Oh, What A (Bad) Feeling

Remember those old Toyota commercials from the 80s that showed new owners jumping for joy as they got the keys? “Oh what a feeling, to own a Toyota!” was the jingle.

The company could use a little of that exuberance now as they weather the kind of public relations nightmare that could be disastrous in this economy. And yet, four days or so into the crisis over sticking accelerators, I have yet to see the face of any Toyota executive or spokesman on TV or hear their voices on the radio. And I consume probably more media hours than the average person and the average car buyer.

You don’t have to be a PR mogul to see the company isn’t handling this well.

I’ve had a Toyota Siena for eight years now, with no regrets. I have never had a mechanical problem, although some non-essential parts have had to be replaced, and I consistently have a low tire pressure light erroneously illuminated on the dash. There is also a problem with an oxygen sensor I will eventually have to fix. But eight years without ever turning the key to no response, or getting stuck on the highway has given me a pretty good feeling to own a Toyota.

It would be unfortunate if the tanking economy has forced the company to cut corners on production, design or materials. But the accelerator problem seems easy enough to fix and luckily it hasn’t led to any accidents.

So why is it only dealers who are on the air standing behind Toyota’s cars?

Here's Andy Borowitz's shot at Toyota: The cup holders still work: www.theborowitzreport.com

There's No 'I' In NBC

Just in time for the remake of "Clash Of The Titans" comes the late night TV version, with Jay Leno butting his enormous head against Conan O'Brien's famously weird coiffure for the coveted 11:35 p.m. turf.

NBC is now the den mother of the mother of all sibling rivalries. The peacock thought it had all this worked out four years ago, trying to avoid the temper tantrum Dave Letterman threw in 1993 when he stormed off to CBS and, somehow, became the unlikely grumpy, horny king of the time slot.

But the deal to keep Conan, and his free-spending, fun-loving demographic off another network by handing over Johnny Carson's crown while it was still warm from Leno's head was built on a foundation of quicksand.

The problem for both Leno and Conan, who have been at their respective shticks since the early 90s, is that no one gives a damn when there are better options available. Who wants to see Leno awkwardly salivate over Naomi Watts and drop embarrassing Freudian slips in an interview when they can watch David Caruso whip off his sunglasses and make witty comments over the latest murder victim and cue the Who music, or Dr. Grey choose between McDreamy and McSteamy? And who wants to see Conan do that lame fake interview with the real celebrity face and dubbed moving mouth, or chat with Triumph the Insult Comic Dog when there is still non-infomercial competition, like Letterman or Nightline?

Both these guys knew going into their deal that there were risks involved, and yet both are whining like the ball was taken away inches away from the end zone. At least Conan had the humility to say in his (under)statement that "in a world with real problems, I've been absurdly lucky." Something tells me that, just before the repo man arrives at his door, some kind of salvation will arrive.

Conan delights in singing "I'm a-gonna go to hell when I die" after skewering the likes of Paris Hilton in his monologue, and Jay likes to patrol the streets of Hollywood looking for morons he can seem smarter than in his "Jaywalking" segments. So clearly it's too much to expect magnanimity from a pair of egomaniacs. NBC can rule out their taking one for the team and turning the clock back to the old post-prime time lineup. Instead they may both end up on other networks.

And NBC will end up with a bigger cascade failure than the one they tried to avoid in 2005.

Reid All About It

It seems that way back in the 2008 presidential race, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a strange way of talking up Barack Obama's qualifications. "He's light skinned" and "doesn't have a Negro dialect unless he wants one," the Nevada-based powerbroker would say in private conversations.

We know this now because it has been revealed in a new book about the campaign by Jon Heilman and David Halperin, "Game Change. Reid doesn't dispute the comments attributed to him, and in fact has apologized directly to the president for it. The president talked up Reid's long commitment to civil rights in his statement and said he accepted the apology "without question."

All well and good, but it's hard not to wonder how long these two reporters have known about these comments and whether they kept it under wraps until their book was finished. That's their right, but as Mike Flynn points out in this great Breitbart Report post, would they have done the same if the remarks were made by a Republican?

Racial controversies involving conservatives tend to have a longer shelf life. Remember when Trent Lott pined away for the age of segregation at Strom Thurmond's birthday party? Contrast that flap to Joe Biden suggesting that Obama stood out from other black politicians because he was "clean." The price he paid for that gaffe was to become vice president of the United States.

On Sunday, the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, not only didn't accept Reid's apology but said the gaffe was career-ending. "Either he's going to retire or I'm going to retire him in November, but either way he won't be the leader in January," said Steele, saying that Reid was getting off easy if Trent Lott's fate was the established standard.

Pundits will parse the difference, noting that lamenting the end of segregation isn't in the same universe as stupidly assessing a candidate's blackness. Where this controversy will lead us remains to be seen, but it will surely raise some questions and hopefully offer some insights into why the Democratic party remains the overwhelming choice of people of color, and why that shows no sign of changing soon.

Another Warning Against Marrying Politicians

How many more must end up like Silda Wall Spitzer, Elizabeth Edwards and Jenny Sanford before it becomes clear to single American women: Steer clear of politicians, or any guy who even talks about running for office.
Do more of these men cheat today? Of course not. They're getting caught more. Either they're getting dumber or it has just become too difficult in today's media age to explain a week-long gap in a governor's schedule with a lame hiking excuse. They are not all cheaters, but too many are not to se a trend.
Some say power is an aphrodisiac. I think they've got it backwards. It's primarily men with outsized egos, who narcissistically crave affection and self-validation, who are drawn to politics. Once they've got that validation from voters, they'll seek it from other sources, and for too many, one woman cannot provide an ample supply. Such men suffer from a double hubris: the need to place their own needs ahead of others, coupled with the arrogance to believe they'll never be caught.

Sure you can gain a lot of strength from being a woman scorned, as Hillary did. But who needs it?
So marry a doctor, a lawyer, an architect, a cowboy or a flair pin salesman. There's no guarantee he won't cheat. But at least if he does you won't end up with camera crews on your front lawn, or standing by in humiliation while your guy reads his apology at a press conference.

Beware The Hubris Trap

President Obama was typically pleased with himself when he displayed the ability to swat a fly while giving an interview. "That was pretty impressive, wasn’t it?" he asked his interviewer while inviting the cameraman to film his kill.
The President has been pleased with himself a lot lately, which he has good reason to be. He’s a highly accomplished man who has earned his place in history, at a very young age, and is enjoying great popularity at the most challenging job in the world.
While it’s natural to enjoy the power and trappings of the office, the non-stop celebrity being perhaps the biggest perk, Obama should do more to embrace the stature of the presidency rather than try to recast the commander and chief as an ordinary Joe who goes out for hamburgers and dates with his wife in Manhattan, hands school notes to little girls and talks to world leaders with his feet on the desk in the Oval Office.
Putting the Middle East peace process on the fast track shows fortitude and confidence, as does the President’s economic policies and initiatives such as health care reform. An activist, intelligent president surrounded by competent advisors and staff can get a lot done in four years.
But he must beware the hubris factor that comes naturally to leaders, especially when they sail into office as smoothly as he did. George W. Bush, elected by a hair, thought he’d have the conflict in Iraq wrapped up in a few short months. He became far less bold when that failure cut him down to size. With his popularity surplus, there seems to be no limit to Obama’s ambition, which means that the feet on his desk may not be as well planted on the ground as they should be.
The nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea will surely put the Obama administration to its biggest test. The president needs to know which solutions are realistic, and steer clear of those that will only have looked like great ideas in the history books.
Congratulations on that fly, Mr. President. Now be careful of the ones in the ointment.

Is Hatred A Disease?

If there is a stereotype about white supremacists, James von Brunn doesn’t fit it.
We often see them depicted in popular culture as uneducated, perhaps illiterate people who drive pick-up trucks, live in the south and work at blue-collar jobs. They may live on farms or ranches, misinterpreting the Bible and gathering at secret Klan rallies or Nazi boot camps.
Von Brunn, who is accused of storming the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum last week and killing a guard, is none of these things. He was born in St. Louis and graduated from Washington University in 1943 with a degree in journalism. He served in the Naval Reserve and reportedly worked for a Madison Avenue advertising firm in New York for a while and became a talented artist through night-time painting classes.
We often tell ourselves that education is the cure for bigotry. But von Brunn’s college degree didn’t stop him from authoring a long screed about a Jewish plot to destroy the white gene pool, or curtail his enthusiasm for Holocaust denial, a cause that redefines stubborn ignorance. Instead, his hate percolated well into his senior years until he was compelled to literally take up arms for his warped cause.
The only explanation, if there is one, is a sustained, diseased state of mind that was as ultimately incurable as it was debilitating.
“His views consumed him, and in doing so, not only destroyed his life, but destroyed our family and ruined our lives as well," von Brunn’s son, Erik, wrote in a statement aired by ABC News.
It would be far easier to accept stereotypes about where dangerous bigots live and what they look like, than to come to terms with the fact that more James von Brunn's may be working in the cubicle next to us, or living in the house next door, suffering from a dangerous disease with no cure.

Missing

"The Fate Of Israel's MIAs Says Much About Peace Hopes." There's no doubt we're on a faster track toward another Israeli-Palestinian agreement than we have been in more than a decade. The White House files have been dusted off, updated and presented to a president who, unlike his predecessor, has enough self-confidence to take on this formidable task.

In holding Benjamin Netanyahu's feet to the fire over settlement expansion, President Obama is clearly trying to regain Washington's lost "honest broker" status among the Palestinians. Since carte blanche to Fatah and Hamas will quickly doom the process, he should work quickly to dispel that notion.

While the audacity of hope is a fine thing, hope of an eventual agreement between Arabs and Israelis requres faith that, one day, everyone involved will act in their self-interest to enjoy the dividends of peace.

But it's hard to see a significant trend in that direction among Palestinians. Their leadership still oscillates between doing little to stop terror, doing nothing, and actively participating, as in Hamas-ruled Gaza.

The rocket attacks that increased in vehemence after Israel ended nearly 40 years of occupation there defy rationale, even in view of a long-term goal to destroy Israel, weakening as it does the international case that the Palestinians can disengage from the conflict and work toward coexistence, and bolstering the argument by Israelis and their supporters that a full West Bank withdrawal will bring much of the same.

These attacks are encouraged and enabled by Iranian and Syrian operatives, who can at least be said to act in their own self-interest: Fueling the conflict in Israel shores up the regimes in those countries, and weakens the object of their paranoia.

Another reason to question the ability (forget the will) of Israel’s enemies to give up the fight is the very painful history of missing Israeli soldiers. Some, captured during the war in Lebanon that began in 1982, have been unheard from for the better part of 30 years. More recently, Gilad Shalit has been held by Hamas, which actively negotiates for his release, for more than two years since he was captured near Gaza. There is no recent proof that he’s alive.

Given the willingness of the Israeli government to do almost anything to get them back, even wading into ethically murky waters by trading hundreds of terrorists, it is in the self-interest of the militant captors to keep these men healthy and eventually make a deal, of which they will almost certainly get the longer end of the stick.

But not one of these soldiers has ever been released alive. Elchanan Tennenbaum, an Israeli businessman, suspected drug dealer and retired colonel, is the only recent Israeli to be released alive in a prisoner swap with Arab captors, at the cost 435 prisoners from Israeli jails.

The ugly truth is that the life expectancy of an Israeli, particularly an active soldier, in a terrorist jail is bound to be brutally short, and their fate is almost unbearable to ponder. In October, 2000, a BBC camera crew captured the horrific fate of two IDF soldiers when a mob stormed the Ramallah police station where they were being held and beat and stabbed them to death. Some of the rioters proudly displayed their blood-soaked hands for the cameras.

Last July, Hezbollah militants turned over the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser or Eldad Regev, who were captured nearly two years earlier in a raid specifically intended to gain Israeli prisoners. The ransom was five live terrorists and nearly 200 bodies. We may never know how long they were held before they were murdered. But we are also left to wonder what kind of better deal their captors’ could have made in exchange for two healthy soldiers, if their captors were capable of acting in their self-interest.

I met Goldwasser’s parents in the summer of 2007, about a year into their ordeal. Against hope, his mother Mickey explained how she was keeping a scrapbook of all the efforts on his behalf to present to him on his return. In the most moving terms, she spoke about how she worried about her son being kept clean and fed.

I also had a chance, long ago, to meet Yona Baumel, whose son, Zachary, was captured in Lebanon with his tank crew in 1982. About 23 years into his unspeakable ordeal, Mr. Baumel was still confident, too, that Zachary was being held alive, although it made no sense, in the absence of a deal in that time period, that his captors were still sustaining him.

As an added measure of cruelty, those who capture Israeli soldiers routinely, stubbornly refuse to give details about their fate, evidently to prolong the anguish of the soldiers’ loved ones.
Yona Baumel died last week at 81, without any confirmation of his son’s likely fate. If he had to die, perhaps it was merciful that Yona didn’t have to suffer one last time through what had to be two painful dates: The June 11 anniversary of Zachary’s capture, followed shortly by Father’s Day.

Fully renouncing hostility against Israel would mean new economic ties for the Palestinians, increased international and US aid, more infrastructure and development and an opportunity for a new beginning. But the question remains whether enough of them can keep their eye on that prize.

Few Israelis hide their desire to have a large, spacious homeland that might stretch from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, from the Red Sea to the Golan, with a Jewish majority. But their leaders have put aside that dream to act in their long-term self-interest, holding out hope that the other side of the equation can do the same one day .

All You Need To Know About "Star Trek XI: The Search For A New Audience"

WARNING: SPOILERS.

A federation starship, the USS Kelvin is minding its own business, as federation starships generally do, prime directive and all that, when the time-traveling Romulan Nero materializes in a massive, converted mining ship.

Do not confuse this menacing rogue Romulan who is out to destroy Earth with Shinzon, the menacing rogue Romulan who is out to destroy Earth in "Star Trek: Nemesis," the last Star Trek film, in 2002. The writers and director of the latest film are not necessarily fans of the franchise, so they may have never seen the other movies. This is probably just a coincidence.

As fate would have it, Nero has stumbled upon the ship carrying the parents of the future Captain Kirk, and just in time for the arrival of the newborn. We don't know why a woman that pregnant is on board the ship in the first place, but there's little time to wonder as the attack unfolds.

The massive Romulan ship, which has the power to obliterate the federation ship, instead punches holes in the Kelvin until the captain flies over to negotiate. But there's nothing to talk about because the doomed captain doesn't have what Nero wants, the location of a peculiar ship that looks like a hummingbird. So Nero punches more holes in the Kelvin, giving the crew enough time to escape. Fortunately, the Kelvin has more shuttlecraft aboard than the Titanic had lifeboats so everyone makes it off except the new captain, George Kirk, and the extras who had to fly across the hallway in the explosions or get sucked out into space.

George's wife has a lightning-fast labor (must be all the stress) enabling the new arrival to emerge at the precise moment George is about to sacrifice himself to save his crew. This way the couple can name the child together and establish that the newborn is the future Captain Kirk. The destruction of the ship is on hold while this happens.

Next, we get a brief visit to the Planet Vulcan, where Spock has been teased 35 previous times by his classmates in an attempt to get him to blow his stack and show he’s not as cold and stoic as a good Vulcan should be. Evidently, you can say what you want about him but if you call his human mother a whore, we soon learn, he’ll morph into the Vulcan Volcano.

The mother in question is Winona Ryder, an actress only about 10 years older than Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock. The studio probably got her cheap because her career went south after that shoplifting bust. Spock gets a lecture from his dad that he has to work harder to keep his cool. But when the stuffy college admissions board disses his intermarried family again, Spock tells them to shove it.

Later, although it is established that James Tiberias Kirk is growing up in Iowa, where the young man likes to drive classic cars with built-in Nokia communicators off cliffs, he somehow ends up in a bar where Starfleet cadets hang out, although Starfleet Academy is hundreds of miles away in San Francisco. Must be some great beer.

In this bar he encounters Lt. Uhura and some thuggish cadets, and when he gets in trouble in the obligatory barfight scene, Captain Christopher Pike, who wrote his dissertation on Kirk’s father, somehow also turns up in Iowa to get him out of trouble and urge him to join Starfleet. Kirk clears his schedule of car wrecking and bar fighting and obliges, hopping on a shuttle to San Francisco where he meets Leonard McCoy, presumably not yet a doctor, who is afraid of getting airsick. He tells Kirk how his ex-wife took everything, "except my bones," and a nickname is born.

Later, Cadet Kirk has a fling with a green-skinned cadet who turns out to be Uhura's roommate, and he gets to see Uhura in her underwear while hiding under the bed. Maybe that’s why Uhura's so pissed at him later on when Kirk is taking the Kobayashi Maru strategy simulation and she, while also a cadet, is one of the people running the simulation. Dr. McCoy is also part of the simulation, ostensibly to produce a cure for Klingons.

The simulation is designed by Spock. Evidently there are very few people in Starfleet, because everywhere Kirk goes he keeps running into the same four people: McCoy, Uhura, Spock and Captain Pike, as well as the lout who pummeled him in the Iowa bar, all of whom will end up at his side when he eventually finds his way aboard the Enterprise.

Spock is pissed that Kirk reprogrammed the simulation to make it winnable, a feat of which he will many years later boast in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.” Spock wants Kirk kicked out of school but there’s no time because Vulcan is now being attacked by Nero.

The cadets are hastily called into action with a lot of other crews, but Kirk can’t come because he’s being given a time out. McCoy injects Krik with a bacteria specimen that happens to be lying around in the starship hangar, then fools a dim-witted security guard into letting him bring Kirk aboard the ship, despite the fact the he is showing symptoms of a contagious disease.

Now we get to meet the new Chekov and Sulu, with Anton Yelchin doing such an over the top Chekov impression laden with "Wulcans" it seems like a parody. After Sulu forgets to switch off the parking brake on the way out of spacedock, the ship is under way on its maiden voyage.

Even while simultaneously battling McCoy's disease and the weak script Kirk figures out that they are headed into a trap, which leaves Captain Pike so impressed that Kirk’s not only off suspension but now second in command of the ship, under Spock. All the other ships have been destroyed. Captain Pike orders Kirk and Sulu to go skydiving from space to disable Nero's huge drill that’s cutting a hole in Vulcan.

Nero apparently has the ability to travel through time and to turn planets into black holes, yet somehow was unable to stop his own planet from being destroyed by a supernova in the distant future. Instead, it was outsourced to Future Spock, the federation ambassador to Romulus, who set out to inject cooling red matter into the supernova, but he missed it by that much, so Nero vowed to not only destroy Spock but the entire federation. No good deed goes unpunished is a weak revenge motive, but that's the least of this movie's problems.

Kirk and Sulu manage not to be burnt up in Vulcan’s atmosphere as they descend from space at thousands of miles and hour and open their parachutes to land on target. The third member of their team is sacrificed by the writers just to show that the feat wasn’t entirely a cakewalk.

Sulu, who volunteered for the mission by boasting that he knew how to fence (as the original character demonstrates in a shirtless manic frolic in the episode “The Naked Now”), produces a sword from somewhere in his streamlined jumpsuit. Rather than fence, Sulu can do Ninja and Samurai tricks, complete with backward jumps, as he goes all Kill Bill on the bad guys, leaving us to wonder why there are people aboard a space drill lowered into the atmosphere.

Kirk and Sulu knock out the drill wth their phasers, leaving us to wonder why the Enterprise didn't just fire its phasers, sparing all the aerial acrobatics. But it's too late to save Vulcan, which turns into a giant sinkhole, much like the plot.

Spock beams down to save his parents, who are conveniently gathered with the most important elders of Vulcan and saves them all, except for Winona. Before she can say "Betelguese," she get sucked into a black hole, just like her career. (Hey, reality bites).

Meanwhile, Captain Pike has been taken prisoner, and is being held in a bathtub, which leads us to think he’s about to be waterboarded. Instead, Nero comes up with a lamer version of the disgusting bug that Ricardo Montalban put in Chekov’s ear in ST:2. Only this one is taken orally. We’re not really sure what it does, just that it’s gross.

Back on the ship, Spock is now in charge, but he and Kirk can’t stop bickering. Kirk wants to go after Nero while Spock wants to take some time to stop and think about things.

Uhura is so sorry for Spock that she stops the elevator and offers him sexual favors to get his mind off his grief. Not only isn’t this scene hot, it’s awkward because it comes out of nowhere, (with zero previous interaction between the two) not to mention a huge setback to the strengths of the only woman with a speaking role on the Enterprise crew. (Zoe Saldana’s character is evidently a cost-effective amalgam of Uhura, who was romantically attached to no one, and Nurse Chapel, who openly pined for Spock in the series.) Rather than cite Starfleet regulations about sexual liaisons between a commanding officer and subordinates, Spock nobly says all he wants is for people to keep on doing their jobs well.

When Kirk and Spock finally mix it up, Spock uses the Vulcan neck pinch, then illogially ejects him from the ship, rather than confining him to quarters or tossing him in the brig. Luckily, Kirk’s escape pod not only lands on a planet where Future Spock has been marooned by Nero to watch his planet die, but he lands within walking distance of his future friend, and arrives there just in time for the senior-citizen Vulcan to ward off a massive, fierce, hungry monster with only a torch.

The Original Series Spock would be running the numbers in that computer-like brain of his on the odds against all this incredible luck. Instead, they move on to the next great stroke of providence. Not only is there a Starfleet base within walking distance (of which Spock has, for some reason, not yet chosen to avail himself), but the only human posted there is Montgomery Scott, the one man with the scientific ability to get them out of this mess with his untested theory about high-speed teleportation.

As some kind of disciplinary action for being too smart, Scotty has been banished to this wasteland with only a mutated Oompa Loompa for company. Scotty must have a hell of a long-distance carrier, because the uber-beaming to the long-gone, warp-speeding Enterprise works, almost flawlessly. (Though Scotty ends up in a surplus water park amusement that someone has seen fit to inexplicably install on the Enterprise).

On the advice of Future Spock, Kirk has to get command by goading Present Spock into showing emotion, which we have already seen is ridiculously easy. Kirk plays the mom card, Spock pummels him, then responsibly relieves himself of command. But Kirk is magnanimous, and still gives Spock a big role in the attack on Nero’s ship. As they leave, Spock says if he doesn’t make it, Kirk should tell Uhura … We’ll never know what awkward illogical profession of affection it is because Kirk assures him he’s coming back. He tells Sulu to wait for a strategic opportunity to attack, which enables the writers to build up suspense for a nick-of-time Enterprise reappearance.

By now, Nero is drilling into Earth. Since the rule in Star Trek films is that everything bad that happens on Earth will happen in San Francisco, the death beam hits right next to the Golden Gate Bridge as the remaining Starfleet cadets run for their lives, waiting for their friends to come to the rescue

Kirk and Spock beam aboard Nero’s ginormous death ship but, luckily, it’s just a short walk to the place where he has stowed Future Spock’s hummingbird spaceship complete with the dangerous, unstable red matter. It’s also a short walk to where Nero and his goons are. Young Kirk can't yet fight his way out of a paper bag (perhaps he rigged the computers in his judo courses too) but he gets lucky yet again mixing it up with a Romulan who lifts him up by his neck, leaving his hands free to grab the guy’s holstered gun. Spock quickly masters the controls of Future Spock's advanced spaceship and goes on the attack.

Turns out, Captain Pike is still alive and relatively healthy, and close enough for Kirk to rescue. They beam back to the Enterprise when it does that nick-of-time reappearance, complete with blazing, machine-gun-like phasers. Now Nero's ship is being pulled into the black hole.

Nero is still alive and Kirk is again magnanimous in victory. Foreshadowing his trademark compassion to ass-kicked enemies, he offers to pull the Romulan’s fat out of the fire, assuming he will now be able to trust him. Shove it, says Nero, and Kirk says have it your way. Spock agrees: No mercy for Winona's killer. The Enterprise ejects its warp core and detonates it to push itself out of the black hole.

Back at Starfleet, Kirk gets a medal and a promotion for his troubles, and command of the Enterprise, even though he hasn’t finished the academy. We see that Captain Pike didn’t get away completely unscathed from Nero’s Gitmo. He’s in a wheelchair. So when Kirk says “I relieve you, sir,” Pike can’t give the usual answer, “I stand relieved,” and instead says “I am relieved,” which at his point is how I felt because the film was almost over.

Although Spock is not in control of his emotions, getting passed over at the expense of a lesser qualified hothead doesn’t phase him much and he has no hard feelings as he runs into Nimoy-Spock in a hangar. They both agree to stay out of each other’s hair, avoiding the kind of tension between Shatner and Chris Pine, so they can both continue making money off this franchise in harmony and perpetuity.

Kirk takes command of the Enterprise and Scotty and the Oompa Loompa are now in charge in the engine room as they set course for the sequel.

One Story, Two Sad Endings

I had known the truth for some time. But there was plausible denial.
Before there was Facebook, the way to answer "What ever happened to …" was to Google. Debby had a common last name. But when my search came up with a fund at a shul in the small Pennsylvania town where she grew up, the connection was unmistakable.
It’s rare for people other than millionaire philanthropists to have funds named after them while they are still alive. But not impossible.
It's close to 30 years since that last night of camp when we met. It hadn’t been a good summer, I didn’t make many friends. Debby came out of the blue and, in six or seven hours, made the whole trip worthwhile.
Although we spent the entire night talking, I can’t say I learned much about her. At 14, insights into the soul are rare, opinions and worldviews long from being formulated. When morning came we got on separate buses, hers to her Philadelphia suburb, mine to New York City. We vowed to pick up where we left off next summer, probably knowing deep down what the odds were.
The letters kept up for months, and there were occasional phone calls. When she came to New York with her family, I was out of town. I didn’t make it back to camp the next summer. We had some pointless fight, lost touch, and never saw each other again.
I recall a letter out of nowhere a few years later, awkwardly asking me what I was doing and whether I had a girlfriend. I didn’t, but for some forgotten reason never responded.
Twenty-eight years later the camp fund in her name made me worry, and wonder. I thought of calling the temple to ask, but didn’t have the nerve, ultimately convincing myself that the fund was set up by an adoring father to honor his daughter. I took comfort in the absence of the word memorial.
Then came Melissa, a voice from the past who found me on Facebook. We met that same night at camp, when the fading summer and looming bus-ride home erased all barriers of shyness and fueled a frenzy of eleventh hour acquaintances and address swapping. Melissa remembered Debby but hadn’t heard from her in years, she said at the time of initial contact.
Weeks later, another Facebook friendship with another lost campmate brought the awful truth home, and it arrived in my inbox immediately after.
Debby died in an accident, apparently struck by a car, probably just a few years after I had met her. I’ll never know how old she was, what she was doing at the time, or anything more than that vague epitaph. The acquaintance said he’d heard she had been going through a troubled time, but was getting her life back on track when tragedy struck.
Shortly after I heard the news, I found myself singing James Taylor's "Fire and Rain" to myself, the salient lyrics being "I always thought I’d see you, one more time again." Somehow I imagined one day we’d get in touch and get together, maybe with our spouses and kids, and laugh about juvenile naivete and innocence.
Rare is the marriage that blossoms from a relationship that began at 14. There was never any chance of anything rekindling between us, and 21 years ago, seven after my time with Debby, I met the woman who would become my wife and the mother of my children. There are, of course, no regrets.
And still, there is a sense of loss. If time, fate and circumstances prevent the seed of a relationship from blossoming, we like to think they are at least loving someone else, and perhaps we are a warm memory in their past.
Can you lose someone you never had? How much of a void can such a distant memory, no matter how cherished, leave?
There was a photo of us together, moments before we parted, the sleeplessness showing. I always looked at it sadly because of what was unknowable at the time: It was our last moment together.
The more cruel unknowable was that this girl who came out of the blue to brighten my life was doomed. When I close my eyes, I wonder if she died too quickly to know what happened to her, if she was alone when she died, or if she had a chance to say goodbye to her family. And if she was happy at the time.
The picture is in an album that disappeared somewhere in my parents’ house, and it’s painful to think that it, too, may be lost forever, leaving only the dim impression in my brain, and the speck of her face in a camp yearbook group shot, as proof that it ever happened.
Aside from Melissa, my old camp pen pal, there was no one to talk it over with. She suggested I reach out to Debby’s parents, tell her what their daughter once meant to me. I didn’t see anything productive that could come out of that.
Instead, I wrote out a check to the camp fund in her name, for more than I can afford, but less than a fitting tribute. Maybe it will help some14 year old boy go to camp, where a girl will come out of the blue to brighten his life.
And hopefully that story will have a happier ending.

New Jewish Week Blog

Visit my new blog in the Jewish Week Web site, http:jewishlife-ny.com, for regular discussion on matters of Jewish continuity.

Stone's "W." Not Letter Perfect

It's hard enough for a filmmaker to rake a historic figure over the coals while he is still in power and the story is still unfolding.

It's even more difficult when you leave gaping holes in the story that both undermine your point and lend ammunition to that figure’s defenders.
Oliver Stone’s "W." is meant to convey that George W. Bush is a lightweight who stumbled his way into the White House and misled the country. That’s not a hard thesis to sustain, and Stone makes an impressive effort in the re-enactments of cabinet meetings and other sessions in which the decision to invade Iraq was mulled and ultimately approved.
He also shows fairness to Bush, and good insight, by meaningfully depicting how becoming a Born-Again Christian turned the future president’s life around and transformed him from a boozing slacker who owed much of his life to his father’s string-pulling to a self-motivated force-to-be-reckoned with. At one point, a preacher tells the young Bush, soon to become governor of Texas, to treat everyone he meets "as if they were going to be dead at 12 o’clock" and show them unconditional love.

But depicting the life and presidency of George W. Bush with no reference at all to the protracted Florida legal battle that put him in office, which can either be described as his narrow victory or the misappropriation of the White House, depending on your perspective, is very much like depicting World War II with no reference to Pearl Harbor.
How Bush got into office and the shadow those events cast over his tenure is essential to understanding the Bush presidency. So is his more successful 2004 re-election and the "swift-boat" attacks on John Kerry that allowed him to finally outshine his father by winning the second term denied the old man.
Hurricane Katrina and the infamous "heck of a job, Brownie" reaction of the bumbling administration are also too pivotal to be excluded. True, there is only so much you can cram into a two-hour film, but Stone in two separate scenes shows the president choking on a pretzel –- as if that reflects more on his stewardship than the political purging of federal prosecutors, the Valerie Plame CIA leak or the disastrous and ill-fated nomination of his counsel, Harriet Myers, to the Supreme Court.
As it is, Stone’s film – evidently rushed for release before Election Day— wastes brilliant performances by nearly all the actors involved, particularly James Brolin (above) in the lead role and Richard Dreyfus as Dick Cheney, on an uneven film that toggles between farce and critical biopic. Once scene that has Bush and his inner circle, the most powerful men and woman in America wandering around Bush’s Crawford ranch, having lost their way – ostensibly a metaphor for the administration’s direction – looks like a late night TV skit with well-costumed and made-up actors trying their best to look foolish. Condoleezza Rice,as portrayed by Thandie Newton, comes across as particularly moronic, saying little in most scenes, sometimes simply repeating what others say, and usually coming across as completely intimidated by the men around her, an evasion (perhaps kind) of her pivotal role as Bush’s top foreign policy advisor. Colin Powell is portrayed more generously by Jeffrey Wright a the principled man in the room who ultimately caves in to the inevitable and supports the war at the UN.
Bush defenders will rightfully note that this film creates the misimpression that the Iraq war immediately undid the Bush presidency, if not Bush himself (in a dream sequence he is seen squaring off with his scornful father, who calls the war a "fiasco," an affirmation of his longstanding disapproval) without regard to two significant facts.
First, Bush was handily re-elected at a point where the war was it its deadliest, a year after his ridiculous "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier stunt. Secondly, the 2007 troop surge, rebuffed by Democrats and other critics as further escalation of a losing war, has earned Bush bragging rights, having drastically reduced the number of American casualties and stabilized Iraq to the point that a phased, victorious withdrawal is no longer a pipe dream.
Some say Stone was too kind to the president, considering his known left-wing bent. But what’s evident is that he was unfair to himself, cranking out a restrained and muddled effort that teases us with the possibility of a better, more illuminating film.

NYPD Vs. EDPs, Again

You'll likely be hearing a lot more in coming weeks about the death of Iman Morales , especially since the police captain who gave the order that led to his death, evidently deeply distraught, has tragically taken his own life.
The events that led to these two men's deaths began on Sept. 24 when a mentally ill Morales, naked and brandishing a long fluorescent light bulb, climbed onto a fire escape and later atop a storefront gate. Lt. Michael Pigott, an Emergency Services Unit acting commander, eventually ordered another officer to fire a Taser at Morales, causing him to freeze up and fall to his death, head-first. What the cops involved thought would happen to Morales, precariously perched 10 feet up, as 5,00o volts surged through his body is anyone's guess.
The case brings to mind two other cases involving emotionally disturbed persons (EDPs) that ended fatally. In 1984, Eleanor Bumpurs, a woman facing eviction from her Bronx apartment, brandished a kitchen knife and threatened to throw lye at housing workers. In a struggle with police, she was shot to death with a 12-guage shotgun.
Fifteen years later, Gidone Busch faced more than a half-dozen cops outside his apartment in Borough Park, Brooklyn, after neighbors complained that he was walking around naked and acting strangely. The cops barged into his apartment, then pepper sprayed him, and when he charged outside angrily, gunned him down as he brandished a small household hammer.
In the Bumpurs case one officer was tried and acquitted of manslaughter and the city eventually paid her family $200,000 in a civil settlement. In the Busch case, no criminal charges were brought and four officers were found not liable in a civil action in 2003. However, a judge later threw out that verdict, saying the cops' testimony was suspect. There has yet to be a settlement or a motion for a new trial.
What all three cases have in common is their unnecessary outcome. In all cases, no one but the EDP was threatened (the cops' argument that they felt endangered by Busch's hammer was given short shrift by the trial judge, Sterling Johnson.)
The NYPD always promises to review procedures to avoid repetition of these kind of incidents. But one thing should be painfully obvious even to those of us with no police training or intensive knowledge of procedure: Cops who respond to EDP incidents need to know how best to cool these situations down rather than exacerbate them.
"All they had to do was leave my brother alone," Glenn Busch, Gidone's brother told me during the trial. "He wasn't threatening anyone." NYPD instructional videos shown during the trial clearly showed that the cops involved disregarded their own training by failing to contain the situation while waiting for more experienced personnel to arrive.
Morales' deaths suggests the NYPD has learned nothing in the nine years since.

Return Of The Intrepid

As I watched the refurbished USS Interpid glide back into its berth today, its deck lined with former crew members, I thought about how much of a relic from a bygone era is this World War II vintage aircraft carrier.
At the height of her service, the Intrepid sustained massive casualties in battles with the Japanese, most of them from kamikaze attacks that nearly sunk the ship. So its crew was tasked not only with projecting America’s power against our enemies but also with fighting for their very existence. Without question, the ship lived up to its name and paid for it in blood and fire.
Today’s carriers, easily twice the size, and other naval ships have little to worry about in terms of their own survival, making the Navy probably the safest branch of service. This is not only because, Russia notwithstanding, few other countries have anything nearly as powerful in the water, but because electronic early warning surveillance, precision-guided missile technology and long-range fighter craft ensure that any threat to a naval craft can easily be neutralized miles before it comes within striking distance.
One recent exception was the terrorist strike on the cruiser USS Cole, the result of a sneak attack by a civilian craft in what was supposed to be a friendly port. That mistake surely won’t happen again anytime soon.
Other than that, despite the fact that our ships are fully involved in combat operations, nearly all naval casualties these days happen in accidents, like the infamous gunnery explosion on the USS Iowa or the undersea crash that nearly sank the USS San Francisco, a nuclear submarine.
That makes the bravery of the men who served aboard and kept the Intrepid afloat during numerous battles that much more striking. It was not just a matter of being brave and staying at your post under the most horrible conditions but also having both the skill and determination to defeat the enemy.
The private foundation that turned Intrepid into a museum raised and spent about $120 million to refurbish the ship.
Even with the above in mind, I have mixed feelings about this. That there are more urgent uses for that kind of money goes without saying.
But there is also the point raised today by the inevitable protestors. Is this musuem glorifying the sacrifice of the people who served, or military power and war itself?
What message are we sending to the thousands of children who will visit on school and family outings? That war is cool?
Whether they served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam or Iraq, thousands of veterans could tell those kids there is nothing cool about it. Soldiers die, often in gruesome, painful ways, and so do civilians. Many come back with limbs or other pieces of themselves missing, and most are haunted by memories of trauma they will never shake. While they can rightfully look back on those experiences as the proudest of their lives, few would care to relive them.
According to the leaflets handed out by the few dozen protestors, who noted that the ship’s return to its museum port coincided with Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday, the Interpid is”a celebration of military adventurism over diplomacy” and a “blatant indoctrination of school children” and a “military recruitment vehicle.”
I approached one of those protestors and said I partially agreed, and was uncomfortable with deceiving children into thinking that war is all about cruising around on a big ship with cool planes, even in these days when few sailors do get killed.
At the same time, I said, there has never been a greater need for a strong military, well equipped with the best in both firepower and manpower. You can’t be a lamb in a world of wolves.
Or a Gandhi in a world of Bin Ladens.
It will be a great day when navy ships, bombers and tanks can be melted down to build playgrounds and school buses. But that day is probably centuries, and numerous military victories away.
When she shrugged and walked off, in the shadow of that great ship, I knew that both of us were good Americans for speaking our mind. But it was the men on that ship, and the ones at sea, in the air and on land today, who made the conversation possible.

Your Tax Dollars At Work In Iraq

As thousands of Jews get worked up about "next Hitler" Ahmadinejad of Iran, here's what's happening below the radar courtesy of another radical Islamic government. Only this is the one we're spending billions of dollars to prop up, not to mention the human cost.

Iraqi Who Visited Israel Facing Prosecution
(JTA) — The Iraqi legislator who visited Israel last week is facing prosecution and even execution. Mithal al-Alusi, who has been an advocate for peace with Israel, went to the Jewish state to attend a counterterrorism conference. In retribution for his peace efforts, fellow Iraqi lawmakers voted to discard his immunity from prosecution. He is accused of humiliating his country by visiting the Jewish state. Though his execution is unlikely, Alusi may lose his seat in parliament -- the only seat belonging to his liberal secularist party. Alusi went to Israel to rally international support for Iraq's fight against terrorism. He accuses Iran of meddling with his country's internal politics. "Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah and many other terrorist organizations," he told The Associated Press. "Israelis are suffering like me, like my people. So we need to be together. Peace will have more of a chance." Alusi used his German passport to travel to Israel free of Iraqi visa restrictions. He also visited in 2005, and subsequently two of his sons were assassined in Baghdad -- Alusi likely was the target.

Here is what our "most pro-Israel president ever" has wrought: Another Middle East regime where hatred of Israel will overwhelm common sense. It makes no difference to those Zion-phobic nutjobs in Iraq how bad this makes their fledgling elected Democracy-like government look. Never mind the mayhem and chaos Iran is causing in their country. Israel is the enemy.

Hopefully U.S. intervention will protect this guy from murder, if not from losing his seat. But short of giving him asylum they can't protect him forever. It's a sad, frightening reminder of what kind of country our troops are giving their lives for today, and how much worse it will get when we are ultimately gone.

A Press Release In The Kotel?

It's impossible to know whether Barack Obama had public consumption in mind when he jotted down his note to be deposited in the Western Wall. The notes are supposed to be between supplicant and God. But nothing is sacred in a political campaign, or in the eyes of some journalists and editors. So he had to know there was at least a chance of someone peeking.
Turns out, that's what happened, after someone described as a seminary student violated a longstanding taboo and took the note out of the wall, later handing it over to the Israeli papers (a fine, fine seminary it must be.)
"Lord — Protect my family and me," reads the note as published in Maariv and reported by the AP. "Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."
Givg Obama the benefit of the doubt that he was writing a prayer other than a press release, and that he believes in the power of prayer, what's impressive about that note is what it doesn't
"Please let me win the election and become president."
Too many of us, myself no exception, ask for selfish things when we pray, or seek them from God at spontaneous points in our day. "Please let me find a parking spot ... please let that store be open late tonight ... please let me make it home in time for the game ..."
Even if Obama suspected his note might be read, there are ways he could have couched his request for personal advancement in noble terms. But his humble note asks only for God's protection of him and his family, asks forgiveness and asks only to be an instrument of God's will, whatever that is."
Again giving him the benefit of a doubt that the note wasn't written by a spin doctor or image guru, it speaks well of him. You can learn a lot about a man or woman by what they ask of God.
Of course, that doesn't mean anyone else had the right to touch that note.

Our Sons, On The Front Lines

MoveOn.org has created a new controversial ad airing in select states and a few national cable channels in which a new mother recruits her toddler son into the anti-Iraq war fight.
"“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. He’s my first," says the mom. “So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That and making my heart pound every time I look at him.
"So, John McCain,” she concludes, “when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”

It is a powerful spot and worthy of debate, especially since MoveOn is the group responsible for the distasteful and pointless newspaper ad calling General John Petraeus "General Betray-Us." Insofar as their goal is to stir debate and keep the Iraq war on the national agenda, they are doing their job, although they do seem to succeed in more discussion about MoveOn than about Iraq. When your top goal is fundraising, maybe that's not a bad thing.
In Monday's Times, Nicholas Kristoff, in a rare, right-wing perspective to establish even handedness, slams the ad as an attack on military service in general. "The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past. And the sole responsibility of others."
This ending, while cute, makes no sense since the "others" he refers to are also American who obviously feel otherwise.
Kristoff quotes a soldier's mother as saying "someone has to stand between our society and danger. if not my son, then who?"
Both Kristoff and the mother are pretending the ad bashes military service in general when it plainly speaks specifically about the Iraq war. Alex's mother mentions McCain's quote, taken well out of context, that he'd be prepared to keep U.S. troops in Iran for 100 years if necessary. While the rest of McCain's quote qualifies that, saying that's assuming troops aren't being hurt or killed (a naive expectation for a military man) it is fair to scrutinize this view and object to the notion that unborn, future soldiers, and those who are Alex's age, may one day be sent (whether they volunteer or are conscripted in a future draft) to continue a war that has not made any sense to a majority of Americans, has not proven to have improved our national security, and appears to be a colossal strategic error. The loved ones of our troops serving in Iraq, particularly those who have been dealt the ultimate pain of loss, have to grapple with the painful question of exactly for what their loved one was sacrificed.
It is a well-worn tactic for supporters of a war to brand opponents as critics who would oppose any war, any time, and all forms of military intervention. To package this ad as doing so is to miss its point, and sidestep the debate.

Call The Yankees’ Bluff

The corporate heads of Yankee stadium are warning (perhaps threatening is the better word) that unless they get another $350-$400 million in tax-free city bonds for their over-budget stadium it may not open on schedule.
Betting types are probably safe laying odds the Bombers, who already scored $941 million in bonds, will get what they want. But it’s hard for objective people to see how the two sides are playing with even hands.
With the new stadium three quarters complete, the Yankees aren’t about to start making Dodger noises and threaten to move elsewhere. And if the new stadium isn’t ready so quick, they’ve still got a perfectly good one sitting next door.
The only possible, if unspoken threat, is that f they don’t get the help they need from the city, they’ll be forced to pass the cost along to patrons next season.
That’s a stretch, too. Die-hard fans would dig deeper into their pockets even if it means more credit-card debt. But with gas prices driving the cost of everything else up and a growing housing crisis, it’s not likely skyrocketing ticket and vending prices are going to put more money in the Yankees’ coffers. The average cost of a family outing to Yankee Stadium already exceeds $150, around the cost of a large bag of groceries, or three tanks of gas, or an average monthly electric bill.
At the same time as this, Gov. David Paterson is waging an honorable fight for a cap on property taxes, and finding substantial resistance from the teachers-union-cowed Legislature. It would be nothing short of an outrage if the Yankees get a bigger free pass at the public trough while struggling home-owners are told their tax dollars are too important and fund too many programs to be winnowed.
Under the stewardship of former deputy mayor Randy Levine, the Yankees know how to work the system, but the city’s Economic Development Corporation should play hardball.
Even if they have put seven lackluster seasons behind their last World Series Trophy, the Yankees are still the most successful sports franchise in history.
It’s a safe bet that without any more help from the city, they’ll come up with the money to finish their stadium.

Divinity And The Nazis

It’s hard to know where to begin in the matter of Rev. John Hagee, the fundamentalist whose endorsement of John McCain has now been rejected by the candidate because of his comments about a divine role in the Holocaust.
It is a valid argument to say that McCain’s relationship with Hagee is not the same as Democrat Barack Obama’s with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons Obama attended for 20 years without dissent until he became a presidential candidate.
But that’s as far as I go in siding with supporters of Hagee.
The comment he made about Hitler being a “hunter” sent by God to send Jews out of Europe (or in much larger part, off this Earth) and to Israel is a repugnant affront to divinity and a disgraceful sanctification of Hitler. It is natural for theologians to search for the hand of God, which they believe to be attached to everything, in the most evil acts. But we must take greater care when using God and Hitler in the same sentence.
How are those who survived the Holocaust, religious, secular or atheist, to think and feel when someone tells them God was behind their suffering? More likely, they envisioned the devil guiding the hands of their oppressors.
If the hand of God was at work during the Holocaust, it was not guiding Hitler. It was behind the millions of Allied troops and their leaders who worked furiously and with great sacrifice to topple Hitler’s war machine. It was behind the Righteous Gentiles whose humanity overshadowed their fear and compelled them to stand up for the oppressed. It was with the millions of Nazi victims who saved themselves, through acts of defiance or wisdom; and it was in the numerous twists of fate, small miracles if you will, that allowed millions more to escape. The hand of God was also lifting the spirits of the martyred to their rightful place at His side.
The hand of God most certainly was not guiding the vile Hitler and his minions, who defiled everything Godlike or holy on the Earth. To suggest otherwise is not only to sanctify the purest form of evil in history (how can Hitler be vilified if he was only a servant of God?), but to embolden contemporary or future racists with the false notion of righteousness.
If Rev. Hagee believes God unleashed Hitler on the Jews for a Divine purpose, he must also see the Almighty’s blessing behind contemporary terrorists and thugs who want to wipe Israel off the map. If so, what separates his thinking from al Quaeda’s?
The only rational theology is that God grants free will to all mankind to choose good or evil paths. When he does interfere, we must believe that it is to limit or nullify the harming of innocents, not to contribute to it.

The Worst Of Hillary

After the White House years, Hillary Clinton had a chance to remake her public image and replace our memories of Whitewater, travelgate, filegate, vast-right-wing-conspiracy-gate, pardon-gate and every other minor or major scandal she foisted on us as first lady for eight years.
She succeeded in every possible way as a serious and hard-working, clearly ambitious senator who wasn't just hungry for publicity as a stepping stone to the presidency, but understood the issues she faced and how to best serve the people of her state, bringing home, according to today's NY Post, $2.2 billion in federal cash between 2002 and 2006. She also became a credible voice on foreign policy, notwithstanding her flop on the Iraq war, and a sensible critic of the Bush administration who could also be effectively bipartisan.
She started her campaign on solid footing, recovering from early losses and gaining momentum. But as her fortunes began to fade, we began to see the return of the 90s Hillary, stubborn rather than determined, petulant rather than graceful, and quick to cry conspiracy (sexist commentators, pro-Obama debate planners) to offset her own missteps.
We may never know what kept her in the race this long, but it's fair to question whether it was anything noble. In the speech that might have been her concession last night, but presented the bizarre notion that she still had options, Hillary gave out her Web site address and asked people to "help any way they can."
Anyone who donates to her now will prove the adage that a fool and his or her money are easily parted. But clearly she aims to use every last moment to pay down her campaign debt from other people's wallets rather than cut into the considerable fortune she and her husband have built.
Avarice and greed are not the characteristics of the senator we came to know in the past seven years. And so we wonder which Hillary stands to become our vice president, and how much oscillation between the two we will see as she continues what is sure to be a long career in public life.

The Class War

Good for the New York Daily News.
They totally nailed the MTA for giving out free EZ Passes to the millionaires who serve (or served) on its board. How pathetically cheap can these individuals, like Peter Kalikow, be for saving a few hundred, maybe even a few thousand dollars a year they can easily afford and passing the expense on to a strapped system in whose interests they agreed to altruistically act?
This is just one of the egregious perks that came to light in just a few days in the tabloid life of New York.
Look through the pages and you’d be remiss in noticing a trend:

Item in Newsday on 5-27: Doctors and other officials at the non-profit North Shore-Long Island Jewish Hospital system get up to a $600 monthly stipend for leasing cars, which allows them the luxury of driving in free Cadillacs and Porsches and, until recently, a Jaguar for one lucky official who paid the balance of his or her lease through payroll deduction. (The hospital dumped that car when Newsday phoned about it.) According to Newsday the cost of these leases are passed on the patient, although sloppy reporting doesn’t detail how.
.
Item in the Daily News on 5-25: Disgraced public officials, even those convicted of crimes, will still collect city and/or state pensions when they hit retirement age.

In the 5-27 Daily News, a double header: The free EZ Passes for life scoop, and City Council members, who already make $112,000, racked up $277,000 in perks last fiscal year, such as Metrocards, cleaning services, photographers, travel and tchachkes like crystal apples.

These are legitimate stories, although the one about the hospital fails to disclose the most recent annual budget of the multi-billion dollar institution, so readers may judge for themselves whether the $64 million they raised privately should entitle them to such perks and how likely it is that the relatively small cost is actually passed on to patients (who, in any case, for the most part have their bills paid by insurance or Medicaid.)

Newsday has also led the field in uncovering part-time employees of public school districts, such as retained legal counsel, who manage to wangle staggering pensions for themselves through questionable accounting, now under review by the attorney general.

The zeal with which these papers are carrying out these investigations at a time when Americans are hurting economically suggests that class is beginning to divides us far more as a society than race or politics.
The rising cost of gas and its ripple effects will increasingly fuel (pun intended) more of this kind of coverage as as the empowered upper class in corporate America and in the public sector seem to be increasingly brazen.

Cannibals In The Media

Mayor Mike Bloomberg is upset about the way reporters speak to him, it seems.
He blew up this week at a Newsday scribe who posed a loaded question to him, implying the mayor had been utruthful in the past.
Take heart, your honor. You are not alone. Any celebrity and most politicians can go through their Rodney Dangerfield "no respect" routine with you.
But if you really want some comfort, look at how the media carve up their own for dinner.
The Times devoted four reporters on Tuesday to a story of NBC News4 anchor Sue Simmons' accidental on-air obscenity blooper for Wednesday's paper. This was the second news cycle for what should have been a one-day story: Simmons messed up, she apologized, much embarrassment for her and move on. But the Times had reporters roaming the streets of New York to hear that citizens are "shocked, shocked" to find that famous people sometimes use the f-word.
That's better than the Post, the tabloid whose page size is shriking almost as quickly as its morals. Rupert Murdoch's flagship splashed "Boozy Susie" on its front page wood, and quoted several people, not one of them named, suggesting Sue Simmons drank too much during the break between her two newscasts, strongly implying without ever saying it that she was drunk during the mishap.
The Post and Times and every other paper, including Newsday, also made great hay out of the altercation between Newsday's Michael Frazier and Bloomberg. Frazier prefaced his question by saying the mayor "maintained" that he kept on open dialogue with the family of Sean Bell. Boomberg blew his stack because the word suggested he has lied. The Times went to the dictionary and showed that the word, in its simplest form, benignly means to assert or claim. But n fairness to the mayor, it does indeed have a negative connotation, as if to say "you persist in saying x, when everyone knows y."
Although he had a point (and probably a prior bone to pick with the reporter) Bloomberg could have been more gracious. He chose the political life, and he knows the adage about when you can't stand the heat.
But at least he can take comfort that there's no double standard among reporters when it comes to watching words.

OMG, Miley’s Like So Exploited

Fifteen-year-old Miley Cyrus and her Disney bosses are “shocked, shocked” to see the latest issue of Vanity Fair.
“I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed,” Cyrus said in a statement. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."
First of all, Miley, it’s whom. Don’t be a fool, stay in school.
And does she really expect us to believe she didn’t get contractual pre-approval of the shoot before it went to press and saw it too late to have it changed? And what exactly was she thinking when photographer Annie Lebovitz told her to take off her shirt and hold a sheet against herself in a faux postcoital pose? And her father and entourage just happened to be out of the room when that happened? And she never mentioned it to them?
Just exactly how dumb do they think the American people are?
If you’re worried about her future, take heart. Just as Jamie Lyn Spears’ pregnancy won’t hurt her relationship with Nickelodeon one bit, neither will this Vanity Fair flap hurt Miley. In both cases the companies are “shocked” and “disappointed” all the way to the bank. Both “Zoe 101” and “Hannah Montana” will pick up tens of thousands more adolescent male viewers, more merchandise will be sold, the sponsors will get more business and everyone wins, even the newspapers who proclaim their righteous indignation even while plastering the "offensive" photo all over their page and Web sites. Meanwhile, both girls are providing for their future by beginning the transition from child star to grown up (I hesitate to say adult) stars.
If this all seems familiar, maybe it’s because not so long ago teen star Vanessa Hudgens of “High School Musical” fame, another Disney employee, turned up in her own, more explicit pictures. (At least in her case she was of legal age.) Again, we are asked to believe the actress had no idea how those pictures wound up on the Internet.
If you want to blame anyone, blame Jessica Biel, the likely trailblazer in all this. About a decade ago, she was a star of the WB’s family- friendly drama “Seventh Heaven,” playing the daughter of a minister. Then she found her way into the pages of a men’s magazine, and was fired by producer Aaron Spelling. No skin off Biel’s back. She’s now a major movie star, appearing in top-grossing films like "Stealth" and "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" as well as the upcoming "Nailed." Needless to say, she's no longer playing preacher’s daughters. Heard from any of her demure costars lately?
As long as sex means big money for American corporations, get used to seeing fewer boundaries on both.

“Your MetroCard Is Now Worth $5.50”

Good For 2 3/4 Rides

Riding the subway lately seems like going out to dinner with one of those jerks who divides the check so precisely he asks you for $17.46, and that’s only because you can’t split a cent in half.
The profligate MTA, whose wasteful ways and duplicitous bookkeeping have been chronicled in numerous audits, gave in to pressure not to raise the fare with a backdoor increase on the backs of riders of moderate frequency. Instead of a $2.00 bonus for every ten rides purchased, the bonus is now $1.50. Too bad that’s not enough for a full ride. So after exhausting the ten rides, a rider then faces the choice of adding 50 cents for the last ride or buying another ten rides and winding up with a $3.00 bonus (good for one and a half rides, except there are no half-rides). Only on a $40 purchase do you end up with an even bonus good for three rides. The MTA is obviously pushing for a front-loading boost by pushing the high-priced card, and also banking on a stall float for the rest. Many of those who buy the smaller cards will simply carry around that surplus for days, weeks or months before paying to even it out. In some cases people will be frustrated, lazy or forgetful enough to toss away the card with the surplus, giving the MTA a free gift and getting nothing in return. Call it a de facto transit tax.
If only the MTA put as much effort into cutting spending and streamlining the system as they do figuring out clever, penny pinching schemes.

Does Obama Know Wright From Wrong?

I’m generally not the type to condemn by association. Public officials and office seekers can’t always be held accountable for the statements, views and actions of those around them, whether they are family members, campaign contributors, political allies or advisors. An official is entitled to agree with some, but not all of an associate’s views without completely disassociating his or herself from that person.
It’s different with Brack Obama and his controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What’s at issue here is not whether whether Obama shares Wright’s bigoted and unpatriotic views. Clearly he does not.
The issue instead is one of moral courage. Acknowledging that he has been a member of Wright’s church for 20 years, the senator also admits that he’s been in the church at times when some of these offensive statements, which I won't repeat here, (Google him) were made. As a private citizen, what exception he may have taken with the pastor is between the two of them. As a man aspiring to be our commander-in-chief and chief executive of our nation, it is incumbent on him to detail whether he, as a prominent congregant and public official, he confronted the preacher about those views and tried to change them, and why he never considered leaving the church as a form of protest. Was this the best voice for his impressionable young daughters to hear at church? Did he offer those daughters an alternative view at home?
The cynics among us will assume that Obama did not cause a stir at this prominent Chicago religious stronghold because it was politically important to be associated with it as a candidate and to greet his constituents there as a state legislator and later as a senator. And Obama hasn't given much cause not to view things cynically.
In his latest, excellent commentary Ed Koch says he is “dumbfounded that there has been no drop in Barack Obama’s standing in the polls following revelations that he sat in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and did nothing, publicly or privately, to voice disagreement with Wright’s hate speech. Indeed, Obama’s poll numbers are going up. The most recent CNN national poll shows Obama with 50 percent and Hillary with 40 percent of likely Democratic voters.”
A Hillary Clinton supporter, Koch contrasts the Wright controversy with that dogging Clinton, that she lied about coming under “sniper fire” during her visit to Bosnia as first lady 12 years ago (as if the U.S. military and Secret Service would really have allowed such a dangerous situation.)
The Wright controversy was worse, says Koch, because “Hillary's failure, as gross as it may be, is related to self promotion. Barack's failure, in my judgment, is an out-and-out failure of moral strength.”
It’s unlikely we’re still looking at a contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because everyone but the senator and her husband knows her campaign is a sinking ship. So it’s all-but-certain that war hero Republican John McCain, who showed the strongest courage and fortitude when he was tested, will face off against a Democrat who apparently couldn’t muster some backbone under far less trying circumstances.
In the last two elections, the better candidate clearly lost. This time, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

4,000

Surrounded by the trappings of the White House -- portraits of great
presidents, abundant flags, and the grandeur of the Oval Office --
it's safe to assume, and apparent from his public statements that George W. Bush has convinced himself that he's a wheel in the machinery of history, another brave and bold man forced by fate to make complicated decisions. No doubt he has come to viewthe 4,000 U.S. war dead and the tens of thousands of dead among the Iraqis and other nationalities no differently than Franklin D. Roosevelt looked at the toll of World War II. Reclining in the seat of power surrounded by all that history makes it all too easy to deceive yourself.He may find it more difficult in the post-White House years to find as much wool to pull over his eyes.
Dick Cheney was recently asked in a Fox News interview about the three quarters of Americans who do not believe this war is worth fighting. His answer was a bolt of refreshing, brutal honesty.
"So?"
Leaders should not necessarily be swayed by the majority if they truly feel they are right and have some basis to back themselves up. But Cheney was expressing not so much his fortitude as his contempt for the people who twice elected him. What do they know? They're only the taxpayers, the electorate, the citizenry, the constituents. The republic. What am I supposed to do? Care what they think? At least a quarter of them have it right.
Each day it becomes increasingly clear that this administration intends to simply hand off this unseemly package to the next president. This is shameful. It's reasonable to debate the nature of our exit strategy, but not whether there should be one.
"So?"

At Least He Was A Man About It

As a former prosecutor, Eliot Spitzer surely understood how strong the case against him was and how small the likelihood that he could beat the rap after he was identified to the media as client 9 in the investigation of a high-priced call girl operation.
So it stands to reason the soon-to-be ex-governor wasn’t offering any of that “I will be vindicated” garbage or even hedging his bets by saying “these are only allegations.”
But it’s good to see that he didn’t come up with any wimpy sidestepping of blame or feigning illness or disability like some other recent public figures. Remember Florida Congressman Mark Foley, who entered rehab claiming alcoholism, saying it was the Evil Bottle that made him send lewd text messages to underage interns? Mel Gibson also played the drunk card after his anti-Semitic ramblings hit the airwaves. Winona Ryder claimed she was doing research for a role when she was caught pinching merchandise from a Rodeo Drive clothing store, and “Who” rocker Pete Townshend tried a similar lame alibi when caught accessing online kid porn.
Former New Yok chief judge Sol Wachtler blamed mental illness on his compulsive harassment of a former lover, and in that case he may be right, but he should've gotten help before it reached crisis mode.
Spitzer has made a mess out of his life and, worse, those of his wife and kids, not to mention legislators and aides in Albany who must work overtime to keep the state budget process on track during an unexpected transition. Whether he was driven to ruin by arrogant overconfidence or a subconscious desire to trip himself up, Spitzer has displayed a recklessness beyond words.
But he deserves a No Alibis award for taking his lumps, blaming no one else, admitting that he violated his own principles and apologizing to his family and the people of the state. Let’s hope he serves as a role model in that regard, at least.

Hillary Is The Last Hope Of The Center

The Clintons are well known for playing to the middle, knowing that it’s good politics to avoid getting sucked too far into the left wing of the Democrat party and understanding that it has no significant right wing.
That’s why it’s good news that Hillary Clinton is still in the race and has a fighting chance. Barack Obama and John McCain are shaping up as opposite extremes, and nowhere is that more clear than in the most important issue facing America today.
I believe the economy, health care, climate change and energy independence, while important, all pale in comparison to the need for us to avoid any more futile and arrogant wars. The next president must manage our resistance to terrorism and vigilance against fundamentalist threats with the need to take back our credibility and maintain a pragmatic deterrence. No realistic American at this stage of the game can say that the invasion of Iraq and our prolonged presence there has served our security interests.
John McCain would have our great grandchildren fight there if necessary while Barack Obama would begin the pullout on Inauguration Day. They’re both wrong. We need a realistic phase-out of the troops that leaves measures in place to ensure we won’t have to go back.
More importantly, we need to learn from our mistakes, on the one hand knowing that our sleepy response to al Qaeda provocaton in the 90s led to 9-11, and on the other knowing Iraq was the wrong war at the worst time.
Having the Clintons back in the White House will surely lead to more of the same shenanigans we endured in the 90s: Ethically challenged plums and paybacks for the backers to whom she’s indebted, mistreatment of staff, arrogance, expectation, privilege and who knows what kind of mischief the first gentleman will get into with all that power and too much time on his hands.
But we can survive all that. It will make great entertainment, create a diversion from the national agenda and maybe wreck some careers and lives. But Americans won’t get killed from that. Ever see that bumper sticker: “When Clinton lied, no one died”?
Barack Obama surely won’t set out to get us into another war. But his well-meaning “let’s talk” philosophy will inevitably lead him to put too much faith in the wrong people, and his meteoric political rise may make him overconfident that he can work miracles. Great things can happen through diplomacy, but so can great mistakes.
John McCain, sadly, doesn’t seem to be a man whose Vietnam experience taught him to loathe the idea of war, rather than just losing one. His tough talk about Cuba and about Russia’s Vladimir Putin suggest an internal seething, and his response to a question about the security threat of Iran, singing “bomb, bomb Iran,” suggest flippancy about unleashing destruction and sending our forces in harm’s way.
Hillary Clinton is far from the perfect answer to both men, but the likelihood is that she’ll be the most prudent of the three options as commander-in-chief. Yes, her husband was asleep at the switch when he should have been launching pre-emptive strikes at Bin Laden. But he came to the White House via the Arkansas state house. Hillary would have eight years dealing with international affairs in the Senate, as well as the lesson of 9-11 behind her if she assumes the responsibility of our defense.
The way I see it, she's the best way out of this mess.

Again.

Yesterday another six Americans defended the Second Amendment with their lives.
Not that that was their intention. Their plan for the afternoon was to sit through a geology class at Northen Illinois University then maybe go study or take another class or do something else we all take for granted.
But Stephen Kazmierczak had other plans for them. Who knows why the hell he came to that particular class and opened fire, killing those six people. Who really cares? The undeniable fact is that an epidemic of mass murder has been sweeping across the country for almost a decade now, beginning with the Columbine shootings in Colorado in 1999, and encompassing schools and colleges, shopping malls, workplaces, restaurants and even city streets. We ignore it at our peril.
In this latest case, Kazmierczak seems to have bought his weapons legally, which complicates the debate. Obviously, the best of gun laws can't keep a first-time offender with no prior psychiatric history from making his purchases. The only other answer to that is that there should be no gun sales at all, a position few would support (but one which wouldn't cost me any sleep).
New York's Mike Bloomberg seems to be the only major elected official pressing for serious re-examination of gun laws, but even he is focusing on cracking down on illegal guns, which would not have prevented many of these massacres, including the most deadly and notorious, last year's record body-count at Virginia Tech.
I have yet to hear any rational argument why ordinary Americans with no demonstrable need to defend themselves should be able to legally arm themselves to the hilt. Statistics show that people who buy guns to protect themselves from criminals are more likely to be hurt or killed by their own guns than to hurt an assailant.
When I go to sleep at night, I will be far less worried about an armed burglar invading my home or a foreign invader taking over the country, or the government turning against me (some of the far-fetched arguments for the "well-armed militias" mentioned in the Constitution), than I am about going to a shopping mall and meeting up with the next Michael Kazmierczak.
My life and those of my loved ones -- or those of anyone else -- are far too high a price to pay for America to uphold the most lenient possible interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Romney Lowers The Discourse

Mitt Romney has some good ideas, but hasn’t contributed all that much to this vitally important election campaign.
Reading the writing on the wall, Romney has now surrendered to his low poll numbers and poor showing on Super Tuesday. Trying to portray his decision as principled instead of pragmatic Romney this morning dropped a rhetorical bomb.
"Now if I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention," he said, "I want you to know, I have given this a lot of thought. I would forestall the launch of a national campaign. And frankly I would be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
As if he could really have raised enough money to limp through the rest of the primaries without depleting his own fortune.
But the “surrender to terror” crack is a low blow. As much as I opposed the war, I too believe that pulling the troops out of Iraq on a preset timetable, oblivious to the ramifications, would be a disaster, and that is my main problem with Barack Obama (see post below, “Obama’s Mistake.”)
I pray that if Obama is elected he will see things differently and realize that leaving with no infrastructure to maintain order or a mechanism for continued influence there will ensure that Iraq remains the most unstable place on earth and ultimately harm the region and our security interests, if not our actual security. Odds are he won’t, because he has already indebted himself so deeply to the antiwar movement.
Still, Romney’s use of the term “surrender to terror” in this context raises questions of courage and patriotism, and is beneath someone who aspires, or aspired to be our leader.
I don’t believe that Obama or Hillary Clinton won’t stand up to terrorists when necessary. They simply believe, as do a majority of Americans, that Iraq is a sidestep from the war on terror that has harmed our ability to quickly deploy troops if needed, and that it has increased rather than reduced the number of terrorists we have to fight. It has also empowered more dangerous states like Iran.
In a very short time the intramurals will be over and our attention will shift to the national, one-on-one campaign. John McCain, as the now-presumptive GOP nominee, can make an excellent case for himself based on his substantial foreign policy experience and his long history of service to America. Let’s hope he sticks to the successful playbook that propelled him this far and lets the demagoguery exit with Mitt Romney.

God Bless America

The older I get, the more I come to believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are decent people who want to feel good about America and its place in the world.
After seven years that saw us harm our standing abroad, alienate our allies in common struggles, flagrantly disregard undeniable concern about our climate, leave our own people languishing in a disaster area, actually have a debate about whether torture is appropriate, water down our civil ,iberties, pump up the xenophobia and watch bloodbath after bloodbath erupt in schools, shopping malls and other public places without serious debate of gun laws, I believe Americans more than anything want to turn the page toward a better future.
In the voting thus far our people have made smart choices, and the viable candidates remaining in the race each offer a clear vision of a better future in which sound moral choices will supercede grim political calculus or hubris.
The incredible success of Barack Obama is the clearest indication yet that America wants to bury its racist baggage once and for all, and electing the first black leader of a Western democracy would be a strong step in that direction. Hillary Clinton’s ascension, in spite of the lapses of judgment she and her husband showed during their White House years, demonstrate the American willingness to forgive and our openness to personal growth and second chances. A woman president would go a long way toward shattering the many glass ceilings in society and plant a global seed against sexism.
John McCain, too, would make history as a president whose advanced years didn’t stand in the way of our entrusting him with our most daunting and demanding responsibilities, recognizing that Americans today are living longer, retiring later, and contributing to society well into their twilight years.
Any way you look at it, a new America is on the horizon. If our prayers are answered, we will find a way not to waste the opportunities God has given us.

The Return Of Ally McBeal

Last night's premiere of "Eli Stone" on ABC introduced America to a principled thirtysomething lawyer filled with contemporary angst taking on some of the thorniest legal cases in the nation while plagued by hallucinations.
Sound familiar?
As David Spade might say, I think I liked this show better the first time, when it was called "Ally McBeal."
Ally meet Eli, Eli meet Ally. I doubt the similar sounding names are a coincidence.
"McBeal" was a runaway hit of the mid-90s, and featured Calista Flockhart as the angst-ridden lawyer who would occasionally find dancing babies, unicorns or the ghost of her dead ex-boyfriend in her office between rounds in court. Produced by legal aficianado David E. Kelley, who also created of "The Practice," "Picket Fences" and
"Boston Legal," the show routinely had Ally and her quirky law partners arguing in Boston court room cases that would ordinarily end up on the Supreme Court docket because of their complexity and controversy, and of course wrapping them up neatly in about an hour.
Instead of the angst of a single woman, Eli Stone is grappling with a committed man's drive for purpose. Adding to the urgency is his diagnosis with a brain aneurysm that could go at any time. That gives the writers a chance to explore themes of religion, spirituality and how, as brilliantly rendered in the first episode featuring cameo guest star George Michael, the 80s Wham frontman, "You gotta have faith."
"Stone" co-creator Greg Berlanti acknowledged the Ally connection in an interview with USAToday.
"I don't think you can do a law show with humor now without it being a descendant" of Ally, says Berlanti.
Outside of "Lost," which is in a category of its own and is the lead-in for "Eli Stone," it's hard to come up with anything original on network TV these days. But "Stone" is worth watching for the solid performance of Johnny Lee Miller, a fresh face on TV, and some decent writing.
And, of course, you never know who may pop up in the next hallucination. Boy George, maybe?

9-12 For Rudy, At Last

Rudy Giuliani wasn’t supposed to release the sealed criminal record of a man who was shot by police in 2000, but he did it anyway because it served his political interests. No one held him accountable.
Rudy Giuliani wasn’t supposed to spend tens of thousands of tax dollars on frivolous legal battles, but he did so repeatedly. No one held him accountable.
Rudy Giuliani wasn’t supposed to appoint unqualified people with no relevant experience to be a commissioner of an important agency like the Housing Development Corporation. But he did, the commissioner went to jail for stealing from the city, and no one held Giuliani accountable.
Rudy Giuliani wasn’t supposed to take thousands of documents out of City Hall when he left office and catalog them privately before anyone could take stock of what might be missing when he finally returned them. You guessed it, he did anyway. No one held him accountable.
I could go on and on, into the more serious stuff about the WTC command center, the firefighters radio problem and the hands-off approach to the “battle of the badges” that may have cost lives on 9-11, but you get the picture. Rarely, if ever, has Rudy Giuliani been held accountable for his myriad, heavily documented trail of missteps and undisputedly wrong decisions.
Until Tuesday.
Voters in Florida scored the knockout punch when they repeated what those in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina had already expressed. Enough of you, Rudy, and your shameless exploitation of 9-11 and the glossy, “America’s Mayor” mantle created by the media that camouflaged the real Rudy. Enough of the picture of your abuse of power and messy personal life emerging piecemeal in the tabloids. Enough of you trying to hammer the square peg of your domestic policy positions into the round hole of the Republican base with nobody noticing.
Giuliani was a competent mayor if you look only at results, but a failed leader because he can no longer inspire diverse constituencies, as he once did, and now commands only the narrowest following. Surely that has a lot to do with his penchant for self-absolution.
Giuliani wrote a book on leadership, which I’ll never read. But my limited grasp of the concept tells me that real leaders hold themselves as accountable as the people they serve hold them, and after showing lousy judgment have the sense to get out of the way, not try to take on more responsibility.
Fortunately, Republican primary voters felt the same way.

Jews And Jerusalem

If I often invite you to dinner, does that give you part ownership of my house?
If you gave me a housewarming gift, may you prevent me from selling the house?
If we grew up together in a home we once shared, must I ask you consent before making decisions that affect me more than you?
These metaphors are overly simple, but sometimes that’s the best way to make a point.
Israel’s duly elected, though highly unpopular prime minister, Ehud Omert, has decided that parts of Jerusalem most Israelis shun and no American Jews ever visit should be part of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.
Treason, say American Jews. Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people. We all have a say in it’s future and no Israeli leader has the right to re-divide it against the wishes of Jews around the world.
“No Israeli government has the unilateral or unfettered right to negotiate anything on behalf of the Jews when it comes to the eternal Jewish verities or heritage, such as our capital,” writes Jeff Ballabon in opinion piece distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “As such, Olmert's statements were not merely disappointing to Jewish sensibilities, they were dangerous to Jewish interests.”
It’s true enough that Jews outside Israel have a say in the future of Jerusalem. But they do not have a vote.
The burdens of protecting, defending and maintaining Jerusalem are not shared proportionately by Jews inside and outside Israel. A proportionate vote on its future, therefore, would be ridiculous and unfair.
It is, of course, Israeli troops and police from all over the country who put their lives on the line to maintain the attachment of Arab areas of Jerusalem to the Jewish neighborhoods. It is, of course, residents of Jerusalem and other areas of Israel whose tax dollars pay for the upkeep and security of the city.
Diaspora Jews, and Americans in particular, play a crucial role by lobbying their governments for political support and sending millions of dollars in philanthropic aid to help the people, institutions and infrastructure of Jerusalem. That political support’s effects can be seen in legislation passed by Congress such as the one requiring the U.S. embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv To Jerusalem, which asserts a sense of the American people that this disputed land is indeed Israel’s capital (even though two presidents have now ignored it.)
But however important is that political and financial support, it is cheaper than blood.
It is not just Israel’s soldiers who spill their blood for Jerusalem, but ordinary civilians, including women and children, who suffer the consequences of the peace process. The outcome of negotiations, or lack of negotiations, too often means an outbreak of violence. Sometimes those killed and maimed are visiting Diaspora Jews, but the vast majority of them are Israelis.
Ehud Olmert has contradicted himself by first telling the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations at a dinner that he wouldn’t think of making a decision on Jerusalem while ignoring the feelings of Diaspora Jews, and then setting out on a path to do just that. "The government of Israel has a sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel,” he said before the Annapolis peace conference, in response to American Jewish critics.
His mistake was in making the first statement, not the second and politics and leadership are all about dealing with the latest reality and correcting mistakes.
I have no intention of ever visiting Abu Dis or any of the Arab neighborhoods now on the negotiating table, no matter whose sovereignty they are under, since I generally am not welcome there and have no one to visit.
Yet I am still pained with ceding more of an already miniscule country to another authority, especially one that still can’t put the word coexistence into its lexicon. The eventual Israel will be a jigsaw land with difficult borders and constant threat of attack, as the people of southern Israel are already facing from Gaza-based rocket launchers. Our years of suffering in the exile have earned us better than that.
Giving up part of Jerusalem may well be a major blunder, just as many feel the disengagement from Gaza has now proven to be. But it’s the mistake of Israelis to make.
If we are unhappy about it, we should write our letters and make our statements, while accepting the reality that guests and friends aren’t on equal footing with owners and defenders.