Is it only me or do others think the Obama-Biden message is too fuzzy. There's no need to over-think this. You can bet that voters won't -- how else can you explain the utterly vacuous and cynical selection of Sarah Palin. They're banking on voters' not thinking and considering that many voters voted twice for Bush -- and that was enough to elect him -- they're probably right.
So I say, keep it simple. Here goes.
1. Bush fucked up Iraq.
2. Bush fucked up Afghanistan and allowed Al Qaeda to hang out in Pakistan.
3. While Bush was fucking up Iraq and Afghanistan -- and spending money we didn't have to fund the Iraqi adventure -- he was letting the economy go down the toilet.
4. McCain votes with bush 95% of the time.
5. McCain = More of the Same.
If a military win followed by an economic decline did in Bush Senior, a military quagmire followed by economic crisis should spell doom for Bush and his 95% supporter McCain.
Memo to Democrats: keep it simple and pound home the message.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Palin: A Female Bush -- ie moron
John McCain served this country. He now claims to put country first. Is this why he suffered as a prisoner or war? So that a moron like Sarah Palin could run for the nation's second highest office and be a heartbeat away from the most important office in the world?
I disagree with McCain on many if not most issues. I have respected him. I think most Americans respect him. He has lost much of this respect. Why? Because Palin is a cynical ploy. Sound like the people, so the thinking (wishing) goes, and the voters will identify and vote for you. Smile a lot, sound chipper and positive and come across like you're just the average American.
What's really pathetic is that this thinking just might be right.
Newsflash -- I don't want an average anything running this country.
Palin's performance in the debate has been satisfactorily analyzed and the most reject the notion that she demonstrated her qualification by not imploding. She is Julie McCoy -- only the country doesn't need a cruise director. There she is smiling, winking and cheerleading on the Ledo Deck. Meanwhile, Wall Street needs a bailout (and aren't we anticipating another shoe to drop?), 750,000 jobs are gone, we're stuck(with the bill) in Iraq and we have inadequate forces in Afghanistan. The Love Boat "America" is in very unsettled waters and we can't afford any passengers. It's time to throw Julie McCoy overboard.
Of course Joe Biden couldn't really take her on. It had to be tough on him to play it so cool. And it was smart, too. But I sure was hoping that he would rip her apart. He had to want to take her down when she accused Obama and him of surrendering in Iraq. That's rich. We've been waging a fruitless war, premised on false pretenses, costing thousands of lives and many times more taxpayers dollars than the bailout -- and those who want to end it are surrendering? Spare me.
I also loved when she urged voters to look forward and not at the past. Why have a record if it can't be examined? And it's McCain's record that is most relevant. The guy voted with Bush 95% of the time. What's maverick about that? Nothing. It's just more of the same. McCain's support for Bush policies is telling -- and that's why Palin had prepared lines to change the subject.
Watching the debate I couldn't help but think of Bush. He has that stupid little snicker, "heh, heh, heh." She has the cheerleader-esque and artificial positivity. Both are clueless. One proved to be dangerous. She shouldn't be given the chance.
I disagree with McCain on many if not most issues. I have respected him. I think most Americans respect him. He has lost much of this respect. Why? Because Palin is a cynical ploy. Sound like the people, so the thinking (wishing) goes, and the voters will identify and vote for you. Smile a lot, sound chipper and positive and come across like you're just the average American.
What's really pathetic is that this thinking just might be right.
Newsflash -- I don't want an average anything running this country.
Palin's performance in the debate has been satisfactorily analyzed and the most reject the notion that she demonstrated her qualification by not imploding. She is Julie McCoy -- only the country doesn't need a cruise director. There she is smiling, winking and cheerleading on the Ledo Deck. Meanwhile, Wall Street needs a bailout (and aren't we anticipating another shoe to drop?), 750,000 jobs are gone, we're stuck(with the bill) in Iraq and we have inadequate forces in Afghanistan. The Love Boat "America" is in very unsettled waters and we can't afford any passengers. It's time to throw Julie McCoy overboard.
Of course Joe Biden couldn't really take her on. It had to be tough on him to play it so cool. And it was smart, too. But I sure was hoping that he would rip her apart. He had to want to take her down when she accused Obama and him of surrendering in Iraq. That's rich. We've been waging a fruitless war, premised on false pretenses, costing thousands of lives and many times more taxpayers dollars than the bailout -- and those who want to end it are surrendering? Spare me.
I also loved when she urged voters to look forward and not at the past. Why have a record if it can't be examined? And it's McCain's record that is most relevant. The guy voted with Bush 95% of the time. What's maverick about that? Nothing. It's just more of the same. McCain's support for Bush policies is telling -- and that's why Palin had prepared lines to change the subject.
Watching the debate I couldn't help but think of Bush. He has that stupid little snicker, "heh, heh, heh." She has the cheerleader-esque and artificial positivity. Both are clueless. One proved to be dangerous. She shouldn't be given the chance.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Contemplations
- Andrew Sullivan has written a must-read article in the Setptember 2008 issue of Atlantic. Entitled "My Big Fat Straight Wedding," it is a touching, compelling and utterly human perspective on marriage. Not gay marriage, not straight marriage -- just marriage. Sullivan doesn't make a political argument. In fact he doesn't make an argument at all. What he does is state with articulate and beautiful simplicity that marriage -- family -- is natural to all human beings.
- I've always liked and admired McCain and thought him to be a solid and intelligent -- and willing to put country above all else. It simply cannot be that McCain actually believes that Palin will be the answer to HRC voter prayers. In a similar vein, no way McCain thinks Palin is anywhere near qualified to be President. I know the state of American politics has been and is below low, but has it really come down to this?
- Was it me or did Obama's speech lack a finish? The flourish that he seemed to be building to never happened. He got lost in the MLK reference and never really found his way. Don't get me wrong, the speech was terrific. It wasn't Obama at his best but I can't think of another politician who could come to even a good-but-not-great Obama speech.
- While we're on the topic of the Democratic convention, aren't we all rather sick of the television coverage? The running ticker, the shallow debates between career pundits, the hyperbole -- it's maddening and boring. Now PBS (and truthfully I have a problem that taxpayer's pay anything for public broadcasting, and that includes NPR) was outstanding. Thoughtful, articulate, and with civility and dignity rightfully reserved for the high calling that is (or rather, should be) attached to politics and the Big Issues of America and the world.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Kol Ha-Kavod Andrew Tarsy
Shock of shocks -- in December Andrew Tarsy announced his resignation from ADL as director of the New England regional office, its best known regional office. I'll spare you the full rendition of the sad story of how ADL's arrogance got the best of it (only to have its lunch handed to it by a few unknown and unbelievably po'd Armenians). Suffice to say that Tarsy decided to take a stand, was fired for doing so only to be reinstated and then, a few weeks ago, announcing his departure.
Whether Tarsy's departure is voluntary or not matters little. Let's face it -- his ADL career was basically over and it seems he knew it. Sure he might have had (and probably still has) some support from the ADL New England regional board. But overall, Tarsy had little hope of hanging on (and to give him credit, it's doubtful he wanted to merely hang on) once things died down. No way the anti-national rebels among the NE board would have the staying power to maintain the conflict with Abe. (It remains to be seen how a successor will be chosen and the NE board unified within itself and with the national.)
The NE region of ADL is know for its disdain at best and antipathy at worst toward ADL chief Abe Foxman. Remember Lenny Zakim z"l? That was their heyday and their achievements were perceived as independent of (and maybe in spite of) Abe and the national office. Many on the NE board take indiscreet pride in their disaffection for Abe and are dismissive of the authority of the national office. More about the ADL and the cult of Abe in a future post.
Back to Tarsy. Rare indeed have been sightings of senior professionals/lay leaders who have put their own skin on the line to stand for principle. And Tarsy did it with a very human touch, with appreciation for the magnitude of his actions, and with lots of class. He made a difference in the debate and in ADL's position on the Armenian issue. It is too sad that he paid a personal price for it. We can only hope that employers appreciate the virtues of Tarsy's character and note that he lives his values.
We wish him well.
Whether Tarsy's departure is voluntary or not matters little. Let's face it -- his ADL career was basically over and it seems he knew it. Sure he might have had (and probably still has) some support from the ADL New England regional board. But overall, Tarsy had little hope of hanging on (and to give him credit, it's doubtful he wanted to merely hang on) once things died down. No way the anti-national rebels among the NE board would have the staying power to maintain the conflict with Abe. (It remains to be seen how a successor will be chosen and the NE board unified within itself and with the national.)
The NE region of ADL is know for its disdain at best and antipathy at worst toward ADL chief Abe Foxman. Remember Lenny Zakim z"l? That was their heyday and their achievements were perceived as independent of (and maybe in spite of) Abe and the national office. Many on the NE board take indiscreet pride in their disaffection for Abe and are dismissive of the authority of the national office. More about the ADL and the cult of Abe in a future post.
Back to Tarsy. Rare indeed have been sightings of senior professionals/lay leaders who have put their own skin on the line to stand for principle. And Tarsy did it with a very human touch, with appreciation for the magnitude of his actions, and with lots of class. He made a difference in the debate and in ADL's position on the Armenian issue. It is too sad that he paid a personal price for it. We can only hope that employers appreciate the virtues of Tarsy's character and note that he lives his values.
We wish him well.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Tobin's Folly
I don't know Gary Tobin personally. I usually find myself in agreement with what he has to say. But his latest volley directed at the organized Jewish world, "Jewish Organizations Shut Out From Philanthropists Largest Gifts," misfires.
The title of Tobin's study is needlessly provocative. It also comes off a bit harsh leaving the impression that Tobin found a particular enjoyment in smacking Jewish groups. There's already enough resistance in the system to acknowledging ineffectiveness -- so it's counterproductive to create issues that take our eye off the ball and can be used by the establishment to change the subject from substance to personality. If the establishment has one area of expertise, it's how to circle the wagons and spin bad news to focus on the messenger instead of the message. So Gary -- do us all a favor and spare the gratuitous baloney.
In this case, though, the message is off base. Jewish donors are hardly conspiring to "shut out" Jewish philanthropies from large gifts. There's plenty of funds going to Jewish groups. And it's not as if Jewish donors are trying to make a point -- "I'll give $100 million to the university and one million to the federation. That'll show those Jewish organizations." Besides, if you look at denominationally-directed philanthropy in the U.S., I'm guessing the organized Jewish world stacks up pretty well. There is no religious, ethnic or cultural group that is as successful and as organized as the Jewish community.
I'm one who does not see much in the Jewish world deserving of mega gifts. By deserve I mean that the intrinsic value of most Jewish philanthropy to making a better world, while significant, simply cannot compete with stem cell research and the like. They're largely in different leagues -- and that's ok.
For example, does anyone really think that a new wing for the JCC is of a higher societal value than a new wing to the cancer research center? Take nothing away from the JCC (I'll address the role of the JCC in the emerging Jewish community of the 21st century in a future post). I'm sure a new wing is important. But is it mega gift important? I guess it depends on what is considered a mega gift. Will the new wing get $1 million? Maybe $5 million? But that's not in the mega gift range that Tobin is discussing.
Besides, when you're talking about mega donors you're usually also talking about mega egos -- which means mega recognition. There are but a few cities where Jewish agencies can come even close to providing broad community recognition and competing with other groups offering mega impact philanthropic initiatives. I mean, it's not too hard to figure out that almost any donor would prefer to have the local symphony hall named after them over the local JFS lunchroom. Jewish donors know they can create their Jewish legacy for less than a mega gift. And they know that their Jewish legacy and the attached recognition have a limited scope -- I don't mean that as a negative, it's just what it is.
So for my two cents, Tobin is comparing the incomparable and by doing makes a "straw man" argument. There's a lot wrong in Jewish philanthropy and the system it supports. Tobin's mega gift tangent isn't one of them.
The title of Tobin's study is needlessly provocative. It also comes off a bit harsh leaving the impression that Tobin found a particular enjoyment in smacking Jewish groups. There's already enough resistance in the system to acknowledging ineffectiveness -- so it's counterproductive to create issues that take our eye off the ball and can be used by the establishment to change the subject from substance to personality. If the establishment has one area of expertise, it's how to circle the wagons and spin bad news to focus on the messenger instead of the message. So Gary -- do us all a favor and spare the gratuitous baloney.
In this case, though, the message is off base. Jewish donors are hardly conspiring to "shut out" Jewish philanthropies from large gifts. There's plenty of funds going to Jewish groups. And it's not as if Jewish donors are trying to make a point -- "I'll give $100 million to the university and one million to the federation. That'll show those Jewish organizations." Besides, if you look at denominationally-directed philanthropy in the U.S., I'm guessing the organized Jewish world stacks up pretty well. There is no religious, ethnic or cultural group that is as successful and as organized as the Jewish community.
I'm one who does not see much in the Jewish world deserving of mega gifts. By deserve I mean that the intrinsic value of most Jewish philanthropy to making a better world, while significant, simply cannot compete with stem cell research and the like. They're largely in different leagues -- and that's ok.
For example, does anyone really think that a new wing for the JCC is of a higher societal value than a new wing to the cancer research center? Take nothing away from the JCC (I'll address the role of the JCC in the emerging Jewish community of the 21st century in a future post). I'm sure a new wing is important. But is it mega gift important? I guess it depends on what is considered a mega gift. Will the new wing get $1 million? Maybe $5 million? But that's not in the mega gift range that Tobin is discussing.
Besides, when you're talking about mega donors you're usually also talking about mega egos -- which means mega recognition. There are but a few cities where Jewish agencies can come even close to providing broad community recognition and competing with other groups offering mega impact philanthropic initiatives. I mean, it's not too hard to figure out that almost any donor would prefer to have the local symphony hall named after them over the local JFS lunchroom. Jewish donors know they can create their Jewish legacy for less than a mega gift. And they know that their Jewish legacy and the attached recognition have a limited scope -- I don't mean that as a negative, it's just what it is.
So for my two cents, Tobin is comparing the incomparable and by doing makes a "straw man" argument. There's a lot wrong in Jewish philanthropy and the system it supports. Tobin's mega gift tangent isn't one of them.
Disunited Jewish Communities
It was bound to happen. UJC has been screwed up for so long it was only a matter of time before insiders took matters into their own hands -- at least as much into their hands as they could considering the bloggers have opinions but no power.
Well, they apparently have quite keen powers of observation. And the blogger(s) at DJC are saying aloud what many in the federation world already know -- UJC is a mess. And I'm not talking about the allegations of poor management directed at UJC CEO Howard Reiger and his senior team. Yeah, that sounds bad enough but it could also be sour grapes from those who are not part of the senior team (I'm trying to be fair).
Look, Mr. Reiger inherited a sick organization with a defective structure (how in the world can we expect one person to actually lead an organization when he has 150 bosses -- really the top 20 communities? Like those 20 communities could agree on anything?).
UJC is an organization that has yet to effectively operationalize the merger of its parent bodies UJA and CJF. It is an organization adrift -- that, to put it mildly, has a difficult time justifying its $40 million budget and one that is suffering from a serious case of "what's our mission-itis."
Let me start out by positing that if UJC disappeared tomorrow few in the nation's federations would miss it. Sure, some of the smaller (more like tiny) communities seem to rely more on UJC. But I bet the top 75 communities wouldn't miss a beat. Now that's not to say that an umbrella body serves no purpose. It is to say that this version of an umbrella body to the federation system serves no purpose (maybe that goes too far -- how about no purpose justifying anywhere near its budget?!).
Well, they apparently have quite keen powers of observation. And the blogger(s) at DJC are saying aloud what many in the federation world already know -- UJC is a mess. And I'm not talking about the allegations of poor management directed at UJC CEO Howard Reiger and his senior team. Yeah, that sounds bad enough but it could also be sour grapes from those who are not part of the senior team (I'm trying to be fair).
Look, Mr. Reiger inherited a sick organization with a defective structure (how in the world can we expect one person to actually lead an organization when he has 150 bosses -- really the top 20 communities? Like those 20 communities could agree on anything?).
UJC is an organization that has yet to effectively operationalize the merger of its parent bodies UJA and CJF. It is an organization adrift -- that, to put it mildly, has a difficult time justifying its $40 million budget and one that is suffering from a serious case of "what's our mission-itis."
Let me start out by positing that if UJC disappeared tomorrow few in the nation's federations would miss it. Sure, some of the smaller (more like tiny) communities seem to rely more on UJC. But I bet the top 75 communities wouldn't miss a beat. Now that's not to say that an umbrella body serves no purpose. It is to say that this version of an umbrella body to the federation system serves no purpose (maybe that goes too far -- how about no purpose justifying anywhere near its budget?!).
Welcome...and explanation
I love the United States of America, my faith, the state of Israel, the Jewish community (organized and not) and the Jewish people. At the same time, reality being what it is, there is no way to say what I have to say but through this anonymous portal. I love my job, which is a senior position within the organized Jewish world, and I have a responsibility to my family to avoid risks that threaten my capacity to provide for it.
I am aware that my credibility would be enhanced if my identity and background were revealed. Here's what I can tell you. I have been in and around the organized Jewish world for over two decades ( I have also worked outside the Jewish community). Now I work in the federation system.
Why do this blog? Well, because I want to express myself. I'd like to reflect back, to hold up a mirror in a way that only somebody inside the system could. I have no illusions of grandeur and no expectations of readership. The latter would be nice.
Finally, a shout out to the thoughtful and courageous blogger(s) at Disunited Jewish Communities. It's too bad this blogger, like me, can't speak out for fear of retribution. But it is what it is. It seems they, too, want to hold up a mirror and let people know that the emperors are naked.
I welcome your comments. I only ask, demand if necessary, that they are respectful and substantive.
I am aware that my credibility would be enhanced if my identity and background were revealed. Here's what I can tell you. I have been in and around the organized Jewish world for over two decades ( I have also worked outside the Jewish community). Now I work in the federation system.
Why do this blog? Well, because I want to express myself. I'd like to reflect back, to hold up a mirror in a way that only somebody inside the system could. I have no illusions of grandeur and no expectations of readership. The latter would be nice.
Finally, a shout out to the thoughtful and courageous blogger(s) at Disunited Jewish Communities. It's too bad this blogger, like me, can't speak out for fear of retribution. But it is what it is. It seems they, too, want to hold up a mirror and let people know that the emperors are naked.
I welcome your comments. I only ask, demand if necessary, that they are respectful and substantive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
