Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Seattle Finally Has Great Pizza!

December 12th, 2006

When you grow up in a place like New York and live in other places like Los Angeles, you don’t have much problem finding great pizza. For that reason, you take it for granted–until you live in a town like Seattle. While Seattle has its share of good Italian restaurants, I really miss the type of informal trattoria that turns out a wickedly delicious homemade pizza from its wood-fired brick oven. Until recently, you couldn’t really find it here (I note that the Accidental Hedonist agrees with me).

But all that’s changed. Now, there are not one, but two pizzeria’s worthy of the name. The irrepressible Tom Douglas, being the terrific food entrepreneur that he is, saw the need and took advantage. The result is Serious Pie. It’s what the French might call a boite, a real hole in the wall tucked in the space behind Dahlia Lounge in Tom’s building. It’s tiny, dark and warm from the ovens, but man does it turn out good pizza! To prove it, take a look at the yummy choices it’s offering these days (see illustration).
serious pie pizza menu
Serious Pie’s ovens also turn out Tom’s excellent breads. The ones I recommend most highly are his ficelle (French baguette) and challah. The challah is to die for–as good as anything I’ve eaten in New York or anywhere, which is saying a lot. I’ve eaten my share of challah around the world.

The second standout is Via Tribunali (no website apparently, but see Seattle PI review). It’s actually been open since November 2004. But our twins were born in the same month and you can understand if we haven’t exactly been foodistas since then. So I only discovered Via Tribunali six months ago or so. But it is extraordinary. An attempt by Caffe Vita founder, Mike McConnell to transplant an authentic Neapolitan pizza experience to Capitol Hill. While I’m no expert on such a food tradition and cannot say how well he has captured his prey. I can give a thumbs up on the pie. We had a margherita made with bufala mozzarella (the only pizza I generally prepare at home) and it was superb. For a more precise gastronomic analysis of the pizza by someone who appreciates what I found in it, give Robotic Gourmand’s review a read.

Via Tribunali’s Margherita D.O.C. (credit: Robotic Gourmand)

I should add, to be honest, I’ve only eaten here once. Others, like Seattle Weekly have carped about the pizzas. And there were a few things I didn’t like (but not about the pizza). The wait can be interminable unless you come early. The place is definitely not kid friendly (this IS Capitol Hill after all). We brought our brood of three and they were continually underfoot and interfering with the service (the aisle is so narrow that a toddler in it completely stops the show). I think any city worth it’s salt should have a place where a kid can eat a good pizza. Serious Pie passes on that score (though the ambience leaves something to be desired). Via Tribunali doesn’t.

Serious Pie
316 Virginia
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 838-7388

VIA TRIBUNALI
913 E. Pike St.
206-322-9234

Tags: caffe-vita, neapolitan-pizza, seattle-pizzeria, serious-pie, tom-douglas-new-restaurant, via-tribunali
Posted in Children & Family, Food and Drink, Seattle | 4 Comments »

Seattle Tacoma Airport Bans Christmas and Hanukah and…Anything Else

December 11th, 2006

The Seattle Times (one of my local papers) today reports that what started out as a local tempest in a teacup now threatens to tear up the national newswire. The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (known as Seatac) until recently had a display of plastic “Holiday” trees in its public concourse. That’s when all Hell seemed to break loose:

Sea-Tac Airport officials were hoping to avoid controversy when they had maintenance crews working Friday’s graveyard shift dismantle nine holiday trees festooned with red ribbons and bows.

The airport managers ordered the plastic trees removed and boxed up after a rabbi asked to have an 8-foot-tall menorah displayed next to the largest tree in the international arrival hall.

Port of Seattle staff felt adding the menorah would have required adding symbols for other religions and cultures in the Northwest, said Terri-Ann Betancourt, the airport’s spokeswoman. The holidays are the busiest season at the airport, she said, and staff didn’t have time to play cultural anthropologists.

“We decided to take the trees down because we didn’t want to be exclusive,” she said. “We’re trying to be thoughtful and respectful, and will review policies after the first of the year.”

Holiday trees in “hiding” at Seatac (from ABC News video)

That Chabad rabbi took one look at those trees and said, “Nothing doing.” When he approached the Port of Seattle (which operates the air and seaport) with his menorah offer, he doubtless brought along a lawyer to ensure that the Port understood the “sincerity” of his religious convictions–and his willingness to sue their asses if they didn’t accede.

The Port naturally got a little panicky. And when public entities get panicky they almost always do some bonehead thing or other. They hired a First Amendment attorney to advise them. He must’ve told them: “Well, if you display trees as a symbol of a religious season, you’ve got to allow the menorah. And for that matter, you might also have to honor Id al Fitr, Kwanza and a host of other holidays if their adherents demand it. That was just too much religious expression for the Port Commissioners to contemplate.

So just like Mr. ‘Bah Humbug’ Scrooge in Dickens’ Christmas Carol, the Port told Rabbi Bogomilsky, “nein, a dank” and put the trees back in storage. Now, there will be no holiday celebration at Seatac. Which puts Seattle in the foolish position of essentially denying what everyone knows–that there IS a holiday season going on around us whether Seatac acknowledges it or not.

Furthermore, if Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly haven’t already jumped on this story, they will shortly. It’s tailor made for their 30-second sound byte attention span. It’s all too easy to make Seatac look like bungling “politically correct” petty bureaucrats who’re trying to steal Christmas from the good people of our fair city. No doubt, tomorrow the Christian evangelical community from the city’s east side will be demonstrating in force at Seatac.

Here are some suggestions on what they could’ve/should’ve done. If the Port felt it didn’t have enough time to organize a holiday display, they should’ve announced to the public that while there would be no display THIS year, but that they planned to have such a display next year after consulting with the city’s major religious groups. But my main point is that there SHOULD be displays by major religious groups represented within Seattle’s local population. Why not show respect for Id al Fadr, Kwanza, and Hanukah–in addition to Christmas? What are they afraid of? Too much religious expression?

The Port’s official reaction to the affair has been entirely unpersuasive. These are people clearly who are either unused to public controversy or else completely incompetent at managing it when it comes to them, as it has in this case:

Craig Watson, the port’s chief lawyer, said [Rabbi] Bogomilsky’s menorah likely fits the Supreme Court’s definition of secular [and hence would be a constitutional display]. But the Port did not want to set the precedent of allowing an outside group [Chabad] to erect a holiday display at the airport, he said, and staff was too busy with holiday traffic to deal with the complexities of doing it themselves.

While I’m not wild about the idea of Chabad, which I consider to be a theological-political right-wing expression of Judaism, setting up shop on the public concourse, what would be so bad about allowing them to do it if the Airport didn’t want to maintain the menorah display itself? And what would’ve been so complicated about the Airport staff putting it up and maintaining it?? Do these people have any idea of how easily this thing could’ve been resolved with an ounce of seychel (“common sense”)? You buy a large menorah. You stand it in the Concourse, turn on the light. How complicated is that?

Another Commissioner perfectly exhibited the Henny Penny affect in his comments:

“I felt we’d also have to put up Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish symbols. Where does it stop?” said Commissioner John Creighton.

Omigod, if we let one do it they’ll all want to. Pretty soon we’ll have Wiccans and Fire-Worshippers and God knows what. We just can’t have that.

The Port Commissioners will meet Tuesday and might reconsider their decision. If they do, let’s hope they use a little common sense and honor Christmas AND Hanukah, at least.

The Seattle PI’s story is here.

It’s important to add that the ABC national news story got it completely wrong when the reporter intoned: “The Port decided to take down the Christmas trees after a Jewish religious leader complained that they were offensive.” And I’m afraid that ABC and affiliate websites also have it wrong. KXLY, Spokane’s ABC affiliate says: “The Port allowed “holiday” decorations to remain but decided to take down all the Christmas trees after a Seattle rabbi complained they were offensive.” Looks like it’s blame-the-Jews time. For the record, this isn’t what Bogomilsky said. He has absolutely no objection to holiday trees unless they are the ONLY religious symbols displayed. For anyone who claims the media lie–well in this case ABC was just plain stupid. But stupidity can stir up religious-ethnic tension just as easily as lying. So let’s make sure that the right-wing media mafia at FOX don’t mess up (I was actually thinking of a bit stronger word here) the story as this reporter did.

I’ve complained to ABCNews.com. Let’s see if I even get an answer. By the way, so far FoxNews’ coverage of the story (largely derived from AP and local coverage) is accurate. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that bozos like Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh or Savage will be.

UPDATE: It’s Christmas 1-Hanukah O as the Port decides to put the Christmas trees back up but gives a cold shoulder to Chabad’s offer to provide a menorah for the Airport’s displays. The Port, in its own charmless way, has embraced the old Brooklyn Dodger fans’ perennial slogan: “Wait till next year.”

Tags: chabad-rabbi-bogomilsky, seatac-removes-holiday-trees-refuses-to-display-menorah, seattle-tacoma-airport-cancels-holiday-display
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Politics & Society, Seattle | 5 Comments »

Deaths of Tyrants

December 10th, 2006

In the past two days, a great tyrant and a great bully have died. It’s certainly not considered polite to dance on people’s graves. But let’s just say I’m not unhappy about either one.

Jeane Kirkpatrick hectors the world (Joel Landau/AP)

Jeane Kirkpatrick was the bully. And though she never attained the power of a tyrant, she was a friend to many. As UN ambassador, she was the international public face of Ronald Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy. She was the arch-defender of all that was evil in that policy. She ardently defended the Iran-Contra arms for hostages deal. She ardently defended the cause of the Nicaraguan contras and of the right-wing government (and their death squads) in El Salvador. No doubt, Kirkpatrick also ardently defended the Pinochet coup and subsequent assassination campaign against Chilean dissidents.

While her defense of these odious regimes was bad enough, what particularly rankled was the taunting tone she adopted in addressing her domestic and foreign political opponents. She wasn’t above labeling Democrats who called for investigations of death squad activity as Commie symps.

Here is a taste, from a seminal essay she wrote in Commentary, of the ideological balderdash she tried to peddle as political analysis:

“Traditional authoritarian governments,” she argued, “are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies.” She said it was an historic mistake for the United States to have shied away from dictators like the Somozas in Nicaragua and the Shah of Iran. If they served American interests, she asserted, they were defensible.

I guess I hated everything about her. Even her speaking tone and cadence annoyed me. She had a slightly nasal tone and when she spoke she drew out syllable in a way I can only call “affected.” Someone who didn’t hate her as much as I might’ve called her speaking style “professorial.” I just found it goddamn annoying.

Another interesting coincidence is that Kirkpatrick’s death comes on the heels of the receding of the neoconservative tide in American politics brought about with the Democrats 11/7 election victory and Bush’s unmitigated Iraq fiasco. As one of the intellectual authors of neoconservatism, it must’ve disappointed her to see it lose sway. As for me, it gives me great pleasure to see them in full retreat from their former dominance of American political life.

The great tyrant, of course, was Augusto Pinochet. What can one say about an assassin who not only personally directed the military assault on Chile’s elected president, but who approved the murder of senior officers of his own armed forces. What can one say about a man whose hands were soaked with the blood of 3,000 desaparecidos, not to mention the 30,000 others he and his henchmen merely tortured?

My only regret is that the long arm of justice (not long enough in this case) did not sweep him up during his lifetime. I was hoping that either Spanish or Chilean justice would catch him and imprison him for his crimes. History will place him and them in proper perspective. Now, may history also place the crimes of those U.S. leaders like Henry Kissinger who aided and abetted Pinochet, in a similar perspective.

Though this may sound cruel to some, the world is better off with them not in it.

Tags: augusto-pinochet-and-jeane-kirkpatrick-dead, death-of-tyrants, neoconservatives, ronald-reagan-anti-communism, un-ambassador
Posted in Politics & Society | No Comments »

Munich’s Hallowed History of Religious Hatred: From 11th Century Jews to 21st Century Muslims

December 8th, 2006

Munich synagogue before Kristallnacht

Today’s NY Times reports that the Bavarian government and local citizens of Munich have organized to prevent the Turkish Muslim community from building a mosque on a square opposite an existing Roman Catholic church:

Mrs. [Helga] Schandl, a 67-year-old Bavarian, is leading a fierce campaign to halt plans to build a mosque in a working-class district here. “It is a provocation,” she said of the mosque, which would sit across a graceful square from her Roman Catholic church — its minarets an exotic counterpoint to the church’s neo-baroque steeples. “The mosque doesn’t have anything to do with religion,” she said. “It is a power play.”

Of the many ways that Christians and Muslims rub up against each other in this country, the construction of mosques has become one of the most contentious. Symbols of a foreign faith, rising in German cities, they are stoking anti-foreign sentiment and reinforcing fears that Christianity is under threat.

munich synagogue burned down on kristallnacht

Reichenbachstraße synagogue, Munich, after Kristallnacht (credit: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München)

I’m always amazed when deeply frightened people like Schandl manage to completely turn reality on its head with a bizarre statement such as: “The mosque doesn’t have anything to do with religion.” What does she think Muslims intend to do there? Play pinochle? Of course, it’s a religious edifice with a religious purpose. And of course it is not a provocation, but rather a statement. That statement is that the 10% of Munich’s Muslim population deserves the same right as the city’s Christian denominations to have a place of worship in the heart of town. There is absolutely no reason why they should be forced to travel to mosques built outside the city in days when Muslims felt they needed to be more circumspect in their religious habits.

The reporter in one short passage refers to what I think should be the 800 lb elephant hovering over the issue (if an elephant may be said to “hover”) and that is Kristallnacht:

The mayor of Munich, Christian Ude [who supports the mosque], noted that Protestants had a tough time here, too, until two centuries ago. And then there was the burning of the Jewish synagogue by the Nazis in 1938. “The theme of houses of worship for religious minorities has a long history in Munich,” he said.

Actually, Schandl and her fellow frightened Muslim-haters should relieve themselves of their historical amnesia and review their city’s Nazi-era history. In the 1930s, there were Jewish synagogues in Munich. After Kristallnacht, there were none. This is the ‘welcoming embrace’ offered by Münchners to “foreign” religions. I hope that the Turkish community will see these images here and use them to shame citizens of Munich and Bavaria into reconsidering their anti-Muslim hysteria. They might want to call their campaign something like “Munich: 1,000 Years of Religious Intolerance.” It has a nice catchy ring to it. To Munich, I say: “You have already exterminated the adherents of one religion and mostly driven them from your midst. Don’t you think you might want to reconsider your hostility to another before it becomes as toxic as was your hatred of the Jewish religion in 1938?”

Lopping off a Jew’s head during Crusades

And if we went even farther back we could remind Munich of its bloody Crusades history (when the town was called Mayence) in which it perpetrated pogroms against its Jews. Thousands were burned in their homes and otherwise killed. Many commmitted suicide in order to observe the principle of kiddush hashem (“sanctifying God’s name” by not allowing yourself to be murdered by a Jew-hater). You’d think a city would remember such awful passions and try not to come even close to repeating them.

I should add that there are Munich residents supporting the mosque including the mayor and the very Roman Catholic church with which it will share the square. I hope these cool heads will prevail in the end.

Tags: burning-german-synagogues, german-islamophobia, kristallnacht, munich-opposes-turkish-mosque, muslim-hate, new-york-times, schandl, zenophobia
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | 11 Comments »

Bush Tepid While Israel Rejects Iraq Study Group Proposals

December 7th, 2006

Ehud Olmert, banking on the Cheney Nyetniks outlasting Jim Baker and the rest of the Iraq Study Group, has rejected the causal connection drawn by the ISG report between Mideast instability and the ongoing Israeli-Arab conflict. It is a truth almost universally accepted (except among neocon and nationalist Israeli circles) that the continuing bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians deeply exacerbates Arab hostility toward the U.S., which is seen as the guarantor of Israeli security. But not so Mr. Olmert:

“The Middle East has a lot of problems that are not connected to us,” Mr. Olmert said at a press conference in Tel Aviv. “I am not convinced that this report foists all of the U.S.’s troubles on Israel’s shoulders.”

Olmert is, of course, disingenuous in that last comment since the Report does not “foist all of the U.S.’ troubles on Israel,” but it sure does foist some of our problems rightfully on Israel’s intransigent positions vis a vis its neighbors.

President Bush’s muted reaction to the Report today indicates that, just as with the 9/11 Commission report, he’d like to bury it as soon as a decent interval has elapsed. He has done everything to renounce it but saying so in explicit words:

He called the report “very constructive” and “worthy of study,” but said that neither Congress nor the administration would accept all of the panel’s proposals. His policy going forward, Mr. Bush reiterated, would rely not just on the study group’s recommendations but on those being formulated by the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council.

True to form, he’s attempting to bury the findings amid conflicting policy directives from multiple agencies that would be likely to contradict the ISG report. Sounds like the WMD fiasco all over again. You don’t have to disprove your opponent. You merely have to bury unwelcome political statements or developments in a blizzard of conflicting opinion.

The hopelessness and futility of the ISG’s efforts to turn around the ship of state on this issue can be seen in this exchange between Bush and a reporter at the Bush-Blair news conference:

When a British reporter asked him whether his choice of words showed that he was “still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq,” Mr. Bush made his feelings clear.

“Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to the families” of those who have died. “I also believe we’re going to succeed. I believe we’ll prevail,” he said.

“One way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it’s just not worth it,” he added. “If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.”

Actually, Bush is right. “One way,” (the only way actually) “to assure failure IS not to adjust” your policy. To continue down the garden path of denial and obstinacy which has somehow gotten you this far. “Neck deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool says to push on,” to quote Pete Seeger’s prescient lyrics.

And for anyone who doubted that the U.S. is dictating Israeli policy toward Syria, check out this telling admission from Olmert:

“The opinions I heard from the president and from all senior administration staff on the Syrian issue are such that he did not see a feasibility in talks on the American-Syrian track or on the Israeli-Syrian track,” Mr. Olmert said.

The Bush administration says Syria is aiding the insurgency in Iraq, while Israel says Syria assists Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, all radical Islamic groups in conflict with Israel.

The Syrian actions do not “create a picture of the possibility for talks in the near future,” Mr. Olmert said.

Of course, if Israel truly saw it in its interest to talk to Syria it would without hesitation as the former has often pursued policies inimical to previous U.S. administrations. In this case, perhaps, the agendas of both countries are aligned (or I should say “misaligned” since the rejection of Syrian engagement is deeply misguided as the ISG notes).

Bush himself confirmed the unrealistic nature of his expectations regarding Iran and Syria with this statement:

“If people come to the table to discuss Iraq they need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country.

“And if people are not committed,” the president added, “if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn’t bother to show up.”

Israel and the U.S. have the same exact approach to diplomatic negotiations. Place conditions on the behavior of your enemy which they must meet BEFORE you will even agree to meet them. It doesn’t matter that in the past you have often negotiated with enemies without such preconditions (North Vietnam comes to mind). If you really want to destroy the chance for engagement, you ignore past history and focus on creating circumstances that will foil an undesirable outcome, in this case talks with Iran and Syria.

Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton are no fools. They know that Bush has dumped them. That’s why they’re appealing to Congress for “very vigorous oversight of the war effort” (Hamilton). It’s really up to Congress, I’m sorry to say. Sorry for two reasons: one because it means that Bush is an entirely hopeless proposition, an irrelevancy from here on to the end of his term; and second, because I have profound doubts about whether Congress is up to the task of providing such vigorous oversight. Pelosi and Reid, prove me wrong, please.

Tags: bush-muted-response-to-isg-report, hamilton-calls-for-vigorous-oversight-of-iraq-war, olmert-rejects-iraq-study-group-findings-on-israel-arab, tony-blair-resolve-israeli-palestinian-conflict
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 3 Comments »

Conservative Judaism Embraces Gay Rabbis–and It Doesn’t…

December 6th, 2006

I grew up a Conservative Jew. I earned a Bachelor of Hebrew Literature degree from the movement’s New York seminary, the Jewish Theological Seminary. I contemplated becoming a rabbi at the school. But I didn’t.

And today’s decisions on whether to ordain gay rabbis, allow blessings of same-sex unions, and gay sex, pretty much encapsulate my ambivalence about the Conservative movement. I note that my family currently belongs to Conservative Congregation Beth Shalom in Seattle. So, like Jacob, I’m still wrestling with the movement.

jewish theological seminary rainbow flag

JTS to let its ‘freak flag’ fly??

The truth of the matter is if there was a fully-functioning Reconstructionist shul here I’d belong (there IS a group that recently affiliated but I believe it does not yet have a full time rabbi). I’m not trying to be snarky towards the Conservative movement. Reconstructionism for me embraces Judaism in the way that Conservativism does, but it does not give short shrift to progressive social values (as Conservative Judaism, I often feel, does). And it is precisely on the issue of homosexuality you can see the divergence. The Reconstructionist movement accepts gay rabbis and gay congregants and was the first Jewish religious movement to do so.

You have to scratch your head when you try to parse the meaning of the three contradictory teshuvot (“rabbinic responsa”) which were approved by the 24 member rabbinic panel. The teshuva I found the most appealing (though I found it lacking in one significant regard, but more later) was written by Elliot Dorff, Rector of the University of Judaism. It continues the ban on gay sex (hence my disagreement), but approves ordination of gay rabbis and the blessing of same sex unions.

I might add that knowing Elliot as I do, his teshuva did not include an endorsement of gay sex because politically he knew it would be considered a takana (“major revision in Jewish law), rather than teshuva, and hence would require more votes. Being a shrewd vote counter in addition to a wonderful mensch, Elliot wanted to win, rather than propose an entirely correct position that might lose. And he couldn’t win by including approval of gay sex. I understand his thinking. In a few years, he can write another teshuva that changes the ruling on gay sex; and undoubtedly it will win when societal (and pulpit and pew) attitudes change enough to sanction it.

But the headscratching comes from the other two winning opinions. One ‘continues a ban on gay rabbis.’ The second suggests that gays can be ‘cured’ of their sexual orientation by psychological counseling. It’s this one that galls particularly. You have the welcoming, embracing proposal of Rabbi Dorff alongside the entirely censorial proposal by Rabbi Leonard Levy. What a strange world the Conservative movement promises to be with these three divergent concepts spinning through its Judaic universe.

So let’s plumb this odd thing further. The University of Judaism has already announced that it will immediately begin accepting gay rabbinic students to its program. The JTS faculty, however, has never voted on the issue and no one knows what the result might be. Suffice to say, many of the conservatives on this issue either teach at the Seminary (like Joel Roth) or work in east coast pulpits where sentiments seem to lean away from embracing homosexuality.

So let us say the UJ accepts gay students and JTS doesn’t. Then a gay rabbinic student could study at the UJ. But what if they lived in the east and didn’t want to move west for rabbinical school. Ah, then you’d have a strange and delicious possibility. If JTS turns away gay rabbinic students, there are still faculty there who embrace the concept of gay rabbis. So all the potential rabbinic student would need to do would be to find three rabbis or faculty members to train them. They would do so, of course, without the JTS official imprimatur, but the students would still end up being bona fide Conservative rabbis. Unless of course the Rabbinic Assembly refused to permit gay rabbis to join their ranks (which would seem unthinkable but stranger things have happened).

In addition to Elliot Dorff and Brad Artson, dean of the UJ rabbinical school who first proposed a teshuva in 1992 that removed the ban on gay sex AND approved gay rabbis, you also have Judith Hauptman, a professor of rabbinics at JTS. The positions of each of them on this subject have been exemplary. Hauptman’s is quite remarkable considering that she is a fairly lonely progressive female faculty member in a conservative, hide-bound, largely male institution:

Hauptman also said that many members of the faculty had not publicly disclosed their views on gay ordination, making it anyone’s guess what the final outcome would be. As for her own views, Hauptman expressed unflagging support for accepting gay students. “As soon as it is possible to ordain gay rabbis,” she said, “it becomes morally imperative on us to accept gay candidates for ordination.”

For the life of me I cannot understand how a religious movement can have such completely contradictory halachic positions that are each entirely valid. It seems a recipe for utter fragmentation and chaos. You may have one rabbinic seminary ordaining gays and one not. You would definitely have some synagogues hiring gay rabbis and some not. You may also have some synagogues accepting gay members and some not. What kind of a movement is that? Who speaks for it? What does it represent?

This is why the NY Times in its coverage of the story wrote:

Conservative leaders are facing the issue as they struggle to hold the shrinking middle ground of American Judaism, losing members to both the liberal Reform and the traditional Orthodox branches.

The movement’s motto should be: decide what you are before others decide for themselves that they prefer a movement that knows what it represents.

For a broader discussion of the halachic/theological issues which underpin this debate see, Judaism and Homosexuality: Conservative Rabbis Clash.

Tags: conservative-judaism-approves-blessing-same-sex-unions, conservative-judaism-approves-gay-rabbis, rabbi-elliot-dorff-rabbinic-opinion-endorsing-gay-rabbi
Posted in Mideast Peace | 4 Comments »

Netroots for Sale?

December 6th, 2006

We political bloggers pride ourselves on our integrity, our firmness of purpose in writing our blogs, our incorruptible natures. We can’t be bought. If credibility is the coin of the realm, so the argument goes, why would we tarnish it by using counterfeit currency?

Well, apparently a number of bloggers are so sure of their incorruptibility that they feel they CAN accept tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from politician’s they cover and still be seen as critical and independent political bloggers. I have profound doubts about their judgment.

The NY Times published a terrific rundown of political bloggers who accepted varying sums from various candidates (mostly Democratic, but a few Republicans were included). The genius of the column was to present it as a graphic (left-click once within image area to expand size)which featured the blog name, author, consulting fees and a sample comment about the said candidate all in an easy to read format. It’s eye-opening. Take the entry on Jerome Armstrong of MyDD and Daily Kos fame. He collected $115,000 plus” from Sherrod Brown and $65,000 from Mark Warner. Here’s a sample of what he wrote about Warner:

“Warner’s been a terrific governor for Virginia. I watched him during the 2001 governor’s race and like what I saw. He was able to attract people from rural areas who hadn’t voted Democratic in a long time–a non-ideological big-tent Democrat who can sit down and relate with just about any ordinary American.”

Don’t get me wrong. It’s likely that everything he said about Warner he meant genuinely. And Armstrong has revealed his relationship with those campaigns who fund him. But money works in extremely subtle ways. And when you accept it you’d be a fool to think that the politician is giving it to you simply because he admires your acute analysis or probity. No, he’s giving you money because he believes you can help deliver a certain demographic to him. And the only way to do so is by writing about the candidate. And you can’t write in any other way than full-throated praise. Otherwise, why would he pay you?

While I haven’t done a survey, I’d wonder how many of the bloggers in the Times list had written anything critical of the candidate sponsoring their blog. I’d bet the number would be zero or damn near close. And it stands to reason. But how could this be: a political blogger known for critical thinking and the ability to analyze campaigns both for their strengths and weaknesses cannot speak ill of his sponsor? It’s the money, stupid.

I’d be posting this at DailyKos myself for all the netroots to read but a funny thing happened on the way to the Kos. I was banned. That’s right. I’d published diary entries criticizing Armando and Kos for a potential conflict of interest (Armando because until recently he was a lawyer representing corporate clients while potentially promoting their political agenda in his blog; and Kos because of his one-time acceptance of such consulting fees–which he no longer does). And I got the axe for my troubles, being accused by the raging Kossites of being a “troll” and enemy of all that is good. You can see how open those folks are to examining their own attitudes and behaviors.

I know I could rejoin Kos by creating a new profile, but so much outrageous venom was spewn at me by the Kos-acks last time I did this–I simply don’t have the energy or inclination to sink into a sewage pit once again. So hopefully people will find their way here to read this. Maybe I’ll republish it at My Left Wing since Mary Scott O’Connor was so unbelievable wonderful that last time I was smeared over at Kos.

Finally, I say here what I said at Kos (and which was treated with acid disdain there)–if we don’t ask these questions of ourselves and act according to the lessons we learn from such self-examination, then our readers eventually may act for us initially by questioning our objectivity; and then perhaps by turning toward blog sources that may not be tainted by the whiff of conflict of interest. These bloggers and their hellions can yell and scream all they want about this issue and say, as they have, that it’s a non-issue. They can take umbrage with me for allegedly questioning their righteousness. But I predict it will eventually become a more serious problem than it is even now. And it could hurt them. It could even hurt all the rest of us writing political blogs if the practice becomes more commonplace and readers come to believe that they can’t fully trust anyone’s objectivity.

Tags: armando, daily-kos, jerome-armstrong, mark-warner, markos-moulitsas, mydd, netroots, political-bloggers-harm-reputation-by-accepting-fees-fr, sherrod-brown
Posted in Blogs-Tech-Science, Politics & Society | 2 Comments »

Gates on Iran: Does He or Doesn’t He? Will He or Won’t He?

December 6th, 2006

To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question. We all know what Old Man Cheney wants. And pre 11/7, he would’ve gotten his way–eventually. But given the Democratic victory, the old coot is losing some traction after finding that his former trenchmates like Rumsfeld, Cambone and Bolton have each resigned their commissions.

When I first read this passage from today’s Maureen Dowd column (TimesSelect membership required) covering the Gates confirmation hearing, I felt a wave of relief pass over me:

In a remarkable shift from the mindless bellicosity and jingoism of the last few years, Mr. Gates said he did not favor military action against Iran or Syria.

While what she said is literally true, her statement is far too categorical compared to what Gates actually said:

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): …Do you support — now we hear all these rumors about the potential for an attack on Iran, due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria, due to its support of terrorism. Do you support an attack on Iran?

MR. GATES: Senator Byrd, I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort; that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us. I think that we have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable. And I think that the consequences of a conflict — a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic. And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened.

So you see that Gates indeed does not ‘favor’ military action against Iran or Syria. But he does not rule it out either. Now, if Gates were an honorable man as Rumsfeld was not, one might be able to characterize Gates’ statement as a fairly strong indication that he would not support bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. But as just about everyone but the neocon ideologues know, these are not honorable people, not by a long shot. And we simply don’t know enough about Gates to assume he is. We can hope. We certainly know he’s likely to be more honorable than his execrable predecessor. But will Bob Gates agree to a military strike against Iran? He seemed to indicate he wouldn’t. But what he actually said leaves far too much room for doubt. And Maureen Dowd, in this sense, did not do his statement justice.

Don’t you just love the vanilla understatement of Gates’: “a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic?” You betcha. Just look at what Hezbollah did to the IDF. Even if you argue that the U.S. could avoid many of Israel’s mistakes and neutralize advantages enjoyed by Iran on the ground, a military attack is gonna be damn dramatic. The Iranians will make sure of that. We can’t even lick a fragmented Iraqi insurgency waged by covert operatives. How do we think we can lick a country? Even if we take out their nuclear plant/s, do we not think there will be a price to be paid? There is always a price to be paid when you project your military power against such an ‘enemy.’

Tags: maureen-dowd-new-york-times-columnist, robert-byrd, robert-gates-confirmation-hearing, secretary-of-defense-nominee-iran-attack-last-restort
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | No Comments »