now, even during the Trump years, I see no element of American government (federal, state, local) acting at all in this regard, and I don’t see any sign that this will be the case in the future. If these signs develop, and can’t be taken care of quickly, my mind on this topic will change just as quickly. But I would be very surprised if this happens.

Now, think about the 20% of the American populace that might fit a definition of antisemitic. How many of them are going to pick up a gun and shoot at a synagogue or a Jewish day school? Very few, and hopefully they can be dealt with. And for the remainder of the 20%, their antisemitism will probably waft and wane. This is not surprising. A lot of people are prejudiced against groups other than Jews – against Blacks for sure, and Latinos, and French, and Indian, and Muslim, and disabled, etc., etc. We can’t expect everyone to love, like or want to spend their time with Jews. But we can expect them to obey the law. So the fact that 20% of the country have negative feelings about Jews doesn’t really bother me that much.

One more point: Israel. I am one who believes that Jews should not generally take anti-Israel sentiments as being antisemitic. For some critics, obviously, they may be one and the same. But it certainly ain’t necessarily so. But it becomes complicated because, on both sides, some of the people some of the time want to combine them. Israel has declared itself “a Jewish state”, even though it is 20% non-Jewish and has a declaration of independence guaranteeing equality among all citizens; in the minds of Israeli leaders, it is sometimes helpful to equate anti-Israel and antisemitic thoughts – they think it rallies the diaspora Jews. And perhaps it does. And the pro-Palestinian elements on American campuses certainly like to equate the two. How else will they stay in the news? And staying in the news is essential if they want to get their geopolitical message across?

I should add that I, in my 80 years, have never experienced personal antisemitism. Anywhere (or if I have, I didn’t recognize it as such). I understand that this lack of personal experience influences my overall thoughts on the subject, and I have no problem with that. Perhaps, if I had experienced the Holocaust in my family, or if I had been run out of an Arab country, and so forth, I would think differently. I recognize that. But if my beliefs on this overall subject were all or in part the result negative personal experiences, and were different from what I think now……that does not mean that I would be correct in those beliefs.

Anyway…..that is what I think.

For the 70-somethingth time, the U.S. Congress is debating whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. And for the 70-somethingth time, the U.S. Congress is wasting its time. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would not only be potentially catastrophic, but stupid. In fact, having to even think about whether the debt ceiling should be raised is itself potentially catastrophic and stupid.

As we all know, the purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to enable the government to borrow funds to pay for activities and items that the government has already approved. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would be to tell the government that it can sign contracts for activities that will cost the country money, but once those activities are completed, the government will not honor its contracts and pay for them. That’s a little simplistic, to be sure. But that’s the gist.

The House Republicans are saying that they won’t support paying our bills when due unless we agree to cut spending in the future. But this is apples and oranges. One has to do with bills already incurred and one has to do with obligations to be made in the future. It is immoral and dumb to condition the firsts on the second.

It may be that our national debt is too high, and cutting back on some expenditures may be part of the answer. But there are other parts of the answer: our tax policies of rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor are part of the problems, as are the costs of becoming involved in distant wars.

There has been a large rise in governmental debt during this first quarter of the 21st century (putting aside the rise during the Reagan years). George W. Bush got us into horrific wars and presided over a major recession (almost a depression), and the rise continued during the Obama years. Then Donald Trump doubled the rate of increase during his four years in office. He was fighting Covid, to be sure, but he also orchestrated tax decreases that cost the government several billions of dollars.

The debate over the debt ceiling increase has no upside. It threatens our already threatened economy. You can expect that the stock market will drop precipitously, hurting those who depend on 401ks and the like, and this will increase serious recession chances. It will also raise interest rates on United States bonds, exacerbating the problem but putting even more pressure on the economy. And all for nothing – all to debate whether we should pay for expenditures already authorized, due and owing. Yes, it is stupid.

But, although Congress will not pass the legislation to be passed by the House of Representatives (with the necessary votes of George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar and Lauren Boebert), and if Congress did pass the bill, the President would veto it. But obviously, no bill will pass Congress without the vote of the House, and it remains to be seen whether Kevin McCarthy (Speaker by one vote) will allow a bill to the House floor unless he knows that it will carry. So I don’t know where we are, but I know we don’t want to be here.

And as to George Santos, three more revelations today?

1. His mother was in Brazil on 9/11 and thus not a “survivor” of 9/11.
2. He never performed as a drag queen in Brazil, although not only corroboration but presumed photographic evidence exists.
3. He sponsored a Go Fund Me for a disabled veteran whose service dog needed surgery, and pocketed the proceeds.

Add these to the list. He isn’t Jewish or Jew-ish, he didn’t work for Goldman Sacks, he didn’t work for Citigroup, he didn’t go to Horace Mann H.S., he didn’t go to Baruch College, he didn’t go to NYU, he didn’t play on a championship school volleyball team, he was not vice president of LinkBridge Investors, he didn’t found a legitimate animal charity, he has no husband (there is no marriage record anywhere), and he had no employees lost in the Pulse shooting in Orlando, In addition, he is being investigated in Brazil for check fraud.

And what will be Alex Baldwin’s defense? “I Didn’t Know the Gun was Loaded and I’ll Never, Never Do It Again.” This was really a tragic situation. And it seems clear that Baldwin wasn’t trying to kill anyone. But involuntary manslaughter is a statute that covers incidences when (1) someone is killed, (2) there was no intention or premeditation, and (3) there was gross negligence, or its equivalent, involved. (As to any situation such as this where a celebrity becomes involved, my mind goes to my grandmother, who once said, after Lana Turner slipped in the bathtub and injured herself: “and with all that money”).

And what about the six year old who shot his teacher? His parents say that the gun was in his mother’s closet over six feet up on a shelf, locked with a trigger lock that required a key to open. And that he had an “acute disability” (what is that?). And that, up until that day, he always had a parent with him……so weird.

Six old friends from my high school class (along with spouses and significant non-spouses) decided years ago to form a modified travel group. Every few years we would get together for a short, relaxing reunion. We have been to places like Chico Hot Springs, Montana; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Traverse City, Michigan; Sullivans Island, South Carolina; and Niagara on the Lake, Ontario.

The the pandemic hit and, of course, all travel stopped. In addition, tragedy struck and we lost one member of our group. But over the past nine months or so, we decided it was time to resume our reunions, and we picked the summer of 2023 as our target date.

Then the discussions began, and continued and continued and continued. Where should we go? When should we go there?

Over the past several months, we went through so many possibilities. Hawaii would be nice (but far away). There’s a lot to do in California (but what if there’s a forest fire?). Everyone (almost) likes Colorado (but the high altitude can be a problem with just an in-out trip). These all may sound like flimsy excuses, but remember, not only is Art 80, but so is at least one member of each other group.

After going back and forth (sometimes “back and forth” meant that we agreed on something, only to disagree with our agreement shortly after), we decided to switch to the east. Somewhere in New England? Maine, or Burlington, or the Berkshires? A month or so ago, we reached a “final” agreement: we would go to Saratoga Springs NY. It’s a place with things to do, with a history, it will be new to all of us, and it’s only moderately inaccessible. (Our group lives in Missouri, California, Michigan, South Carolina and Washington DC., and most of us will fly into Albany, less than an hour away.)

Last night, we had our monthly Zoom. Saratoga Springs still seemed to be acceptable to all. I had half-expected someone to decide that this was not the right place to go, but if anyone thinks that, they have been keeping it to themselves.

Then, we had to decide the dates. The dates, as well as the location, had been the subject of much discussion for months, but we had been narrowing it down to just after Labor Day. The dates also held – for four of the six couples, we would arrive on the Tuesday after Labor Day and leave Saturday morning. One couple couldn’t get there until Wednesday, and one had to leave to get to Cape Cod by Friday night. But this was good – we would do no better.

Where to stay in Saratoga Springs? I had done a little research and discovered that Saratoga Springs is very pricey. A lot of the places that looked good seem to cost $400 – $600 a night. That might be good for the refugees from Wall Street, but not for all of us. Even the chain hotels were in the $250 range. But then I found the Inn At Saratoga, which has about 40 rooms, has been in operation since the 1840s, has a restaurant on site, and gets good reviews. We could get 4 nights for a grand total of about $720 per room. I presented this as the best option (but explained that I had not looked at B and Bs). The discussion lasted about 5 minutes and there was agreement that this was the place.

We knew that rooms in Saratoga Springs go fast, and that the week after Labor Day is a big tourist week for people without children, and that we should work quickly. A brief look at the Inn’s website made it questionable whether they still had 6 rooms available. The one of members of our group had a brilliant idea — she called the Inn, there were 4 king size bed rooms, and two double bed rooms, and we booked them on the spot. We each got our confirmations before our Zoom call ended.

Four miracles happened here last night. All eleven of us decided where we would go, we decided when we would go, we decided where we wanted to stay, and we made our reservations. Four absolute miracles.

Hanukkah has nothing on us.