The fight for free speech continues...I don't know why I am always surprised that forces continue to try to limit this most fundamental of American rights.
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
On the day of Resident Bush's photo-op of all phot-ops with that weird staged plane landing onto the aircraft carrier, he gave a speech to update us on the war against Iraq. I was listening to his speech on the radio in my car and was struck by one particular section in which he said:
Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
I do suppose this is true...our weapons have gotten more precise, the numbers killed significantly smaller than in wars past. But this seems like a strange instance to make this claim. I mean, we killed thousands of Iraqi civilians in our one-sided war against Iraq and more than 100 US military servicepeople were killed. And then we distributed a deck of cards with the faces of 55 "Most Wanted" Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party on them, hoping we would find them and "bring them to justice." So far I think we have found 20 or so of the men (and woman) on the cards. Alive. And then today there is an audiotape of what seems to be Saddam Hussein's voice. Alive. And his son stole something like $1 billion from the central bank (In US currency).
So explain to me the moral advance in this case - Saddam and the rest of the deck of cards seem to be alive and kicking, possible even regrouping. Innocent civilians can barely get water in their towns, medical help, food.
The current U.S. regime has got to go. I don't want to have to wait until 2004!
Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
I do suppose this is true...our weapons have gotten more precise, the numbers killed significantly smaller than in wars past. But this seems like a strange instance to make this claim. I mean, we killed thousands of Iraqi civilians in our one-sided war against Iraq and more than 100 US military servicepeople were killed. And then we distributed a deck of cards with the faces of 55 "Most Wanted" Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party on them, hoping we would find them and "bring them to justice." So far I think we have found 20 or so of the men (and woman) on the cards. Alive. And then today there is an audiotape of what seems to be Saddam Hussein's voice. Alive. And his son stole something like $1 billion from the central bank (In US currency).
So explain to me the moral advance in this case - Saddam and the rest of the deck of cards seem to be alive and kicking, possible even regrouping. Innocent civilians can barely get water in their towns, medical help, food.
The current U.S. regime has got to go. I don't want to have to wait until 2004!
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
On the one hand, I think we need a man like Gary Hart in the race for president. An elder statesman with a firm sense of international affairs and a solid record on domestic issues (as Senator), Gary Hart is not afraid to speak his mind, offer bold and innovative solutions and challenge his critics and opponents to engage in the debate(s). But I also like the idea of Gary Hart as a party leader, maintaining that role as the elder statesman without having to worry about what he says and, more importantly, how he says it. Outside of the confines of a campaign, Gary Hart has the freedom to open us debate about the issues Americans care about without worrying that the edited press will twist his words, that the Republicans will smear his name.
I do hope we can put up a candidate with Gary Hart-like credentials, charisma and intellect. And I hope Gary Hart takes up the role as a party leader, driving the direction of the public debate surrounding the important issues of today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early March I attended the Jewish Community Federation's Western Regional Young Leadership Conference. I was excited to participate in a weekend of "Jewish" events, connecting with other Jews my age in the Bay Area and from other cities. I was ready for exposure to a new side of the Jewish community here in San Francisco, not the usual Jew crew I run into at events.
The weekend was so much better than I ever could have imagined it would be. It contributed so much to my personal journey towards defining Judaism in my life. I connected more deeply with like-minded Jews, met new and interesting people that I hope to continue to connect with. And it all surprised me because the weekend started with an opening keynote by none other than the self-proclaimed spokesman of American Jewry, the homohobe himself, Dennis Prager.
I choose not to go into detail about all the hideous things Prager said during his opening remarks...I do not want to draw any more attention to his bigotry than is necessary. But I will say this...the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the group that invited him to speak at the conference, has assured it will not receive any of my charitable giving. I will funnel my Jewish philanthropy instead to the local JCC or other organizations that truly reflect the Jewish values I believe in.
I am reminded of Prager's narrowmindedness and his perversion of Jewish values by an article on Salon.com today. It is a reprint in the Andrew Sullivan column (a whole separate ugliness for another time) of a recent Prager interview in which he talks about homosexuality and its inferiority to heterosexuality. In any case, I cannot believe this guy was speaking in my synagogue to Rabbi Sydney Mintz's congregation. Rabbi Mintz - a lesbian who is a devout clergy member with a life partner and a child they raise together. Rabbi Mintz, who energizes Judaism for me and makes me want to learn more and better understand Judaism's role in my life. I cannot believe they brought this pig into her synagogue.
Certainly, in his keynote address he did not talk about his disdain for gay people, limiting his remarks to his disdain for Arabs and Palestinians. Acting as if he speaks for all Jews when he talks in the divisive language of "us" and "them" and as if the Israel issue is black and white. Worse than his remarks, actually, was the fact that this clown got a standing ovation from the crowd. Which was so upsetting because I believe that the majority of people in that audience do not know the totality of Prager's views. Sure, he is pro-Israel. Sure, he is a proud Jew. But he is a bigot who believes his moral compass should guide us all, who believes the world can be viewed as us against them...men/women, Jews/Arabs, gay people/ straight people...He most certainly does not speak for this Jew.
I do hope we can put up a candidate with Gary Hart-like credentials, charisma and intellect. And I hope Gary Hart takes up the role as a party leader, driving the direction of the public debate surrounding the important issues of today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early March I attended the Jewish Community Federation's Western Regional Young Leadership Conference. I was excited to participate in a weekend of "Jewish" events, connecting with other Jews my age in the Bay Area and from other cities. I was ready for exposure to a new side of the Jewish community here in San Francisco, not the usual Jew crew I run into at events.
The weekend was so much better than I ever could have imagined it would be. It contributed so much to my personal journey towards defining Judaism in my life. I connected more deeply with like-minded Jews, met new and interesting people that I hope to continue to connect with. And it all surprised me because the weekend started with an opening keynote by none other than the self-proclaimed spokesman of American Jewry, the homohobe himself, Dennis Prager.
I choose not to go into detail about all the hideous things Prager said during his opening remarks...I do not want to draw any more attention to his bigotry than is necessary. But I will say this...the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the group that invited him to speak at the conference, has assured it will not receive any of my charitable giving. I will funnel my Jewish philanthropy instead to the local JCC or other organizations that truly reflect the Jewish values I believe in.
I am reminded of Prager's narrowmindedness and his perversion of Jewish values by an article on Salon.com today. It is a reprint in the Andrew Sullivan column (a whole separate ugliness for another time) of a recent Prager interview in which he talks about homosexuality and its inferiority to heterosexuality. In any case, I cannot believe this guy was speaking in my synagogue to Rabbi Sydney Mintz's congregation. Rabbi Mintz - a lesbian who is a devout clergy member with a life partner and a child they raise together. Rabbi Mintz, who energizes Judaism for me and makes me want to learn more and better understand Judaism's role in my life. I cannot believe they brought this pig into her synagogue.
Certainly, in his keynote address he did not talk about his disdain for gay people, limiting his remarks to his disdain for Arabs and Palestinians. Acting as if he speaks for all Jews when he talks in the divisive language of "us" and "them" and as if the Israel issue is black and white. Worse than his remarks, actually, was the fact that this clown got a standing ovation from the crowd. Which was so upsetting because I believe that the majority of people in that audience do not know the totality of Prager's views. Sure, he is pro-Israel. Sure, he is a proud Jew. But he is a bigot who believes his moral compass should guide us all, who believes the world can be viewed as us against them...men/women, Jews/Arabs, gay people/ straight people...He most certainly does not speak for this Jew.
I am tempted to delete everything I have written in the past two days! These entries were more brain dumps than coherent essays...and I wanted my blog to be coherent essays, though I know at times it devolves into a diary-like accounting of my (not that exciting) life. So I am tempted to delete. But I suppose part of the discipline of this writing endeavor is to learn to publish when I am ready and let it go once it has gone "live." So that is what I am going to do. I will go against my own will and I will not delete the previous two days' entries. The post-Wildflower-weekend-tired-haze entries. But I had to acknowledge that I am not entirely comfortable with the content.
Monday, May 05, 2003
I was out of town all weekend - camping - so I did not have any access to newspapers or radio. I was cut off from the world outside of Lake San Antonio in Monterey County. If it did not relate to triathlon, I had no idea it was happening.
When I came home, I tried to read the Sunday New York Times that was waiting at my doorstep but I was too tired and fell asleep doing the crossword puzzle. Today, I managed to nose around some web sites in between work projects for an update on what the "President" has been up to (though truth be told, I needed the break from his antics after that bizarre plane-landing-on-carrier incident) and some insight into the weekend's Democratic presidential debate. From all accounts I read, it sounds like Joe Lieberman did a great job at making himself stand out among the group of eight candidates, not an easy task. And there is something to be said for the fact that he is the only one who has actually been part of a campaign that has already beat W. But let's face facts...Joe is not likely to win the general election. And the truth is, I do not want him to win the nomination! I am sure there are many who would think that is pure heresy coming from an East Coast Jew like me. But I just do not agree with him on so many issues. He is too conservative for my taste.
Because I know he is devout in the practice of his faith, I trust him more than most politicians to speak his truth. But he is a politician. And he wants to win. And I firmly believe that all politicians must, at some point, sell at least a part of their soul to hold onto their power - not necessarily for power's sake, but because they have changes they want to make, a way they want the world to be. But politics is more than ideas...it is a game, it is a process and throughout the course of that process, many of them seem to make compromises in order to hold onto their power. Over time, they seem to forget why they wanted the power in the first place. Anyway, I am not sure this applies to Joe Lieberman, but I am sure that on many issues - fiscal, military and even social - we do not see eye to eye. And I sometimes have a hard time understanding where he is coming from, what guides his political positions.
I think I like Howard Dean...Dr. Dean. I always thought I would support John Kerry throughout the process. After all, I worked for him and I really like his credentials. We have similar perspectives on the issues that are important to me. But I guess what I am looking for in the primary process is a true blue liberal. I need to reconnect to the causes that define what it means to me to be a Democrat. And while I think that John Kerry has the true blue credentials, I also believe he wants to win so badly, he might go to any lengths to do so. And to a certain extent, that is okay with me...because I really really really want the shrub out of the White House and only a Democrat that is willing to go to the mat will make that happen.
But so far, of all the candidates, Howard Dean is the one that is speaking to me. He says what is on his mind. He asks the questions I have. He doesn't pretend to have all the answers but he is clear about where he stands. I like that in a candidate. It is so rare. In 1992, I was a huge Bob Kerrey supporter for the same kinds of reasons. I had a feeling Bill Clinton was more electable, and I was prepared to work on his campaign when or if that came to pass. But for the primaries, for the contest of the party faithful, I wanted to put my energy where my spirit was...the ideas of the candidate, not his electability.
Once Kerrey was out and Clinton was the clear nominee, I jumped in with both feet and was unwavering in my support for most of his eight years (though his personal indiscretions were a total embarassment). I dedicated myself to the campaign without every looking back. But I do not know that I could have done that if I hadn't dedicated the primary season to Bob Kerrey.
And so maybe this time around, it will be the same way. Perhaps I will go into the contest working for Dean and if he ends up not being the nominee, I will throw my support behind whoever is (and I will volunteer on that campaign because losing the Presidential election in 2004 is not an option). Because what I like about Howard Dean is that he speaks his beliefs, even when they are against the grain, even when he knows that the media will likely twist it around, even though his Democratic opponents are likely to paint him into a liberal corner. It does not stop him and in fact, it seems to attract more supporters to his cause. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that he strongly believes in the heart and soul of the Democratic party - the social values and community responsibility that my Democratic party stands for . Meanwhile, I sent an email to the Dean campaign indicating my interest in volunteering and have yet to hear back.
When I came home, I tried to read the Sunday New York Times that was waiting at my doorstep but I was too tired and fell asleep doing the crossword puzzle. Today, I managed to nose around some web sites in between work projects for an update on what the "President" has been up to (though truth be told, I needed the break from his antics after that bizarre plane-landing-on-carrier incident) and some insight into the weekend's Democratic presidential debate. From all accounts I read, it sounds like Joe Lieberman did a great job at making himself stand out among the group of eight candidates, not an easy task. And there is something to be said for the fact that he is the only one who has actually been part of a campaign that has already beat W. But let's face facts...Joe is not likely to win the general election. And the truth is, I do not want him to win the nomination! I am sure there are many who would think that is pure heresy coming from an East Coast Jew like me. But I just do not agree with him on so many issues. He is too conservative for my taste.
Because I know he is devout in the practice of his faith, I trust him more than most politicians to speak his truth. But he is a politician. And he wants to win. And I firmly believe that all politicians must, at some point, sell at least a part of their soul to hold onto their power - not necessarily for power's sake, but because they have changes they want to make, a way they want the world to be. But politics is more than ideas...it is a game, it is a process and throughout the course of that process, many of them seem to make compromises in order to hold onto their power. Over time, they seem to forget why they wanted the power in the first place. Anyway, I am not sure this applies to Joe Lieberman, but I am sure that on many issues - fiscal, military and even social - we do not see eye to eye. And I sometimes have a hard time understanding where he is coming from, what guides his political positions.
I think I like Howard Dean...Dr. Dean. I always thought I would support John Kerry throughout the process. After all, I worked for him and I really like his credentials. We have similar perspectives on the issues that are important to me. But I guess what I am looking for in the primary process is a true blue liberal. I need to reconnect to the causes that define what it means to me to be a Democrat. And while I think that John Kerry has the true blue credentials, I also believe he wants to win so badly, he might go to any lengths to do so. And to a certain extent, that is okay with me...because I really really really want the shrub out of the White House and only a Democrat that is willing to go to the mat will make that happen.
But so far, of all the candidates, Howard Dean is the one that is speaking to me. He says what is on his mind. He asks the questions I have. He doesn't pretend to have all the answers but he is clear about where he stands. I like that in a candidate. It is so rare. In 1992, I was a huge Bob Kerrey supporter for the same kinds of reasons. I had a feeling Bill Clinton was more electable, and I was prepared to work on his campaign when or if that came to pass. But for the primaries, for the contest of the party faithful, I wanted to put my energy where my spirit was...the ideas of the candidate, not his electability.
Once Kerrey was out and Clinton was the clear nominee, I jumped in with both feet and was unwavering in my support for most of his eight years (though his personal indiscretions were a total embarassment). I dedicated myself to the campaign without every looking back. But I do not know that I could have done that if I hadn't dedicated the primary season to Bob Kerrey.
And so maybe this time around, it will be the same way. Perhaps I will go into the contest working for Dean and if he ends up not being the nominee, I will throw my support behind whoever is (and I will volunteer on that campaign because losing the Presidential election in 2004 is not an option). Because what I like about Howard Dean is that he speaks his beliefs, even when they are against the grain, even when he knows that the media will likely twist it around, even though his Democratic opponents are likely to paint him into a liberal corner. It does not stop him and in fact, it seems to attract more supporters to his cause. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that he strongly believes in the heart and soul of the Democratic party - the social values and community responsibility that my Democratic party stands for . Meanwhile, I sent an email to the Dean campaign indicating my interest in volunteering and have yet to hear back.
Sunday, May 04, 2003
Lately I have been wondering if I believe in the romantic notion of "the one that got away." I never considered myself to be someone who believes in that idea...not only does the idea seem overly dramatic, but I have long felt that what ever is happening is what is supposed to be happening and there is no turning back. Which is not to say that I do not believe in second chances, I do - certainly there is proof of that in the fact that A____ and I broke up and got back together several times over the course of four years. But I have not ever considered the idea that I may have let someone slip away...that I did not know the good thing when I had it, or that I did know it but was not ready for it and so had to let it go...and that it was the wrong thing to do...not what was supposed to be happening...But in recent days, it has actually occurred to me that it is possible there was one that got away (and if there was this one, were there perhaps more?).
He was most things I want in a partner. Sure, he was a little young, but I tend to be more attracted to the younger ones, and he possesses so many traits that I value. Smart, funny (very funny), sweet, liberal, healthy in body, positive disposition, respectful of women, sexy, expressive and generous. And a bunch of other things. He liked me, which turned out to be his downfall. As I have always said, it is all in the timing, and I was not ready for a man to be so much of what I ultimately want in a partner. It's not as if he was looking to marry me, or even date me for more than a few months. But he was so obvious about how he felt about me - he liked getting to know me and wanted to continue to do so - and I suppose I just was not used to it and was not comfortable with it. So I chased him away. I was not very nice to him at all. I sent him mixed signals, pushed him away, called him back to me, pushed him away, called him back...And finally I sent him packing.
I am ashamed of how I treated him. I asked him for forgiveness last year (around Yom Kippur...seeking atonement!)...a few months of drama with Broadway illustrated for me the good thing I let go...It was too late...he was deep into a relationship with someone else and (I think) in love with her. I heard rumors about the instability of their relationship and I sometimes wondered if I would ever get a second chance - and if I did would I screw it up again? Then he faded from my thoughts. Every once in a while he would pop up again. Something would remind me of him, someone would say his name or, more rarely, I would run into him or hear from him in email or the rare phone call.
It is only when I see him that I think of him in a romantic way and that I wonder if I royally screwed up! Within a few days - or even hours - he fades from my thoughts, not to enter again until the next time he crosses my path.
When we are in the same space, socially interacting, it is weird between us and I am sure it is me projecting that weirdness. I do not know how to act around him, whereas around me he seems perfectly natural. And though I toy with the notion that I let him get away, I am chastened by the idea that he likely does not think twice about what could have been. My best friend encourages me to explore it...to put myself out there with him again and see what he says. But I do not feel that I have the right to even offer that up, and I am not certain, with everything going on with me these days, that I could handle the rejection I am certain would follow any initiation on my part. So I retreat to the self-pity zone until a few days pass and he again fades away.
He was most things I want in a partner. Sure, he was a little young, but I tend to be more attracted to the younger ones, and he possesses so many traits that I value. Smart, funny (very funny), sweet, liberal, healthy in body, positive disposition, respectful of women, sexy, expressive and generous. And a bunch of other things. He liked me, which turned out to be his downfall. As I have always said, it is all in the timing, and I was not ready for a man to be so much of what I ultimately want in a partner. It's not as if he was looking to marry me, or even date me for more than a few months. But he was so obvious about how he felt about me - he liked getting to know me and wanted to continue to do so - and I suppose I just was not used to it and was not comfortable with it. So I chased him away. I was not very nice to him at all. I sent him mixed signals, pushed him away, called him back to me, pushed him away, called him back...And finally I sent him packing.
I am ashamed of how I treated him. I asked him for forgiveness last year (around Yom Kippur...seeking atonement!)...a few months of drama with Broadway illustrated for me the good thing I let go...It was too late...he was deep into a relationship with someone else and (I think) in love with her. I heard rumors about the instability of their relationship and I sometimes wondered if I would ever get a second chance - and if I did would I screw it up again? Then he faded from my thoughts. Every once in a while he would pop up again. Something would remind me of him, someone would say his name or, more rarely, I would run into him or hear from him in email or the rare phone call.
It is only when I see him that I think of him in a romantic way and that I wonder if I royally screwed up! Within a few days - or even hours - he fades from my thoughts, not to enter again until the next time he crosses my path.
When we are in the same space, socially interacting, it is weird between us and I am sure it is me projecting that weirdness. I do not know how to act around him, whereas around me he seems perfectly natural. And though I toy with the notion that I let him get away, I am chastened by the idea that he likely does not think twice about what could have been. My best friend encourages me to explore it...to put myself out there with him again and see what he says. But I do not feel that I have the right to even offer that up, and I am not certain, with everything going on with me these days, that I could handle the rejection I am certain would follow any initiation on my part. So I retreat to the self-pity zone until a few days pass and he again fades away.