This was a response to someone who commented on my blog. It's a stream of conscious so it's not that well written but it gets my thoughts and philosophy across.

I perused your blog rather quickly. I am true to my zodiac sign although I surely do not believe in astrology. I am, if I were to characterize myself, a true Libra. I weigh everything and look at things from different angles.

Having said that I consider myself on most issues a progressive. At times, I do support the WISE use of military action. I do not, however, believe in American exceptional ism. I think our country does things usually for its own interests and, has occasionally fought the noble war. I believe the noble wars driven by men of great wisdom and ideals were the Revolutionary War, perhaps the War of 1812, the Civil War and World War II. Wars post World War II, in my opinion, were sheer folly and have led to countless unnecessary deaths of thousands. This latest Iraq War has been a tragedy which is still playing its hand. The consequences could be catastrophic and already have been disastrous because we took our eye off the ball which was, of course, Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, the real perpetrators of 9/11.

The Iraq invasion and occupation has been prosecuted with phenomenally inept leadership and begun by sheer hubris. In my opinion, although I supported the war in the beginning because I did not know that the "facts" used to justify the war were lies, much to my constant embarrassment, this war rises to the level of a war crime. The stupidity of it is staggering. The preparation for it was non existent. Our soldiers were put at great risk and our nation has paid out soon to be trillions. Our blood and our treasure has been squanderd. Billions have been lost and unaccounted for. Unsupervised cronies such as KBR and Blackwater steal our money, perform abysmally and get away with anything they choose. I believe, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others are war criminals.

Military conflict should be exercised ONLY when absolutely necessary and with great precision examining every angle and possible truth. Bush made up his own truth to fit a war.

I would never vote and never have voted Republican. I am an ardent Democrat. In my opinion, if you are not part of the top 10 percent in wealth then you have been duped by the Republican party to support a cause which is not in your interest. Patriotism is not only wrapped in symbols and phony utterances, it truly is a commitment to the ideals of those men of the Enlightenment who knew what it meant to curtail the power of government, who knew the risk of unbridled power and who, most especially, knew the dangers of a marriage of church and state. We have come a long way since that date but we have at least within the past few decades become lost. Bush II has been, in my opinion, an American tragedy and possibly the worst president in US history bar none.

I am hoping that the Democratic party will prevail this time and, although I was initially a Hillary Clinton supporter, I do support Obama because I believe he is the best possibility we have to utterly revamp American foreign policy and its constant penchant for war. I believe he can help change the course of this nation to one that cares about its own people and less about its own imperial power. I believe he can reintroduce to the world the America I knew and loved as a young child.

One thing I know no matter who wins, the inept, unqualified, corrupt, ludicrous, unconstitutional excuse for a leader George W. Bush or anyone like him will, hopefully, never darken the White House corridors again. He cannot shine the boots of the real giants of American history who, I believe, were Washington because he eschewed never ending power, Adams because he wrote our exemplary Constitution, Jefferson because he wrote the Declaration of Independence and expanded our country via the Louisiana Purchase, Lincoln and FDR for obvious reasons. These men truly saved our nation and made this country the envy of the world. Just my opinion.

ABC News online carried a story about Bush's discussion he had with a reporter about his alcoholism and his quitting drinking. He said he was not a "walk on his knees" drunk but definitely had a problem. I reacted and posted an opinion:

It would have been good for 4000 plus dead Americans and thousands of wounded, for our nation and indeed the world if Bush had never quit drinking. He would not have been president and not have presided over the most corrupt, immoral and illegal administration in US history. Iraq never would have happened and the recession emanating from it would not have occurred. People would have their limbs who now have none and sight would be given back to those now blind. Iraq is Bush's war. It is Bush who will have to, as he puts it, "walk on his knees" to ask that higher power he talks about for forgiveness as only that power has the power to give.

Fitna a Fitting Film for our time: I watched both "Fitna" and the film clip of "Obsession" which speaks to Islamic religious fanaticism sent to me by a Globe columnist with whom I occasionally correspond. I attach the links below. The word chilling is an understatement. All those centuries of hard-fought-for values of the Enlightenment can be gone in a flash. I do often believe mankind is going backwards. We must sit up and take notice. Those of all political and religious persuasions should know our will is the only thing sitting between tyranny and a just free society. This is not a left wing or a right wing issue. This is not a Jewish, Christian or just simply an Islamic issue. It is an every wing and every man issue meant for all of us who love our ability to think, reason, and question all things at all times.

www.themoviefitna.com
www.obsessionthemovie.com

J'accuse: Jeff Jacoby's article in the Sunday, March 30 Globe, brought into focus an important historical event which could otherwise get lost in the sands of historical time. The Dreyfuss case, illuminating entrenched anti-Semitism in 19th century France, is important not only to the history of the Jewish people but to all history where men are made into scapegoats and events are politicized so that justice invariably takes a back seat. The cost of that miscarriage of justice was profound. It was a mirror into just how deep the roots of anti-Semitism were in a Europe which ultimately gave birth to the greatest catastrophe for the Jewish people, the Holocaust.

We need go no further, too, than in our own country to see the political wreckage that has occurred at the hands of an utterly corrupt and unconscionable administration. We now possess our own Devil's Island, Guantanamo, and within our own Department of Justice, justice is a most elusive commodity. The innocent are jailed, so many guilty go free and the drum beat to maintain policies based on lies goes on and on and on to the peril of us all.

Wright and Wrong: The comments by the former pastor of United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright have certainly kicked up a brouhaha and placed Barak Obama, a 22 year parishioner of that church, in the middle of a whirlwind of accusations and protest. Is Obama now tainted by this zealous pastor's unfortunate vituperatively unpatriotic comments? In part, yes Senator Obama bears some associative guilt. He was a member of that church for over two decades, was married and his children baptized by Pastor Wright. To me that says something. Senator Obama must have had at least some suspicion of the political views of, as he describes this relationship, his uncle-like friend and pastoral mentor of twenty years. It does, however, not say everything.

Barak Obama has dealt with the issue immediately by answering suspicions some may have of this association. He has disavowed the caustic over-the-top comments of a religious figure. In addition, Reverend Wright has resigned from the Obama campaign. One cannot always be responsible for what others say. One can though, refuse to be a part of an organization which has had an affinity towards ideologies which do not often examine both sides of an issue. Some of what Reverend Wright believes can be objectively discussed. His views that American foreign policy has made some egregious mistakes, has cost many lives and alienated many people are, in my opinion, correct. Other things he believes, though, are debatable. He is not right in all he says and, indeed, much of what Pastor Wright says is unequivocally and consummately wrong. Senator Obama emphatically should say exactly that.

The Attack in Jerusalem: Religion's Advocacy of Murder and Mayhem: As a Jew, every Jewish death is like a stake in my heart. I was sickened, to put it mildly, by the murders of innocents in a Jewish rabbinical school in Jerusalem several days ago. I think one needs to understand that this is and will be a part of life there. It is something, difficult as it may be, to which we must reconcile ourselves. There will, I believe, never be peace in my lifetime. The fear of attack and killing will always be there.

It is my opinion there will never be peace because religion makes people absolutely intractable and uncompromising in their positions. It is impossible to deal with anyone -- Muslim, Jew or Christian -- when extreme religious adherence is at the heart of their motivations. Unfortunately, the ones who would use murder as a tool to promote what they want is not new. It is hard wired in us. Religion, though, has brought modern political violence to a new level as it successfully dupes the masses so its leadership can gain power. Through the fog of irrational belief, much of organized religion is, underneath it all, about acquiring power. For Jews, this is problematic because our numbers are so small and the competition is vast.

In my opinion, until humanity can get the monkey of fundamentalist religious world views off its backs there will be no peace. No amount of military expertise will stop these attacks when people think they have God on their side and that He is not on the other guy's side. I have lost hope a long time ago. I believe each side must listen to the other but when some do the other extremists (both Arabs and Israelis alike) don't and they won't. So Israel's fate and many others in that violent neck of the woods will suffer tit for tat ad infinitum endless violence until that violence engulfs all of us. Our life eradicating weaponry could mean, ultimately, the end of our species and civilization on earth as we know it. This may happen, if it continues as it has, sooner than we think.

Life Support or Life: In the final analysis whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama he or she will be running, of course, against John McCain. All rational thought would deduce that the US is in huge trouble with an economy tanking and no upswing in sight. Adding fuel to an out-of-control fire is the dismal state of US foreign policy.

Our country has suffered a train wreck. It would seem completely logical that the Democratic party, no matter who the nominee is, should experience a landslide victory over horrifically failed and utterly corrupt Republican politics on every single level of government. If, yet again, the American public elect more Republicans to the oval office and the Congress then, indeed, our country has a death wish.

We will sew the seeds of our own destruction by electing John McCain and opting for the same ubiquitously failed policies manufactured over decades. Electing a change Democratic candidate whether the change is Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama is vital to our country's resuscitation. If we do not do that we will be choosing to be put on life support. We are in critical condition. Team Bush and his Republican party have, indeed no question about it, put us there!

The Jewish Question about Obama: I will support Barak Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. I am also Jewish. I have heard some in the Jewish community express to me some reservation about supporting Senator Obama because of the tangential support he has received from those like Louis Farrakhan who are thought to be anti-Semites. It, admittedly, too, gives me pause that Senator Obama was for twenty years affiliated with a particular church which employed Pastor Wright as its minister. Pastor Wright has issued gobs of praise for Louis Farrakhan, a man who called Judaism a "gutter religion."

I sometimes believe the organizations one joins tells me something about a person's character. The United Church of Christ, Senator Obama's church, generally is and has been, in my opinion, a force for good. Occasionally, though the more progressive churches have been, unfortunately, sympathetic to Islamic political causes, are anti Israel and by extension sometimes anti-Semitic. This, admittedly, bothers me.

However, I will take Senator Obama at his word which he gave in the last debate when he said he not only denounces Louis Farrakhan he rejects him as well. I cannot imagine Senator Obama would go back on what he has said. One can never be sure, though, of any candidate's policies once he is elected president and can do what he wants. Israel's position is precarious and its very existence is at risk. The Jewish people, a small but historically besieged minority in the world, are once again, it seems eternally, threatened. I am hoping Barak Obama if the nominee and if elected president will have more credence in the Arab world which, I believe, could actually help not harm the Jewish state.

I am always concerned about the true sentiments of the possible and, perhaps, probable next president of the most powerful nation on earth. I hope the Senator does not disappoint me. If Barak Obama is the nominee I will, of course, without question, vote for him. I trust his veracity but as a Jew history has taught that I be always vigilant.

A Letter to Senator Obama


I am an Obama supporter and I am also Jewish. I have heard some in the Jewish community express some reservation about Barak Obama. I try to quell their fears. Having said that there is no question that any support whatsoever of a Louis Farrakhan would be problematic for me. I will take Senator Obama at his word which he gave at the last debate and even though he used the term "minister" Farrakhan, a term of respect, in reference to Louis Farrakhan, I believe Senator Obama when he says he not only denounces Louis Farrakhan he rejects him.

It is possible Louis Farrakhan wanted some press and took this opportunity to try to matter after being removed from the political scene for quite some time. The press, of course, because Louis Farrakhan is so controversial wants to stir the pot. It does make me a bit uneasy, though, that Senator Obama was for twenty years affiliated with that particular church which employed Pastor Wright as its minister. Pastor Wright has issued gobs of praise for Louis Farrakhan.

I sometimes believe the organizations -- or religious affiliations -- tell something about a person underneath it all. The United Church of Christ generally is and has been, in my opinion, a force for humanitarian causes and a force for good. Occasionally, though the more progressive churches have been, unfortunately, sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalist political sentiments. This bothers me.

I cannot imagine Senator Obama would go back on what he says but I am not assured of that even for Senator Obama once he is elected president. Israel's position is precarious and its very existence is at risk. The Jewish people, a small minority in the world, are once again, it seems eternally, threatened. I am hoping the Senator will continue to avidly support the State of Israel's existence and not only work for peace but actually achieve it. It is one (among many) reasons I support Senator Obama. I feel that he may have more credence in the Arab world which would actually help not harm the Jewish state.

My politics and my being have been shaped by the Holocaust. In my opinion, it is the single most important historical event of the 20th century, indeed, in all of history and certainly in the history of the Jewish people. Everything I am and everything I believe relates to it in some way so naturally I am concerned about the true sentiments of the possible and, indeed, probable next president of the most powerful country on earth. I hope the Senator does not disappoint me. If the Senator is the nominee I will, of course, vote for him without question. I trust his veracity but as a Jew I am always vigilant.

This was a response to a Beth Daley article on the benefits and draw backs to using florescent mercury laden energy efficient light bulbs:

I am on the side of green. I have used a few fluorescent (mercury laden) light bulbs but after reading your article, it is hard to fathom how advocates for using these bulbs think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The precautions one has to take if a florescent bulb breaks reminded me of something Homeland Security said to do if a terrorist uses poison gas. It made me think of duck and cover which we were told to do in the 1950's to safeguard ourselves from a nuclear blast. Those were ridiculous precautions that are laughable now. Now really, cutting carpet away, using rubber gloves, opening windows and using duct tape are some of the precautions one must take if a fluorescent light bulb breaks? Has anyone ever cleaned up after a glass has shattered? Cleaning up is not in slow motion. Do you think when we buy a light bulb anyone is thinking about using duct tape if it breaks? And what if a child breaks it and we do not even realize it's broken. All that time the child is inhaling mercury gas.

It's bad enough what we need to think about if there is, God forbid, another terrorist attack let alone using intense precautions cleaning up after a light bulb breaks. What if we happen not to have any rubber gloves, masks, duct tape or if we forget to open a window. My goodness it's a light bulb for God's sake.

Let me know when the geniuses who made these mercury-infused florescent light bulbs make one without mercury. Until then, sorry, no matter how green I am, it's the incandescent light bulb for me!

The McCain Mess: I cannot imagine the New York Times would put forward a story on John McCain of this magnitude which could potentially sink a nomination or derail an election without making darn well sure that it had the absolute proof positive truth that an affair and its attendant quid pro quo behavior existed. Then again I believed George Bush when he said the evidence is in about WMD in Iraq.

This NYT story if not true could be bad for a Democratic candidate as well, as the extreme right wing marches in lock step behind their Republican cause. If the NYT is seen by them as purposefully subverting the election of the Republican nominee it could, incredulously to me, force them to unite even behind a man they do not support. I doubt it will do that but it could. It is time for the New York Times to in some way show its hand and reassure its readers that they would not be so stupid as to report on something like this with spurious evidence!

Jeff Jacoby's editorial in the Sunday Globe talked about one of Barak Obama's (likened to JFK) campaign workers who hung a picture of Che Guevara in one of his campaign offices. Che, of course, was a violent revolutionary, Castro's philosophical mentor and cohort. JFK hated Che Guevara. Barak came out tepidly against the action of his campaign worker. Jacoby thought Barak's response was not emphatic enough. I wrote a letter to the Globe about it.


Jeff Jacoby's article "What Would JFK Do?" was thought provoking. He is right if someone in John McCain's campaign had a picture of David Duke or the KKK there would be hell to pay although I do remember someone named Santorum who proudly displayed the stars and bars. I remember working for a Republican State Committee in the late 60's. Curious to me at the time because I was an ardent Democrat, I met some wonderful people at the Committee about whom I still think fondly. Many were kind, loving and humane people who were very nice to me. There were others of the rank and file, though, whom I met who secretly harbored love of their right wing fascist heroes. One young man it was told to me threw a wreath upon the water during Hitler's birthday. How could such different types occupy the same group? The fact is each side of the political spectrum has its extremists.

Although the philosophical underpinning of extreme left wing politics is allegedly egalitarian and humane those who take power through violent means are often anything but that. Many such as Stalin, Che, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong IL and others are/were brutal killers wrapped up in a Marxist blanket which is not warm and fuzzy. Why some of the left make excuses, look the other way and remain uncritical of them is something that is hard for me to fathom. Likened often to JFK, Barak Obama, while always defending free expression, should come out vociferously against a campaign worker hanging a picture of Che Guevara in one of his headquarters.

A reasonable woman: The interview of Susan Jacoby and the discussion about her book "The Age of American Unreason" was one of the most interesting in the Bill Moyers series. I believe the most serious issue our nation is facing is the utterly stunning mind numbing ignorance of our people. The film clip shown of American young people on a game show not knowing that the country Hungary exists at all or thinking that Europe is an entire country is staggering. The discussion illuminated that many in our country do not even know that there are nine justices on our own Supreme Court, still believe the earth is the center of the universe and that angels are truth made me both incredulous and want to cry. Not only should our people know there are nine justices on our highest court they should be able to name them and understand the political issues surrounding the Court's decisions. It it so serious because these are the people who elect those who would influence our country's policies. These are the people I entrust with my safety. These people are the present and the future of our country. I cannot fathom when presented with simple questions of geography, science or history how stunning the lack of knowledge is. How did this happen?

I believe this ignorance is not only the fault of our educational system but is endemic in our history. There has been and is a thread of anti-intellectualism sewn within the fabric of our culture. Although our Founding Fathers were men of intellect, much of our historical dialog has catered to men who were not. Whether in the historical populism of an Andrew Jackson, the fiery sentiments of a William Jennings Bryan or, in modern times, the mind boggling cerebral and expressive incapability of a George W. Bush, there has been a large strain in American politics and populism which appeals to ignorance. It has run through the course of nearly our entire history.

I almost cannot read the arguments touting creationism. It is like saying it is okay to think that spirits cause disease. Some may believe in the germ theory of infection but others think that a spirit causes infection so let's debate it. No, let's not debate it. Bacteria and viruses cause infection and spirits do not. Facts rule. The case should be closed but it is not.

Evolution is the very foundation of science. It is NOT contextually debatable within belief of creationism. If we do not accept or understand its truth our ability to find cures for cancer, the nature of immunological resistance to infection and, indeed, to understand the origins of our species is fatally diminished. We will be relegated to a mindless prison forever mired in a Middle Age like philosophy when it was in the interest of the religious authority to keep mankind ignorant so their own power which married church and state could prevail.

I believe nearly all the problems we face as a nation are etched in and can be traced to this mindless tyranny which does not allow reason to triumph. This is not only deadly for our country but for the entire world as one can see how man is stuck in belief systems which cannot be verified and which contain little truth. These beliefs and the lack of critical thinking of them are responsible for the divisions in our society and these beliefs are responsible for the ultimate massacring of millions. I hope everyone will find the time to read Susan Jacoby's book "The Age of American Unreason." Her views are rational, reasonable and prescient. I believe, they could save the world.

An article appeared in Newsweek entitled:
The Secret Haters
It posits the following question:

Some experts say that even the most politically correct among us may harbor unconscious prejudices against ethnic groups, women, gays and others. Can these dark impulses shape our actions?

I commented on their blog the following:



Generally, I think people are inclined to want to associate and imbue with power those whom they perceive to be a member of their own group. There are many preconceived notions which we learn about other groups who are not like we are. This, in fact, may be subconscious or even be woven into our genetic tapestry instructing us to do so. Having said that, however, it is not beyond the capacity of man, when he sees proof to the contrary, to invalidate or overrule a previously held belief because he knows those beliefs to be untrue. It helps to know that we are, each and every one, related to each other through a journey which began out of Africa. Our mitochondrial DNA proves that over and over again. The superficialities of skin color, sexual orientation, disability, sex or age in reality are small variables. Nonetheless, in the history of our species, they have loomed large.

In previous centuries everyone took for granted that the sun revolved around the earth. It still SEEMS that it does except science has categorically proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the earth and its celestial cousins revolve around the sun. We must override the error of our ways because in this era science more and more is proving our previous beliefs were just that ... beliefs. Facts tell us a different story. We should act accordingly even if it is ever-so-difficult to do.

Have patience: I wrote this on an HBO blog which is devoted to thoughts about its new excellent series called "In Treatment." If you haven't begun to watch this you should. It is fascinating programming. It involves one half hour psychotherapy segments of four different patients of Paul, a psychotherapist. It takes place every day from 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on HBO. There is limited glitz to this show but I think it is supremely riveting. If you missed episodes you can retrieve them by going to HBO Series and you can even concentrate on just one of the patients if you choose. I enjoy all of them. Each one is unique. You can concentrate on Paul too who has his own session with his own psychotherapist/supervisor/friend (and maybe intimate friend), played by Diane Wiest.This is a summary of my initial feeling when the question posed was who was the bloggers' favorite patient.

Paul is my favorite patient. This show brings up so many issues. The one that permeates my thoughts is the question of what is therapy. How does a therapist learn or develop technique and does the traditional form of uncovering layers of personality so the patient has revelatory experiences which are supposed to transform their life really WORK? Do patients feel better as the therapist guides them to that end?

When one goes to a doctor, for example, for diabetes there are ways of treating a patient that we KNOW work. This is not so for the biology of the mind. We know so little about how it works and why it is so different from other organs and DIFFICULT to treat to make people change their behavior or make them feel "better."

I never understood what therapy actually does accomplish and why SO many people feel so negatively about so many therapists and why so many therapists are SO bad. My guess is traditional therapy, as we have come to understand part of it, simply does not help much and maybe does some harm because many therapists (not all of course) do not know what in hell they are doing or what to say to make the patient feel better and may even make them feel worse. Therapy really is not a science.

In my opinion, the only thing that SEEMS to work a little better or perhaps somewhat more predictably -- even then it surely is not perfect -- is treating mental or emotional illness pharmacologically. This, however, is FRAUGHT with problems as medications are thrown into a hat and chosen wily nilly to see what works. Sometimes the medication(s) work, sometimes for only a little while and sometimes not at all. Sometimes, the side effects can be too much to bear and can even be fatal.

PBS radio broadcast a great segment interviewing an author named Jonah Leher who wrote a book entitled "Proust was a Neuroscientist." This book links the creative and emotional part of the brain with its biochemistry. It was fascinating and reinforced the complexity of our most mysterious organ and its emotional and artistic relationship to science.

I wonder in this program what Paul trying to do and does he even know what to do or say when his patients throw an emotional cacophony in his presence. His own life, too, is such a mixture of emotions which are diffuse and explosive. It's hard to know if HE or ANY therapist has their own house in order or if they do not how on earth they could help anyone else with theirs.

Having said all of that, for me, however, Paul, has become the most interesting character. His confusion and relationship with HIS own therapist/supervisor is absorbing as he has at least SOME insight and can talk about SOME of his feelings a bit more easily than his patients. Other times, though, he is similar to his own patients in that he simply will not face that which assaults his equilibrium. This makes for an interesting brew.

This show is EXCELLENT and presents an oasis of programming in a sewer of disgusting, irrelevant, stupid, inane, profane, and brutal television which occupies a large segment of time in so many lives. What a better nation we would be if many more switched from American Idol to this.



Paul is my favorite patient. This show brings up so many issues. The one that permeates my thoughts is the question of what is therapy. How does a therapist learn or develop technique and does the traditional form of uncovering layers of personality so the patient has revelatory experiences which are supposed to transform their life really WORK? Do patients feel better as the therapist guides them to that end?

When one goes to a doctor, for example, for diabetes there are ways of treating a patient that we KNOW work. This is not so for the biology of the mind. We know so little about how it works and why it is so different from other organs and DIFFICULT to treat to make people change their behavior or make them feel "better."

I never understood what therapy actually does accomplish and why SO many people feel so negatively about so many therapists and why so many therapists are SO bad. My guess is traditional therapy, as we have come to understand part of it, simply does not help much and maybe does some harm because many therapists (not all of course) do not know what in hell they are doing or what to say to make the patient feel better and may even make them feel worse. Therapy really is not a science.

In my opinion, the only thing that SEEMS to work a little better or perhaps somewhat more predictably -- even then it surely is not perfect -- is treating mental or emotional illness pharmacologically. This, however, is FRAUGHT with problems as medications are thrown into a hat and chosen wily nilly to see what works. Sometimes the medication(s) work, sometimes for only a little while and sometimes not at all. Sometimes, the side effects can be too much to bear and can even be fatal.

PBS radio broadcast a great segment interviewing an author named Jonah Leher who wrote a book entitled "Proust was a Neuroscientist." This book links the creative and emotional part of the brain with its biochemistry. It was fascinating and reinforced the complexity of our most mysterious organ and its emotional and artistic relationship to science.

I wonder in this program what Paul trying to do and does he even know what to do or say when his patients throw an emotional cacophony in his presence. His own life, too, is such a mixture of emotions which are diffuse and explosive. It's hard to know if HE or ANY therapist has their own house in order or if they do not how on earth they could help anyone else with theirs.

Having said all of that, for me, however, Paul, has become the most interesting character. His confusion and relationship with HIS own therapist/supervisor is absorbing as he has at least SOME insight and can talk about SOME of his feelings a bit more easily than his patients. Other times, though, he is similar to his own patients in that he simply will not face that which assaults his equilibrium. This makes for an interesting brew.

This show is EXCELLENT and presents an oasis of programming in a sewer of disgusting, irrelevant, stupid, inane, profane, and brutal television which occupies a large segment of time in so many lives. What a better nation we would be if many more switched from American Idol to this.

Gibson's gay obsession: John Gibson, commentator from Fox News, recently made a joke about the recent death of the actor Heath Ledger who played the role of a gay man in the film "Brokeback Mountain."


At long as have you no shame, John Gibson and Fox News? The comment from John Gibson after the death of Heath Ledger leaves me, for once in my life, speechless. I do not know what makes up the content or lack of it of some people's character. They simply are missing something in the synaptic tapestry of their brain. I will never understand why they care so much about with whom someone sleeps. It makes not one inch of a difference to their lives. No one tells John Gibson whom to be with or whom to love. Heath Ledger was NOT even gay. He PLAYED a gay man in a movie for God's sake. Even if he were I would never understand why the right wingers do not understand that gay issues are about the freedom to pursue a singular happiness and love whom one choses while maintaining all the political (and financial) rights everyone else enjoys. Perhaps, it is because those on the right feel so little love themselves that they are unable to empathize with people who do.

I wrote this on an MSNBC blog in response to the story that these Christian idiots will be protesting Heath Ledger's funeral because of his movie role as a gay male in Brokeback Mountain. It's written off the top with not much thought as to sentence structure.

Usually I wax academic and try to present cogent, well formulated opposition to the issues of the day. This time with respect to the anti-gay Kansas church protest of Keith Ledger's funeral because he played a gay man in a movie, I can think of only one sentence. THESE PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTE MORONIC 100% IDIOTS WITH THE INTELLIGENCE OF A DUMB CHIMP! I won't go on and on about Biblical veracity being absolutely from planet Pluto. We are using a 5000 year old document to twist people into submission. Homosexuality is variation of nature. It is inherent in one's genetic and hormonal construct. I guess our Biblical geniuses did not understand the concept of DNA. What would one expect if one reads ONE'S bible from a text which indicts people for a million other "sins" including heterosexual adultery? By the way biblical passages also indict people with body differences as somehow offending god. So which is it? Do you want to take this book of stories from 5000 year old men as fact? If you do then you must feel that the earth is the center of the universe and that Joshua really did make the sun stand still. Get real and get a brain. THINK for a change. What a new concept in this country. People who could actually THINK!

Segregation forever? I provide a fascinating link below to a Newsweek photo exhibit which traces segregation then and now through pictures. It tells of our nation's sad story on race during the mid-20th century, a era of profound segregation. It prompted me, to write a little bit on this Achilles heal of our nation.

After you click on the link below, simply click on each individual picture which has a description to the left of it.

I wrote:


When one thinks nothing much has changed simply view those pictures. They are worth a thousand words. I was a little white girl in the 1950's and raised in a mostly white (at that time) Boston suburb. I remember our high school class elections when a black woman was running for president. She said to me that she would never win because she was, as she put it then, a Negro. I was astounded that she would make such a statement. I thought about that continuously for many years and when I looked back I, of course, sadly realized she was absolutely right. I think even then, though, I knew she was right but I simply did not want to realize that would be true in the country I loved. Much has been accomplished since that time nearly 35 years ago, but, I believe, we still have a long way to go.

There is, I think, something, perhaps, which is woven into our genetic tapestry to resist those who are not a member of our group. Perhaps it dates to the origin of man. We, hopefully, as years go by and decades pass will know that we are one species -- homo sapiens -- and that all of us, each and every one, can trace his or her lineage to Africa. We must learn to live together if we are all to survive together. I hope I see that in my lifetime.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94787

Oliver Stone is going to make a film about George W. Bush. Supposedly he will take a balanced look:

Nothing is ever black and white EXCEPT, as I see it, the George Bush presidency. I never, from day one, ever thought George Bush was up to the cerebral task, or possessed the intellectual excellence and wisdom that, in my opinion, one needs to be president. Risking arm chair psychology, George Bush, in my opinion, is a vapid and vacuous man who had the good fortune to be born into the right family which he used successfully to extricate him from heaps of trouble and get him into prestigious schools for those would be presidents-in-waiting. He got out of trouble most of which most of us would pay a huge price whether it was his evasion of military service, the consequences of his severe alcoholism, drinking and driving, failure in business, countenancing the theft of an election or even courting treason by the outing of a covert agent. I think he did not care about anyone, anything or even his country as long as he advanced himself and his own hide was saved. I even believe his so called conversion is bunk.

I believe George Bush knows he was given the intelligence short straw and feels uniquely inferior to his much more able father H.W., grandfather Prescott and brother Jeb. So, he appears outwardly to be unmovable and strong. In reality, though, I believe he feels utterly incapable and weak. I think he is a weak man, unknowing of history, and a man who by his ignorance and lack of insight, has cost thousands their lives through his utterly failed policies both foreign and domestic.

Admittedly, I am not a Republican but I could manage to say some positive things about Reagan, Eisenhower, H.W. Bush and even Nixon. There is not one thing I can say that is positive about George W. Bush. Not one. I am not sure I would want to see ANYTHING positive about a man I consider utterly catastrophic for our country and, indeed, for the world.

Dr. Judah Folkman died yesterday. He was a pioneer in cancer research in the area of angiogenesis which studied tumor blood vessel growth and ways to stop it. I left a condolence in the Globe obit section.

I never knew Dr. Folkman in any capacity but when I read of his death it was as if I had known him all my life. Truly, this is a profound loss for not only his family and friends but for the entire world. I mourn with all of you and take some comfort in the truth that he will go down with the greats of science who strive to advance man's knowledge despite great odds. He walked on the shoulders of those giants of academic excellence. Now others will walk on his creating new possibilities in man's endless quest to cure the enigma of disease. Rest in peace, righteous man. You have earned it.

PBS Series: The Jewish Americans is wonderful series. My comments may be redundant but words fall short expressing the excellence of PBS programming.

I grew up Jewish in a mainly (at that time) Christian suburb of Boston in the 1950's. Watching, through this documentary, the historical progression of my people in America is absorbing. Much of the modern Jewish cultural experience which is mentioned in the series I poignantly remember but unlike many Jews whom the filmmakers interviewed, I never felt ashamed of my Jewishness. To the contrary, I felt a delight bursting within me reinforcing the love I had for being Jewish and a sense of pride for the many distinguished accomplishments of the Jewish people. It always shocks me that there were so many who, indeed, felt a world apart and even ashamed of who they were. I surely understand why many of us did feel separate from the dominant Christian culture but I personally did not. I was culturally assimilated but to this day being Jewish is an utterly positive visceral experience.

I have, though, a few times, felt the slings and arrows of Antisemitism. I remember being called "Christ killer" numerous times in elementary school but I never felt physically threatened and someone always overruled the onslaught. Their vitriol, at that time, did not stick. I have had a few Anti-Semitic comments occasionally hurled at me even as an adult. My parents imparted in me, however, a solid sense of Jewish pride which has always overruled those who would impugn me for being Jewish.

Now as mature observer of history, I am acutely attuned to Antisemitism when I hear and when I see it because now I understand its genocidal implication. I do not for a second forget the Holocaust, a seminal event in Jewish history, even though I was born slightly after its occurrence. The Holocaust has become the engine of much of who I am and the rationale behind the metamorphosis of my progressive political thought. I am a completely secular but a cultural Jew who every day thanks my grandfathers who had no money but possessed the courage and the foresight to come to this land. All the Jews of the eastern European shetyls (Jewish villages) from whence they came were killed. Keep up the fantastic work, PBS. You truly restore my faith in humanity.

Cruise Control: I cannot wait to read Andrew Morton's new book entitled Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. As much as I am against tabloid and celebrity journalism, the fact that Tom Cruise is an advocate for a religious cult like organization which rakes in millions of bucks by duping millions of people, I welcome any opposition questioning those beliefs. Scientology, like many other belief systems, is an organization which takes political stances and influences many unsuspecting and uncritical people looking desperately to improve their lives at any cost.

Anyone who takes on religion and cults by advocating rational thought, I ardently support. I believe the ultimate danger in our world today comes more from fanatical belief systems of all stripes than from any other single factor. I would gladly contribute to the selling of a book which confronts those who would capture people's wallets by capturing their unquestioning and unsuspecting minds.

A Voice for Our Time: Perhaps this presidential election is the most important election in US history. We desperately need a uniter; a person who can work with our friends as well as our adversaries. We are a humanity that has the nuclear capability to annihilate humanity with one blast. We want no more fear but we need to protect ourselves from those would instill that fear within us. We need a leader with Solomon-like wisdom; a person of prescience who can reach across divides. I think the American public now sees how important the presidency is. It can make the difference between life and death. We must not repeat this administration's most costly mistakes.

I believe at this juncture in our history we must confront but understand the Islamic world. We must elect someone who is capable of negotiation instead of employing the rhetoric of confrontation. We must elect someone who is able to end our belligerent and unidimensional policies which achieve nothing but death and debt. We, too, need immediate and unadulterated action to restore our environment, begin constructing energy alternatives and give everyone the right to healthcare. We need these things and much more.

Barak Obama, because of his charisma, and yes, even because he is a man of color, if given the chance, I believe, can begin to address these things in our country, for our people at this moment. I have been converted to his cause. Perhaps some kind of destiny is determining this for our country so that it can realize once again the greatness our founders began over three centuries ago. I can only have the audacity to hope!

The Significance of Obama: Maybe the people can make a difference over the corrupt corporate stranglehold that has been this country. Nothing is perfect but this happening has been the most incredible thing I have witnessed since the Gene McCarthy organization of 68. This time though Obama really does have a chance. Maybe I will get my wish to experience a leader I can love like my parents loved Roosevelt. That has always been my dream. This is what I wrote to various media:

I feel like the day after the November election and my candidate won. I know that is not the case ... yet. I was up most of the night during the Iowa caucus because I could not sleep. Maybe just maybe it is morning in American again and hope is beginning to reign. Obama has an electricity that is contagious. He has convinced the doubter in me, through his message and his charisma to vote for him. The fuse, I believe, has been lit. I realize it is most emphatically not over yet but the dye has been cast and history has already been made. The fact it is a distinct possibility that a person of color could achieve the presidency is a major historical sea change. We are becoming a better nation and, perhaps, a more inclusive nation. Finally I can feel my alienation beginning to wane. Change is the genius of America and that is why so many from all over the world risk their life to get here. A new day is dawning. I want it. I can feel it. I fervently hope we get it.

Bush's Iraq and Bhutto -- An American Foreign Policy Disaster: The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the would be and probable Pakistani president, is disastrous for the US. The voice of an avowed US supporter and democracy proponent in a sea of tyrannies, is silenced. She wasn't perfect but she was all we had. Her death, I believe, is yet another nail in the botched Bush foreign policy coffin with the deadly possibility of nuclear arms in the hands of a near anarchistic state ready for the terrorist plucking.

Much of the Middle East chaos now is related to President G.W. Bush and his utterly disastrous Iraq fiasco. Iraq has emboldened violent extremism, especially Al Qaeda, in an area in which they did not exist before. I imagine they think they are now marching to Pretoria. The ill conceived, ill planned and ill perpetrated Iraq venture has created nothing but violence -- despite the so called surge success -- in a bad neighborhood milieu that has been a violent tinderbox ready to explode. Iraq has destabilized that region into fragmented warring pieces which will take years, decades and maybe even centuries to sort out. If we get that far.

Pakistan, harboring and blindly acquiescing to a constellation of potential terrorists, has always been the most important nation state to consider. Iraq, though, took the real target, Pakistan/Afghanistan, and put US blood, treasure and resources into the state of Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11 or anything to do with supporting global terrorism as we so sadly found out. Our resources, blood and treasure were spent in the wrong war, at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Hezbollah still exists in Lebanon and works its heinous magic, Gaza democratically elected Hamas and haunts Israel, Iran is the big man on the block and Syria has influence it could only formerly dream of. Even though these Islamic fundamentalist states and groups are of different stripes, in the long run, Al Qaeda's message resonates and violence rules the day. So they push on.

Bhutto, a moderate, potential and much needed US ally in a central part of the Middle East is now dead and Bin Laden still lives. Those facts alone should hold the G.W. Bush team accountable for the biggest foreign policy disaster in US history. Oh yes, the Pakistani nukes live on as well. I hope the world does too.

Now the fox-guarding-the-chicken-coop Justice Department wants to delay the investigation of torture. At long last have they no shame? Where are those who might indict and defeat these utter law breaking hypocrites? Where is the media who should be pounding away in print, microphone and camera illuminating all the scandals every hour of every day until these criminals are punished for what they have done and finally leave us to end this national nightmare?

I feel like I am in an occupied country drowning in a quagmire of political sewage and there is no one to throw me a life raft; not the Congress which is inept and especially not the media which is supposed to do its job and question everything but does not or forgets five minutes after the next scandal story breaks. The media has systemically failed to perform its responsibilities of skeptically vetting every piece of information coming from the den of lies of this administration? Instead of vetting the operative word is forgetting which is exactly what Congress and the media have done with the plethora of information it has which has led to an utterly incalculable amount of deceit, death and destruction perpetrated by an administration which has no conscience. At long last what has become of our country if those who have committed treason, treachery and torture do not pay a price for the illegalities they have committed.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

If you don't watch Keith Olbermann on MSNBC at 8:00 p.m. and Bill Moyers weekly on PBS Friday evenings at 9:00 p.m. you ought to. They are both a breath of fresh air given the polluted and corporately usurped media landscape. Olbermann's broadcast is staggeringly brilliant and his occasional "comment" within that broadcast absolutely stunning. I wrote the following (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) which appears on the Moyer's web page.


I was riveted by the Keith Olbermann interview as I watch Keith on MSNBC, without fail, every evening at 8:00. Finally finally there is a brilliant voice of dissent which questions and indicts Bush and his cronies taking them to task for those policies which make Bush the worst president in US history. I feel as if I am in an occupied country drowning in the swill and quagmire of this utterly corrupt administration's lies, deceit, and injustice which has cost so many lives and so much treasure. Bush, the Republican party, and even a few Democrats have used 9/11 to transform this nation into a near tyranny. The ever-so-few like Keith Olbermann throw a life raft to me and, I believe, to the preponderance of this nation. Bill Moyers, thank you for still another wonderful program. You, too, help save me from the black hole of utter hopelessness.

Machiavellian Mitt -- the necessity for the separation of church and state: God save us from presidential candidate Machiavellian flip-flopper- in-chief, Mitt Romney. Why is God so easily and, indeed, necessary to infuse in the American electoral debate? Why cannot the separation clause of the US Constitution be absolute and unalterable? I see the marriage of religion and politics as a distinct liability in the American political arena today as well as an egregious Constitutional assault. In history, the alliance of faith and state spelled trouble and still does. In this country right wing Christian and other religious zealots have gained a seat at the table of power. Candidates, especially Republicans, must cater to their base which is made up largely of fundamentalist faiths even ones which sometimes harbor cult-like beliefs. They hold the rest of us hostage and crush debate, scientific truth and cultural advancement.

Religion is not truth. Religion is about belief. If there are six billion people on this planet then I submit there are probably six billion different conceptions of what God is or isn't. Contrary to what Mitt Romney says, the two -- religion and science -- often in history have not been compatible. I see our culture drowning in the quicksand of religious fanaticism which drags the advancement of humankind with it. From stem cell research which could help people to the absolute and unalterable truth of evolution, religion, in my opinion, has suppressed veracity, caused great harm, been responsible for great division and is guilty of much destruction. For once can we please elect a leader who understands the necessity of church/state separation so that all of us can enjoy the fruits of what reason and science can bestow.

Sent this to the Globe after reading their front page article on the subject of DNR by a reporter Patricia Wen. The article was about a woman ruminating and not being able to sign a Do Not Resuscitate order for her mother who had reached the end of her life. Wen actually very nicely answered my email. Perhaps they will print it I wrote the following:

The Anguish of DNR: I read with interest an article in the Globe on the Do Not Resuscitate issue by Patricia Wen. My mother, who was a quadriplegic for over twenty years because of a mis-diagnosed benign spinal tumor, suffered much. In addition, because of the tumor she also experienced a massive stroke. She spent those years in a wheelchair basically helpless. Mercifully, she died in a nursing facility at age 82 in a split second when her heart simply gave out. My father, who suffered five years from multiple myeloma, a painful blood cancer, died similarly at age 78. I have personally known disabling illness throughout my own life as well and because of that I have been keenly aware of what my own mandate will be when the time presents itself. I have already made my wishes known that I do not want to be kept alive through tubes, machines or any other Herculean instruments if those instruments will merely sustain my life but not improve it.

Truly, I do not know why this is such a difficult issue. In my opinion, much of this difficulty springs from the fact that we are an overly optimistic and death denying culture. For some reason many feel that even at a geriatric age death still seems wrong and unnatural. As much as I love family and friends, I believe death at a certain time is not wrong but quite naturally right. Death allows others on this earth to live. Without death this planet, already stretched in population to the max, would be an even more intolerable place to inhabit. There will come an end time for all of us. To extend the inevitable through extreme machinations for no purpose but to keep a person's heart and diaphragm going because those around that person are unable to let that person go, I believe, is in and of itself, inhumane. We would do well, I think, to realize when we give a child life we also give him/her death. Death often brings, I believe, a relief from never-ending suffering and its presence is an inescapable fact of life no matter how much we find it difficult to bear.

Evangelical Madness: Today Bill Moyers was about the fanatical alliance of a few Christian Evangelicals lead by John Hagee with their rabid advocacy, through violence if necessary, support of Israel. They are, of course, against the two state solution. It was a fantastic show because of especially the counter analysis of MJ Rosenberg of the IPF or Israel Policy Forum, which is dedicated to the two state solution. I wrote the following to the Moyers blog:

As usual Bill Moyers's discussion of John Hagee and the articulate MJ Rosenberg's counter analysis of this Christian fanatic was simply brilliant. I cannot think of one thing that Mr. Rosenberg said with which I could disagree. He was passionate, articulate and oh so absolutely correct. I, as a Jew, think what a curious phenomenon these Christian Evangelicals are. They have been, with respect to the Jewish people, all over the political map. It was not so long ago that I remember the Christian right as being rancid with anti-Semitic vitriol. Jews in this country were so often afraid of them. Now they present a new face and have become allegedly the Jew's best friend. They are, though, not that. There is a method to the Christian Fundamentalist madness and it is, of course, to ultimately convert the Jew. The New Testament is not a neutral document with respect to the Jew.

You bet the separation clause of the First Amendment is my friend because without it the Jew might not exist. The real threat to the Jew, Israel and the entire world is, in fact, religion itself. Each group claims they know what God wants. Each group claims they have right on their side and each group will resort to horrific violence to enforce what they think they know. The rest of us who love science, rational thought and the gift of a questioning mind will get swept up in the insanity. The only thing I, perhaps, disagree with Mr. Rosenberg on is that I am not quite as optimistic as he. I certainly hope he is right and the Armageddon that the Christian right and Islamic fanatics want never comes to be.

There was much commentary on my commentary regarding the Bill Moyers interview of Dr. Cone. I said one final thing about my criticism. It was the following:

This will be my final comment. If there were a round table discussion perhaps I could get my points across more fully and could respond to some of your thoughts and accusations. The odd thing is there is MUCH of what others have said in response to what I said with which I agree. Much has been said eloquently. Some has not. Of course, I try to look at both ends and in the middle of all issues as nothing is all one way or the other. Of course I know people overcome huge odds and work diligently every day. Having said that one cannot deny some of what one sees. One doesn't necessarily have to see everything first hand but certain media reports are credible and SOME observations are true.

As for US policy I also do not see it all one way or the other. Human beings are not angels. This is a dangerous world and homo sapiens has an aggressive gene in us somewhere. The US is not to blame for all the world's problems BUT it does, no doubt about it, contribute to some. I consider myself left of center -- slightly left. The problem I have had with the left of this era is that sometimes they are utterly as blind as the right to the shades of gray.

The US has catapulted itself historically to be a nation of great wealth, power and influence. Which country in the world would eschew that power, wealth and influence if they had it? I am a realist. Would I like to change US policy both foreign and domestic ... a resounding yes. It needs change. In print it is not always possible to discuss all aspects of what one says. Suffice it to say I agree with parts of many who have written but I disagree with other parts. There is not room here nor do I have the time to constantly respond but at the risk of being labeled things I am not, I feel compelled to respond one last time.

To summarize: I believe great wrongs have been committed in our culture. I believe people have, in great part, overcome those wrongs. I applaud that. I do still think others languish in a horrific climate of fear, poverty, ill health, crime and other maladies. Perhaps as Shakespeare said "The fault dear Brutus is not in the stars but in ourselves." If one looks to our culture to do something about our plight one may have an awfully long wait. By the way, Bill Moyers is not simply a forum for the left. It is a forum for all. Bill Moyers has had figures on his program like conservative Richard Viguere and many many others with a right wing slant and with whom I whole heartedly disagree. I can think of no better forum than here to discuss a plethora of thoughts, feelings and ideas. This site does not say for left wingers only.

A dialog:

Bill Moyers last Friday had a discussion with a Dr. James Cone, a black theologian, which centered around the historical acknowledgment of white racism and the poisoning implication it had for the black experience in this country. They talked about white denial of this country's racist history. I did not much care for the interviewee because I thought I was being yelled at and preached to. As PBS explains Dr. Crone's credentials: "Professor James H. Cone is the Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Cone is an ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He is the author of eleven books and over 150 articles and has lectured at more than 1,000 universities and community organizations throughout the United States, Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean."

My comment and other responses -- some quite impassioned -- to my comment were as follows.

My comment on Billy Moyers Journal:

A preface: I will always love Bill Moyers.

I am riveted to most Bill Moyers interviews. Unfortunately, Dr. James Cone's interview did not inspire. I always want to give my honest assessment and hope you will indulge me my criticism. I loath being preached to and yelled at. Dr. Cone's loud diatribe lost me and at one point I turned the channel. I have the UTMOST empathy for the historical plight of the black man in this country. I must because I am a Jew. I know full well the impact of racism and its exclusion and what it does to a people and to a human psyche. My people were slaughtered for centuries, ghettoized and excluded often seemingly with no hope. Anti-Semitism exists en mass to this day. Jews had to come back from their near extinction and did so wherever they could through savvy intelligence, communicative abilities, education and hard work. While no two group's experience is the same, the similarities of racism, I believe, are profound.

Dr. Cone's sentiments, I thought, were cacophonous high decibel rants. While we should never forget man's inhumanity to anyone, Dr. Cone's utterings were a bit tiresome. I utterly agree with Bill Cosby. At some point one must take responsibility for one's own life. There are so many contributions blacks have made in every field. Yet, when one looks at many black ghettos one sees violence, drug addiction, crime, all manner of other illegalities and commonplace immoralities. Worse, one sees gangs which refuse to work with authority, commit murder and impose their own "justice" which means no justice at all. I see white's responsibility in part for this historically but I see present day behavior of some black people to be responsible today for their own deep malaise.

In our culture most people care about their own day-to-day lives. Sadly, this is not a very caring culture. As difficult a reality as that may be, one has to work within that as best one can to create a better life because no one else will do that for him. Reading, education, effective communicative techniques, I believe, are some of the road maps out of the quagmire of poverty, horrific murder and crime. No one is going to give one the desire to achieve that. One must have those values instilled fundamentally in the family unit and one must use those values to make a better life.

I thought Bill Moyers was a little cowed by Dr. Cone and perhaps afraid to disagree or argue points with him either on race or religion. I thought Dr. Cone was preaching loudly to me and, frankly, I'm tired of the sermon.



Some agreed and others vociferously did not.

One said:

Of course Mr Drake, you wouldn't see it. First of all, there was no rationale put forward by Dr Cone to justify the current state of the African-American comumunity - that was imagined by Ms Rosen. His message was about America in general and the symbol of the noose in particular and our tendency to sweep that essential fact of our collective being under the proverbial carpet. And therefore the fact that we can't really become a real nation until we have dealt with it.
-----
If there had been a show about the meaning of the Holocaust and then I blogged afterward with a statement that approximated Ms Rosen's statement, it would read something like this:

"All these people that talk about Jewish suffering during the Holocaust are so strident. That's old history: the story today is that Israel persecutes Palestianians and they drop depleted uranium bombs on Lebanon . So therefore, because of Israel's current day actions, the Holocaust is nullified as a moral issue."

Please note that I am NOT saying this myself - and I don't believe that and neither does Norman Finkelstein (and if you're not aware of the struggles of this son of Holocaust survivors then you're ill equipped to enter into this debate). I am only creating the mirror image of Ms Rosen's statement in order to make her and other thoughtful Americans see the hidden racism in her statement.
--------
Because we are not yet in a culture where race does not play a factor in our opinions (as this blog makes so patently obvious) it is important that i present myself. I am white, 25% Jewish on my father's side yet my occupation is in African American culture. My ex wife is African American and I have also lived a year in post civil war Lebanon. I am also active in an anti war group whose leaders are for the most part of Jewish origin.
----
And i am 100% in agreement with Dr Cone and Dr Mike Jones about the fact that IF we did had more successfully dealt with the tradition of racial conflict in our own country, we would better equipped to equitably deal with the problems in the Middle East
------
A book that I recommend to all who are honest about their pursuits to purge America of it's ghosts and move on and "live up to the full meaning of it's creed"(as one oft cited American once said) is David K Shipler's(alas a Jew !) "A Country of Strangers- Blacks and Whites in America"


Peace (yet also Vigilance…)

Another said:

I am absolutely aghast at Ms. Rosen's disgusting contribution to this forum. It is just dripping with her own racism, which of course only she is permitted to exhibit in current day American culture exclusively because of her own ethnic origin which gives her "carte blanche" to dismiss the struggles of any people other than her own .
----
If she wants others to take her holocaust seriously, she should start by taking other people's holocausts seriously.
-----
---
-----
I am waiting for the first accusations of anti semitism from the JDL types like Ms Rosen to appear on this blog. Such a label is supposed to turn off the spigot of my first amendment rights to speak about this subject - a subject which has become even more 'sensitive ' in modern day USA than the nooses.
I dare anyone to find the slightest substanstiated example of racism in my text, I'm only calling for understanding, awareness and sensitivity.
-


AND A SUPPORTER SAID THIS:

Well said by Natalie Rosen. My reaction to the interview was very similar. Dripping with racism? You can't be serious!

I too was a little disappointed in Mr. Moyers. He came across less like a skilled interviewer and more like an awe-struck student sitting at the feet of the master. That's okay. Everybody has a bad day now and again.

------------------

My note: I certainly did evoke controversy and if one really READS my former statement it is, I think, fair. I acknowledge history but I also acknowledge the individual's responsibility to help himself.

I respond: I stand by what I said and think too Dr. Cone's discussion with Bill Moyers had NOTHING to do with the realities of the Holocaust and the existence of the State of Israel today. Israel is a fact and the Jewish people, as they always have, fight for their right to live. Even with nearly a century of annihilative threats, the Jewish people literally made flowers grow in the desert. They made a heretofore barely cultivated land thrive. That does not mean I am impervious to bad behavior when I see it. I am not. No state gets it all right all the time. The Jewish people knew, however, -- and in pertinent part to the interview -- that the only ones they could trust with their survival and advancement were themselves.

Tortured about torture: I am loath to think about the US torturing anybody. It goes against every amber wave of grain in every thought I have about my country. At any other time in history it would be unthinkable. I say no to torture and then a little voice in some buried synapse of my brain says the threats to our country are even worse than any imagined in the good war, World War II. No one had the bomb except us. Now so many have it and so many want it and there are possibly so many lose nukes out there for an enemy to potentially steal. So when I say no to torture and that little synapse says but what if, I say perhaps.

The Perils of Preaching Loudly

A preface: I will always love Bill Moyers.

I am riveted to most Bill Moyers interviews. Unfortunately, Dr. James Cone's interview did not inspire. I always want to give my honest assessment and hope you will indulge me my criticism. I loath being preached to and yelled at. Dr. Cone's loud diatribe lost me and at one point I turned the channel. I have the UTMOST empathy for the historical plight of the black man in this country. I must because I am a Jew. I know full well the impact of racism and its exclusion and what it does to a people and to a human psyche. My people were slaughtered for centuries, ghettoized and excluded often seemingly with no hope. Anti-Semitism exists en mass to this day. Jews had to come back from their near extinction and did so wherever they could through savvy intelligence, communicative abilities, education and hard work. While no two group's experience is the same, the similarities of racism, I believe, are profound.

Dr. Cone's sentiments, I thought, were cacophonous high decibel rants. While we should never forget man's inhumanity to anyone, Dr. Cone's utterings were a bit tiresome. I utterly agree with Bill Cosby. At some point one must take responsibility for one's own life. There are so many contributions blacks have made in every field. Yet, when one looks at many black ghettos one sees violence, drug addiction, crime, all manner of other illegalities and commonplace immoralities. Worse, one sees gangs which refuse to work with authority, commit murder and impose their own "justice" which means no justice at all. I see white's responsibility in part for this historically but I see present day behavior of some black people to be responsible today for their own deep malaise.

In our culture most people care about their own day-to-day lives. Sadly, this is not a very caring culture. As difficult a reality as that maybe be one has to work within that as best one can to create a better life because no one else will do that for him. Reading, education, effective communicative techniques, I believe, are some of the road maps out of the quagmire of poverty, horrific murder and crime. No one is going to give one the desire to achieve that. One must have those values instilled fundamentally in the family unit and one must use those values to make a better life.

I thought Bill Moyers was a little cowed by Dr. Cone and perhaps afraid to disagree or argue points with him either on race or religion. I thought Dr. Cone was preaching loudly to me and, frankly, I'm tired of the sermon.

The Reality of Empire: Two former military men were on an Air America talk. They supported the Iraq war and even support a future venture into Iran give the same rationales for the Iraq war that the US has given for all of its wars since its inception. They actually said it was for "truth, justice and the American way." I question the American public's cerebral abilities and wonder just what fuels these mythological beliefs and rationales for America going to war and why the American public is so easily duped when the consequences are so distinct and dire.

With the exception of World War II this country has made war consistently, invaded and with purpose tried to create an economic empire of influence throughout the entire world. Our empire has been somewhat different from those throughout history in that the US has never really had a taste to be an occupier but rather has been interested in using the military for accumulation of wealth and extending its influence. Money and power are companion bedfellows. One cannot thrive without the other. We are no different from what the goal of man has been since the dawn of time. I wish we would just say that instead of couching rationales in elementary school lies. After all, we are not children.

The US like any other empire is interested in the accumulation of influence as well as the money and power that come with that. Spreading so called truth, justice and the American way mean absolutely 100% nothing. It is indeed hubris and fiasco to think that through the barrel of a gun this country would stuff our so called way of life down the throats of people whether they want it or not. Those are verbal manifestations of rationales which sound so good and make a gullible public acquiesce to a variety of expensive and life expending ventures because the rationales for those ventures are couched in such glorious terms. Perhaps if they knew the real reasons they would not volunteer to put their blood on the line. If they knew that the war, in part, meant $3.00 plus a gallon for oil and that the immense profits go into just a very few coffers they would not be so quick to commit their sons and daughters so that CEO's of oil companies and wealthy Arab dictators would become very very very rich.

I personally believe that after the perhaps singular glorious fight of World War II we have been yearning to be seen as the strong democratic liberator. It is a nice thought. It is, though, hard to rationalize that when we have since WWII and even before supported and still support dictatorships all over the world without expending two thoughts about it. Vietnam was no exception and certainly most of all Iraq is a marvelous example. Botched wars do not a liberator make. We also forget, too, that the democracy we supposedly love in other countries sometimes can backfire and elect the very Islamic fundamentalists we abhor; witness the rise of Hamas.

The Iraqis are now enslaved by their own fractured populous which was induced by the invasion of a country by the US. Iraq was a country which did nothing to harm us. That is unheard of in recent times since the Hiterlian and Communist episodes of the 20th century. The true rationale for Iraq, as Alan Greenspan aptly said in his book "Age of Turbulence", is oil but it is also I believe a darker motivation of revenge. We wanted revenge for 9/11 and who could blame us. The problem is, as a caller quite correctly said, the money for 9/11 was gleaned through Pakistan and most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi in origin and Whabbi in spirit. Hussein had nothing to do with any of that so why invade Iraq? Invade and conquer Iraq we did because we could. Bush NEVER calculated on the fracturing of Iraq because in his oft laughed-about ignorance, he knew nothing about Iraq's history or its people. In addition, his perpetrating minions did not care about that nor did they, I believe, truly care about American lives or American treasure. We have paid a heavy price in blood and treasure for the miscalculations of the Iraq War. The yet-to-be-seen consequences may be of epic proportions.

The guests knew NOTHING about Iraq, much less about the Middle East, its history or even did they question all the pabulum they are fed by government to take us to war. I might even suggest that our species being what it is loves war. We claim to hate it; we claim to loath the gruesomeness of it but when push comes to shove most will go and feel that sense of glory in killing an enemy any enemy even one which did nothing to us. We claim to love democracy but label as traitors those who disagree with policy.

Norman Mailer recently said he was not at all surprised by what has happened in 20th century history. He said he believed most people were really fascists at heart. It is a sad commentary on who we are as a species but it is made even sadder because we as Americans claim to be much better than that. Are we? I wonder.

Malaise: Forgive the less than creative comment. Just had to vent: I tried to analyze why I am not tuning in to the Democratic message nearly as much as I did over the past two years. It's certainly not that I don't agree with the point of view. I do agree and emphatically so. I guess I feel a sense of hopelessness. The Democratic Congress is such a disappointment and the elation I felt with the 2006 victory which was ebullient now has waned. The high has dissipated and I fear the Democrats will nominate someone who cannot win the general. I am sickened by Romney's lead in Iowa and possibly NH. Why do not the Democrats go after him? He has flip flopped so many times. He's a great target for criticism. The walls of the Big Dig on his watch came down and killed a woman. They should blow his socks off with criticism. I am sickened that Iowa or ANY state's primary should in any way effect an outcome. All the primaries should be on the same day which would make one state not commanding the trajectory of an election.

All those scandals, ALL the corruption of a Republican administration gone wild, all the greed, all the theft of the public purse, the botched war which cost millions of uprooted lives, thousands killed and billion/trillions of treasure goes uninterrupted and Cheney, Bush and all those who conspired to put one over on us go free. No one is held accountable. Even Libby gets off and the furor dies down. Treason prevailed and no one cares. It's sad and I am sickened by it and I feel it's the same diatribe of liberal talk. What has it gotten us?

The electoral college is simply awful. It reduces our blue liberal states and is simply not fair. The red states a conglomeration of small electoral votes should not strategically impact the outcome of a presidential election electing the most powerful person on planet earth with a nuclear button at his/her disposal. Everyone should now be equal as the college is an archaic vestige of a more Spartan country. It's now ridiculous. The influence that these Bible belt states have is plain nuts and I resent it. The blue states pay the bill and the red reap the political rewards. This should not be so.

We cannot get that sticky paper of extremist religious wackoism off of our shoes. They drag us down and return us to another century. I want to advance in intellect and science and diminish our shoot from the hip first and ask questions later mentality. I want to reduce the cruelty that has to a large degree become this country. I am losing hope though because the Democrats the only ones who can return this country to sanity just do not show fortitude and we get Feinsteins and shockingly Shumer voting for a look the other way on torture attorney general. How does this happen? If a Democrat did what George Bush has done he would have been impeached long ago and even referred to the international courts for prosecution. He has committed mayhem under false pretenses. What could be worse?

We MUST be united. If Hillary Clinton gets the nod then we need to UNITE with her and likewise for Obama or Edwards. I am tired of the same old rants, the same old criticisms and tired of fearing our country will NEVER get out from the yoke of this horrendous Republican prison. Cutbacks on healthcare, environmental funds and nearly every humane program with the exceptions of programs for guns and war has been diminished. It's just sad. Is this how our country has evolved? I ask evolve into what? I am sad, and disillusioned and hopeless more than ever before. The liberal rants are now sadly falling on a deaf ear. I simply hope every day a Democrat ... ANY Democrat .... is seated once again in the oval office and sanity with humanity prevails within my lifetime.

I saw the film Elmer Gantry last evening. I had seen it numerous times before including the first time it was shown in 1960. Then, at twelve years old, of course, I could not appreciate its profundity, know its history nor could I realize its prescient quality. I have never seen a more historically relevant film apply to contemporary times than does this astoundingly great work of art. Elmer Gantry, written by Sinclair Lewis of Babbit fame and directed by Richard Brooks, is one of my favorite films. It is an American classic.

Sinclair Lewis presents a criticism of American life, religion, capitalism and more which earned him the distinct honor as an author because his works, in the early 20th century, were "banned in Boston." In my opinion, if one's art was banned in Boston one created a formidable, brilliant and timelessly immortal work. I thank fate for giving us these authors of genius who are not afraid to challenge those things which are shoved down our social throats often choking off our psychology and institutionalizing the very evil they claim to abhor. They reveal underneath a field of flowers the cancer of hypocrisy.

How could Sinclair Lewis know that he would write a novel which one could superimpose upon the contemporary religious movements of our time? The similar Evangelical/fundamentalist movement which is the subject matter of the film, still insinuates its vitriol into the body politic. It squeezes the life blood out of our democracy contorting it into almost unrecognizable form. Religious charlatans with their utter corruption, mind numbing propaganda, infinite financial and sexual scandals infuse faith and its attendant Biblical myths to take over business and politics for money and power. They cast a net upon the masses capturing the human psyche and its greatest ability – its ability for reason.

And yet, as Gantry knew, people are hungry but not necessarily for food. They are thirsty but not necessarily for water. They are sick and need a cure. They see the inevitable death and want eternal life. It is no wonder that any person could be intoxicated by a religious brew which promises food and water for the spirit, a way out of pain and, most importantly a defeat of death. The actors are the essences of perfection. The scenes are filled with metaphors. There are burning crosses, burning churches and sinners leading the otherwise sinless into the devil's darkness. The characters are a picture of ourselves. Burt Lancaster, as Gantry, is a charlatan but he is appealing. Jean Simmons, as Sister Falconer, is sincere but a sinner. Even the atheist writer of the newspaper, reporting on the Gantry/Falconer faith phenomenon, sometimes gets swayed by the moment and bends his heretofore unbended knee.

Each character personifies particular parts of the American religious Fundamentalist movements. The ubiquitous temptation of sin, of course, is all around -- in whore houses, in gambling joints and in booze halls. Gantry and Simmons are, I think, the symbols of Christianity as it has run its course throughout history. It is a religion of love whose adherents often show hate. It is a religion of tolerance whose believers can be the most intolerant. This movie says so much about so much. The dichotomies of Christian belief are everywhere.

Wikipedia states that Sinclair Lewis "In his Nobel Prize lecture, lamented that 'in America most of us — not readers alone, but even writers — are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American, a glorification of our faults as well as our virtues, and that America is 'the most contradictory, the most depressing, the most stirring, of any land in the world today.' "I think that says it all. Elmer Gantry is a must see.

"Should we wander [from the essential principles of our government] in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

Thomas Jefferson succeeding John Adams and repealing the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I am continuously proclaiming the virtues of Bill Moyers. Tonight's interview with two scholars, Justice Charles Fried and Attorney Frederick Swartz, regarding the overextension of the power of the presidency is no exception. Justice Fried, a staunch Republican and former Solicitor General under Reagan, argued for the sometimes acquiescence to wide use of presidential power -- even if illegal -- in certain instances while Attorney Swartz argued for executive restraint. Naturally, I had some thoughts and sent them to PBS:


I do not think the usurpation of unbridled power that has been the hallmark of the Bush II administration is really about lofty ideals. I think it rather is really about entrenching the Republican party and its corporate allies within the power base for decades to come. How convenient for Cheney that 9/11 happened on his watch because it gave him the perfect rationale for the retention of unparalleled power which he has wanted since the Nixon impeachment hearings. What Cheney, Bush, et al did not, it seems to me, predict is the Iraq war going sour resulting in the takeover by Democrats of Congress and the possibility of a Democrat occupying the oval office in 2008. I am quite sure all their talk about the presidency having ultimate Constitutional power eclipsing the Legislative branch even if it means the president commits illegalities will go out the window when and if the Republican party is out of office. All of a sudden then they will talk about the Founders meaning for a balance of power and that the presidency is simply one branch among three. When it is politically expedient and they are in power they will advocate an ultra strong presidency. When they no longer have power they will scream for a more balanced approach. I believe Cheney/Bush opinion has NOTHING to do with ideals and everything to do with the maintenance of their power and the accumulation of great wealth that comes from its base at all costs.

Those of us who really do care about the security of this country while maintaining checks on those who would abuse power sometimes do not know what to believe. Will government's extensive data mining include only those who would possibly commit egregious horrendous acts against this country possibly killing thousands or even millions if they could or will government unnecessarily snoop even into an email from Professor Fried wasting precious time and taxpayer money? Worse, could government detain utterly innocent people, picking them up in the dead of night, and ship them off to places unknown? What if they came for someone like Professor Fried simply because someone somewhere in government did not like what he said or a criticism he levied.

I believe government power does not give up that power easily and, more often, extends its power even more. I also do not trust all of my fellow men. Does Justice Fried worry about the trustworthiness of all men in government? Conversely, does Mr. Swartz worry about a dirty bomb? If data mining and a little warrantless wiretapping could uncover a plot to detonate such a bomb would it be worth it even if it means the extension ad infinitum of the power of the presidency? Those are, it seems to me, the epic questions of our time which have yet to be sufficiently addressed.

I am continuously proclaiming the virtues of Bill Moyers. I am compelled to state yet again how absolutely marvelous his interviews are. Tonight's interview with Justice Charles Fried and Attorney Frederick Swartz regarding the overextension of the power of the presidency is no exception. Justice Fried argued for the sometimes acquiescence to wide use of presidential power while Attorney Swartz argued for executive restraint.

I do not think the usurpation of unbridled power that has been the hallmark of the Bush II administration is really about lofty ideals. I think it rather is really about entrenching the Republican party and its corporate allies within the power base for decades to come. How convenient for Cheney that 9/11 happened on his watch because it gave him the perfect rationale for the retention of unparalleled power which he has wanted since the Nixon impeachment hearings. What Cheney, Bush, et al did not, it seems to me, predict is the Iraq war going sour resulting in the takeover by Democrats of Congress and the possibility of a Democrat occupying the oval office in 2008. I am quite sure all their talk about the presidency having ultimate Constitutional power eclipsing the Legislative branch even if it means the president commits illegalities will go out the window when and if the Republican party is out of office. All of a sudden then they will talk about the Founders meaning for a balance of power and that the presidency is simply one branch among three. When it is politically expedient and they are in power they will advocate an ultra strong presidency. When they no longer have power they will scream for a more balanced approach. I believe Cheney/Bush opinion has NOTHING to do with ideals and everything to do with the maintenance of their power and the accumulation of great wealth that comes from its base at all costs.

Those of us who really do care about the security of this country while maintaining checks on those who would abuse power sometimes do not know what to believe. Will government's extensive data mining include only those who would possibly commit egregious horrendous acts against this country possibly killing thousands or even millions if they could or will government unnecessarily snoop even into an email from Professor Fried wasting precious time and taxpayer money? Worse, could government detain utterly innocent people, picking them up in the dead of night, and ship them off to places unknown? What if they came for someone like Professor Fried simply because someone somewhere in government did not like what he said or a criticism he levied.

I believe government power does not give up that power easily and, more often, extends its power even more. I also do not trust all of my fellow men. Does Justice Fried worry about the trustworthiness of all men in government? Conversely, does Mr. Swartz worry about a dirty bomb? If data mining and a little warrantless wiretapping could uncover a plot to detonate such a bomb would it be worth it even if it means the extension ad infinitum of the power of the presidency? Those are, it seems to me, the epic questions of our time which have yet to be sufficiently addressed.

Deliver Me: I attach a link below which is a fabulously interesting Newsweek article entitled "War and Deliverance by Christopher Dickey (the son of the novelist and screenwriter for the film Deliverance) ." I think Mr. Dickey's "Deliverance" film metaphor is utterly correct. That film was, as I remember it, chilling. Contemporaneous historical events with our muddled president making reference to World War III, a public which just goes along and a vice president without conscience calling the shots behind the scenes are as blood curdling as the images of the "Deliverance" film were. It is a film like that and Mr. Dickey's appropriate analogy which bring other prescient novels to mind such as William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" and Orwell's "Animal Farm." These novelists bring to our culture words of great wisdom. One would think with Washington filled with degrees from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the like, that those in power would finally get it. Unfortunately it seems time and again they do not.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/53461/page/1

A clearer view of New Testament Belief: I disagree emphatically with Matt Peirce's letter to the editor criticism of James Carroll's excellent op ed October 15 article "Religion and Nation". First, the Gospels are not evidence of historical veracity as they were written two decades and more after the death of Jesus. One cannot use as evidence items which clearly have an agenda to promote. The Gospels are not a neutral collection of documents and they differ in text. Second, it is interesting how certain fundamentalist Christians love to pick and choose which New Testament articulations they use for proof of their correctness on contemporary political stances. According to Mr. Pierce the Gospel of Mark referring to Genesis 2:24 concerning the creation is proof of Jesus'opposition to homosexuality. I doubt it was specifically said to indict homosexuality. That is conjecture. Most importantly, why doesn't Mr. Peirce quote Mark 10:9 which says what "God has joined together let no man put asunder" as a more authentic and clear indictment of heterosexual divorce?

Certainly, Jesus was not in favor of divorce but when it became politically expedient the articulation of Christianity changed and amended his words to accommodate history.

The Sagacity and Enigma of General Sanchez: The critical comments of General Sanchez, the general who commanded US forces in Iraq, were staggering. No matter what his motives were in uttering them, he was completely correct. This administration, the Congress and a complicit media were incompetent in their conduct and investigation of the war. They were derelict in their duty to our nation. Inept leadership has given us either a quagmire or a loss in Iraq and has ultimately put our nation at great risk. This is the enigma of our time.

The conduct of the war in Iraq is a national disgrace, a disgrace for all those across the world who supported us, a vindication for those who did not and an embarrassment to those of us who believed the lies and naivete of this administration which resulted in this unnecessary mess. General Sanchez is right. Those court-martialed should be not just the military hierarchy but everyone – the Congress, the State Department and an administration who did not do their homework, who did not speak out and who allowed millions to suffer and thousands to die without purpose.

What happened to erase our preeminence in the world? Inept leadership has utterly released itself from the boundaries of civilized conduct. Sanctioned by a complicit media, the ship of state ran aground. The magnitude and gravity of General Sanchez's critical comments about the Iraq war are necessary. Why he and others, including the media, did not deliver them sooner is, perhaps, the greatest enigma of all.

Mad Men is Mighty: I watched the director and actors talk about the filming of Mad Men and the early 60's cultural context of the series. The director of this excellent show is right some situations have indeed remained the same even until this day. I worked in large corporate legal firms in Boston in the 1970's up to 2004. In very similar ways I can relate to a corporate environment which spanned decades. Much was like the machinations of the Sterling Cooper firm.

In one of my first comments about the series I sanctimoniously breathed a sigh of relief that thankfully I was working and living at a time in which those types of behaviors would not be sanctioned. The director, however, says yes, things changed but they also remained the same. This too is true. Still, I do believe profound changes have occurred so that heretofore powerless people now have at least SOME recourse.

Talk shows such as Oprah and many others make the once psychologically cornered person know that they are not alone and that they can exert at least some control to change their condition. The huge difference between the eras, I believe, is that we are allowed to at least TALK about things that heretofore were taboo. In the era of the late 50's and early 60's in which I grew up there was little talk or just a hint of talk but only on a psychiatrist's or analyst's couch which had just become fashionable and only for the well-to-do. Certainly there was not much introspection among persons in authority. Most definitely powerful men had to answer to nearly no one. Questioning authority is not the exception now it is the rule. Some of the absolutely vile, impertinent and condescending comments of those powerful men at Sterling Cooper towards especially the powerless women they work, have sex and live with would not fly. The courts are flooded with discrimination suits which attest to that fact.

While it is true human beings are human beings at all times, the social metamorphosis of the late 60's which encompassed the women's movement, the black movements, homosexuals and the like have given at least some voice and power over those strictly white men who once upon a time had usurped it all. Best of all at least in Boston one can barely find a place to smoke. That change saved lives.

I absolutely adore this show. It am transfixed!