November 14, 2007: A Journey into the Future of Energy, 2004-2007

In 2004, when analysts were explaining why the spike in oil to $35 a barrel (from $12 a few years earlier) was a temporary, speculative phenomenon, I took an interest in learning about America’s energy consumption. It was stunning to realize that America uses a 21 million barrels of oil every single day, a quarter of the world’s demand, importing about 60% of that, mostly from state-controlled entities in a market in which the swing producers -- those that dictate the global price of the commodity -- are counties such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our transportation system is 97% dependent on oil. Simply put: no oil – no travel. It was not difficult to conclude that oil dependence was a critical national security issue.

After a few weeks of mulling this over with my good friend, Robbie Diamond, Robbie had the courage and initiative to really try to do something about it. He founded a new Washington-based organization, “Securing America’s Future Energy” ( http://www.secureenergy.org ). SAFE produced compelling public simulations to vividly demonstrated the dangers of our dependence, it recruited the most influential business and military leaders, and ultimately put forth recommendations that found their way into the 2007 State of the Union address of the President of the United States. Less than three years after SAFE’s founding, historic legislation it largely proposed passed both houses of Congress with White House support. Just last week, SAFE put on a new version of its executive simulation (or war game), Oil Shockwave, again vividly demonstrating real dangers we face from even modest disruptions in oil supply (it was extensively covered, including this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/business/02wargame.html ) Please visit SAFE’s website to read about the legislation now pending, and about last week’s simulation.

My involvement in SAFE taught me that the problem of oil, and of non-renewable energy generally, was much more acute than the conventional wisdom held. Demand for oil continued to climb, steepened with the explosive growth of China and India. And yet, supply seemed to barely grow at all. What’s more, rising prices were putting cash directly in the pockets of regimes such as Iran, and the terrorists they support. What’s still more, the reality of climate change was becoming increasingly alarming – and gas-guzzling cars were a big part of that problem. All of this convinced me to devote my professional efforts to the industry which was just beginning to be called “clean technology” or “cleantech.”

My favorite formulation for the foundation of the new cleantech industry is as follows: Over the last several centuries, beginning with the industrial revolution, society innovated at an incredible clip, using all the resources at its disposal, no matter how scarce, how dirty, how expensive. The overarching motif of the current century will be making the standard of living that has come with all of that innovation sustainable by transitioning industries to materials, techniques and business models that are more efficient and more renewable — doing more with less. If successful, this will have the added benefit of making exposure to higher living standards more ubiquitous and equitable across the planet.

After making a few modest investments in US companies during 2005, I began to think about what Israel might contribute to innovation in cleantech. Luckily, some of my most talented friends were also beginning to think about the possibility that Israel would have a lot to offer. Together, in 2006, we were able to get off the ground the first venture capital fund in Israel devoted exclusively to the sector: Israel Cleantech Ventures ( http://www.israelcleantech.com ). Israel Cleantech is roughly half-way to raising its goal of $75 million to deploy across startup companies in Israel. It has already made several very promising investments, most recently in Project Better Place.

Because there is such elasticity of demand in oil for transportation — that is, we depend so much on our mobility that we will pay almost any price to be able to drive our cars — and because there are no immediately available alternatives, moving surface vehicles to a different form of energy has been the singular objective that has interested me most. Over time, I came to the conclusion that the much-hyped “hydrogen economy” was illusory. I also concluded that biofuels, like ethanol, were similarly over-hyped — they are resource-intensive, difficult to scale and don’t solve the emissions problem. Meanwhile, with the advent of hybrid cars, which add a small electric motor to assist the conventional engine and moderately increase fuel efficiency, I definitively concluded that a gradual shift to greater electrification was the future of the auto industry. In late 2006 I began actively and aggressively searching for the missing link – the idea that would begin to move the auto industry toward greater use of electricity.

In early 2007, while in Israel, I read about Shimon Peres, now President, speaking of electric cars for Israel. After speaking with Peres, I learned that the source of his vision was an idea of an Israeli entrepreneur living in Silicon Valley, Shai Agassi. Shai was the President of product development of SAP, one of the world’s largest software companies, based in Germany, but he had spent time thinking about this oil problem too, and came to the same conclusion I had, that the answer was electricity. He had met with Peres and proposed a state-led solution based on building an infrastructure to support electric cars. Peres told Shai that he was on the right path, but only a private initiative would have a chance to succeed — and that if he really believed that our future depended on it, he should do it himself. And so in March, Shai stunned the technology world by announcing his resignation from SAP, despite public reports that he was likely to be its next CEO, and poured himself into developing the plan that has become Project Better Place.

The theory behind Project Better Place is that battery technology, with a safe, reliable 100-mile per-charge range, has already matured to a point that electric vehicles make sense, as a practical matter, here and now. The economics are much more compelling than traditional vehicles. And the political and environmental consequences of continued oil use make rapid transition to electricity an imperative. Shai saw two missing ingredients the addition of which will instantly create an enormous market for electric vehicles. One is infrastructure. That means essentially bringing electric charge to parking spots — the distance is never too far, so think of it as a smart extension cord. Your probably used to your cell phone being plugged in when you are sleeping, or when you’re at work. In the future, your car will be charging wherever it is parked, you’ll start off every trip with a fresh 100-mile range. For the occasional long trip, Better Place is developing “battery swap stations” which will automatically replace your depleted battery with a fully-charged one in less time than it takes to fill up with gas.

The other missing ingredient is a business model that unlocks the much cheaper operating cost of an EV for the consumer. That requires not thinking of the battery as a $10,000 component to your car, but thinking of it as you do the SIM card in your phone. You don’t own that SIM card – AT&T does (or Verizon, or Sprint). And you subscribe to their service, at which point they activate your phone and allow it unlimited use of their network. Likewise, Better Place will own the battery in your car, and you will subscribe to Better Place for electrical charge, which will be ubiquitously available. And yes, just as a long-term cell phone contract might earn you a free phone from AT&T, a long-term charge contract may indeed earn you a free car from Better Place!

Indeed, it is a brilliant idea whose time has arrived. I like to call it the “anti-catch 22” -- everything you think is going to be a “catch,” is instead another advantage. If it succeeds, what will the world look like?

• Demand for gasoline cars will plummet, and along with it so will demand for oil – just as happened when electrical lighting replaced kerosene-lamps in the 19th century. You will see the price of oil fall to prices you never thought you would see again.
• The leverage of oil-supported regimes be they in the Middle East or South America will vastly diminish.
• The volatility of energy costs will dramatically subside – consumers will be able to budget their transportation costs without risk of sudden spikes.
• Greenhouse gas emissions will plummet. Even assuming the electricity generation is the dirtiest available – coal – global warming gasses would still fall by 50% for EVs relative to gas cars. As the electricity grid gets more clean, more renewable, so will your car.
• The decline in local emissions will save untold numbers of lives, and untold billions in healthcare costs associated with disease resulting from those emissions.
• Your car will likely perform better, be easier to maintain, be cleaner (literally speaking, not just environmentally).
• Consumers will pay a lot less for their freedom of commuting.

I feel privileged to be part of each of these political and business initiatives. Please don’t hesitate to write with thoughts and ideas. Meaningfully addressing the economic, environmental and political problems caused by the current global energy profile is something that will require not just great new companies, and wise public policy, but the participation of every good citizen of the planet!

Back to Top

September 19, 2007: Hesped for Sheila Kasper

We called her “Sheila,” or in my case “Nanny Sheila.” But her name was not Sheila. Her parents, Morris and Rose, named her “Sarah.” Legend has it that her older sister Anne, (96 and still living in Canton, OH) began to call her baby sister Sheila and it stuck.

But I would say that Nanny Sheila’s parents had the right instinct. Many of the most central character traits of Nanny Sheila recall those of Sarah, the matriarch of the Jewish people. The Midrash says of Sarah “all the days in which Sarah lived, the doors of her tent were open to the wind.” All the days that Sheila lived, her doors were always open – whether in Jamaica Estates, Orlando, or here in Teaneck. Our teachers speak of Sarah’s gevura – of her inner strength. And Nanny Sheila certainly had strength. And, sadly, the end of Sarah’s life comes after hearing of the Akeda – the near-sacrifice of her son Issac. Sheila, tragically, had to cope with actually losing a son.

Also in Bereshit, in Genesis, the first book of the Torah, which we will begin reading again in a couple of weeks, when G-d speaks of finding a spouse for Adam, the language used is that of “ezer conegdo” – indicating that one’s ideal partner is not a carbon copy, but more a complimentary reflection of the person. Six-and-a-half years ago when we bid farewell to Poppy Ralph, I quoted the opening of his short autobiography where Pop wrote that the day of his birth was “a glorious day for me and I’m sure for my parents as well.” This was not the language, nor was it the personality of Nanny Sheila. Nanny Sheila – in her role as a host, as a daughter, as a wife, as a mother, as a grandmother – Nanny Sheila was always about “the other.” “What can I do for you?” “What can I make you?” “What can I get you?” Those are the phrases I can most vividly recall.

And from my earliest memories through Ralph’s passing, I can hardly recall ever seeing one of them without the other. Who can forget her disguising vegetables and saying of her “Ralphie,” “I’ve got to find a way to get some greens down him!”

This character of compulsive giving of herself, I believe, was innate, but it was also reinforced by the mores of her age – she was part of the “Greatest Generation” – she made sacrifices – the first decade of her life her parents suffered through the Depression. When she was an expectant mother, Ralph was drafted and they were separated for nearly the entire first year of Perry’s life. After the war, she was a housewife of 1950s America – part of a cultural milieu that discouraged women’s personal ambition.

And yet, thank G-d, that personal and societal baggage, did not mean that she didn’t like to get out and have fun, and enjoy life. She and Ralph went everywhere and saw everything. I remember the map we kept where we tracked by their postcards their trip around North America. There was nary a waterway in which they didn’t cruise. There was hardly a golf course they didn’t try – and in her 70’s, after decades of trying, Nan couldn’t have been more proud or excited to report to us of her hole-in-one!

And, as I spoke about when we said goodbye to Poppy Ralph, their mutual thirst for exploration and adventure carried over into their role as grandparents. How lucky Gillian and I– and later Kendra, Josh, Jarred, and Tamara-- were to have such young and vital grandparents. As children, they took us to shows, to the Statue of Liberty, all the New York tourist spots. And when I was eight they took me on my unforgettable very first trip to Washington, DC, where we stayed at a Howard Johnson’s with a view of the Watergate hotel – less than two years after Nixon’s resignation, looking out the window at that iconic building, talking to Nanny Sheila about the historical events that had so recently taken place right there – this was a moment that made a lasting impression on me, and no doubt shaped my future interest in politics and world events.

Then, of course, they moved to the optimal spot any grandchildren could ever ask for: Orlando, FL. They were biking distance from Sea World and had annual passes to Disney and Epcot – and Gillian and I took the bait visited often. Even in my college and graduate school years I would go down there with a friend, and don’t think that they just sent us off to Disney – they came with us, and even when we were falling off our feet wanting to go home – it was Pop and Nan who made us stay for the midnight fireworks.

When I spent a year in Israel in the early 1990s, Pop and Nan announced they were coming to Jerusalem for a month – and while the prospect of hosting grandparents for a month might be seen as burdensome to the 23-year-old grandson of many grandparents, for this grandson it was extremely exciting and I relished being able to find them a comfortable apartment for their stay.

In the mid-1990’s, I brought a computer down to Florida for Nanny Sheila and Poppy Ralph, set them up with an email account, and spent several days in intensive training. Everyone I knew told me I was crazy. Nan was well into her 70’s and Pop his 80’s. I’d never even be able to teach them how to turn it on, they said. Well, having spent many late-night hours just this past week sifting through the nearly 1000 email messages between us over many years, I think Nan proved them all quite wrong.

And what a wonderful record I now have of Nan’s character in that collection. Here’s just a quick sampling (when speaking just skim bits and pieces of below):

December 27, 1995: “We are having lots of fun at this [computer and email] including forgetting meals.”

March 26, 1996: “We are getting ready to go to Linda and Ira for the Seders, but I am getting the house ready because we will be home the last four days….We went down south again this weekend. It was Aunt Anne’s 85th birthday and we celebrated it at Uncle Sam’s club. Was nice, and we came back early Sunday because we had a progressive dinner to go to Sunday night. That was fun too. Hope all is well with you!”

June 30, 1996: “I’m so excited and so is Pop. Pop is walking! ! When he got up this AM I noticed he was able to put his whole foot on the ground before he even did his exercises. We went to theatre this afternoon And we didn't have to use the wheelchair, he walked with the walker and it was quite a distance. Anyway we now can see the light at the end of the tunnel! Incidentally my foot is better also. We are on our way again for more fun. WE went to see "The Sisters Rosensweig". I had anticipated a better play. Oh well can't win them all. Love Nan and Pop”

November, 1999: We had such a wonderful day today that we felt we had to tell somebody about it and it had to be you. (It was a Hadassah sponsored trip) We left the house at 7:40 this AM and got home a short time ago. The first place we stopped at was a Museum in Ocala called the Appleton Museum it was donated by a Mr. Appleton from Chicago, I believe he had an electric or electronic firm there.”

You get the idea. They picked up email. And they created for me, and I hope for my children, a wonderful record of how full they made their days – even as they advanced in age.

In her final years, Nanny Sheila lived a very different lifestyle. She spent most of her time in the lobby of her elder residence, sitting with her boyfriend Sam, whom she loved dearly, and her nurse, Ina, who is an angel. I’ll always remember how cute I thought it was when she first told me about Sam, and her concern that I would be upset due to loyalty to Poppy Ralph. That little vignette was funny to me, but in retrospect is more poignant. She was always so busy worrying about other people’s needs, other people’s feelings, that she made it very difficult for those who loved her to know what her needs were, what her feelings were, what they could do to make her happier. I know this at times was painful to my mom, Perry and to Ira.

But she loved her children dearly. There wasn’t anything she wouldn’t do for Alan, and she never stopped speaking of him long after his death. Every time I came to visit her at the Classic Residence, she would update me about Ira, Linda and my cousins. And even in these last years she had a glow when speaking about her daughter Perry, and all of her adventures in Utah, in China, as well as Marty who she says in her will “has been more than a son to me.”

And in these last years, I was blessed with the pleasure of bringing my own children to her, bringing her a sense of joy and contentment that was palpable. Still it wasn’t easy for me, and most of those visits were not fully satisfying. She was more withdrawn and less communicative. The busy lobby where she would always be found was noisy and distractible.

However, in the last two weeks, in the hospital, and then in her apartment, I was finally able to regain some true rapport with her. Before she became too weak we talked about the adventures we had had together. My secret kitchen drawer of treats at their home in Queens. The road trip we took with some friends of theirs through Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. And even just on Sunday, when she was mostly non-conversant, when I told her that my daughter Yaira was thinking about her and asked her, “Nan, what should I tell her?” she shocked Ina and I screaming out, “Tell her that I love her!”

And, by the way, I cannot let this moment pass without expressing on behalf of all of those of us who loved Nanny Sheila, our everlasting gratitude and affection for Ina who was simply inspirational in her care of Nan in the last few years, and most especially these last two weeks.

I began by talking about how Nan knew little beyond doing for others. The final thing that she did for me is something I could never have imagined. All of that fun, all of those adventures, all of that love, that I experienced in my relationship with her as I grew up – how could I know that, beyond giving me such a wonderful time, what she was also doing was modeling for her daughter how to be the world’s greatest grandmother?

How could I have imagined the way that my own kids light up when “Safta Perry” is at the door? Everything she did for everyone else has left all of us in such a wonderful place. And now I have the privilege of watching my own children be as lucky as I was – to have a beautiful grandmother who wants only to show them her love and make them as happy as Nan made me.

As Yom Kippur approaches, and we prepare to try to purify our souls through fasting and prayer, I think about Nan being welcomed to Gan Eden by her loving parents, by Alan and by her “Ralphie.” And all those of us who knew her will carry with us her model of selflessness and giving – and try to improve and purify our souls through her example.

Nanny Sheila, thank you. We love you always.

Back to Top

January 4, 2006: Once Again, Hope Snuffed Out

The following is my reaction, in two parts, to the tragic incapacitation of Ariel Sharon. The first part is political analysis. The second is the story of a revealing personal encounter I had with him five years ago.

-----

When Prime Minister Rabin was killed just over a decade ago, it seemed like a tragedy on three levels. A great man, a national hero, a husband, a father was gone. Not only that, he had been killed by someone claiming to have done it out of Jewish religious obligation! Worse still, the only person who could bring the astonishing process he had begun two years earlier to it’s natural and peaceful conclusion was now removed from the scene.

Well, historically it was a tragedy on the first two counts. But had Rabin lived, the deception and bad faith of Yasser Arafat would have lived — and the process begun at Oslo would still have been doomed. The only difference, perhaps, would have been that without the Peres, Netanyahu and Barak interludes, Oslo would probably have collapsed much earlier than five years hence.

This time is different.

Again, a father and a great national hero has been stilled as he steered the country through critical terrain - this time through natural causes, not an act of murder made worse by its justification. But this time, Israel has lost a leader who actually had a vision for Israel’s future within reach, and who had the national consensus to make it happen. He had succeeded where no one else had — and not only in Israel. He had captured the broad center – rather than be hostage to one extreme or another, he had boldly stated just two months ago that both extremes were wrong and the majority in the middle was right. No more play-to-your-base politics and pander just center enough to get elected. Principled pragmatism took the place of rigid ideology. It was a breath of fresh air many hoped would spread to other democracies. But nowhere was it more needed than in the white-hot contentiousness of Israeli politics.

In another term Sharon would have set Israel’s permanent borders. Well, not totally permanent, but good enough until the Palestinians and other Arabs decide to turn off the preaching of hate, jihad and martyrdom and come to Israel to genuinely negotiate a good-faith peace. Then there could be adjustments. But until that time Israel could live nearly as securely as South Korea does beneath its fence with the North.

With his incapacitation, there is the great and tragic likelihood that the dual defeated ideologies will again arise. The folly of the left, recently articulated by Stephen Spielberg, that if the you just managed to get some rational leaders to sit in a room long enough, they’ll find the solution. And the folly of the right that Israel can let security concerns, secured borders and demographic facts be damned and sit on all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

Without a strong leader in sight, it’s hard to see how the re-polarization of Israeli politics can be avoided. But it is the obligation of all Israelis and lovers of Zion at this tragic hours to dedicate themselves to try.

----

This tragic night also harkens me back to my most memorable encounter with Arik Sharon. It’s an anecdote rich in both personal memory and political irony and tells a lot about these unusual times in which we live, so I’d like to recount it now.

It was November, 2000 and a lot was going on. The US Presidential election two days earlier had deadlocked, and the controversy that would engulf the nation for more than a month was just beginning to unfurl. The Oslo Peace Process, after seven years of seemingly steady progression, had a few months before exploded at Camp David, and a new and deadly terror war against Israel was in its fifth week.

From Nashville, where we had endured that incredible rollercoaster night at Gore headquarters, Tovit went to Florida to count ballots, and I went to Chicago — to the biggest gathering of American Jews, the General Assembly. Traditionally, the Israeli Prime Minister and opposition leader are invited to speak to the gathering. But with terror attacks a daily occurrence Prime Minister Barak would not leave Israel and addressed the delegates by satellite. As for the opposition leader — well, the titular head of the Likud party was the old Ariel Sharon — the man of Sabra and Shatilia and the father of the settlement movement. Surely he would not lead Likud to elections, he was just a caretaker party-head. And so he was given a very early-morning slot in a relatively small and remote hall. I listened to the former General’s remarks a world away from where I would have heard them just a few months earlier. The images of innocent Israelis being massacred — and this weeks after Israel offered Yasser Arafat virtually everything he had said for years the Palestinians wanted -- those images had had a “9/11” effect on my psyche 10 months before the actual 9/11. (For more see “Why This Time It’s Really Broke, Oct. 13, 2000, http://www.tovit.com/musings.html#101300.) But it wasn’t just that I was inclined to be more hawkish. It was that the former General who had personified the hawkish Israeli was sounding downright conciliatory. For sure, I had expected, this would be a session of “I told you so.” I told you that Oslo would lead to catastrophe, I told you that you can’t trust Arafat. But instead Sharon spoke of the need for two peoples to cohabit the land, the need, to be sure, for Israel to defend itself, but also the long-term need for, of all things, compromise.

I really liked what I heard. But all this was irrelevant, I thought. With his checkered history, this guy couldn’t get elected dog-catcher! As Sharon concluded his remarks, I felt two things passionately. One, he’s right. Two, he CAN’T be the guy. And my fear was, what if, in fact, he is correct, but his ego gets the best of him and the right path for Israel gets buried under his substantial bulk? And so I set out to plant a seed in his head. I would never have been so chutzpadik with an American politician, but in this context I felt emboldened and almost obligated to confront the man.

I joined the group pressing in around Sharon, and after a few minutes had the chance to speak directly to him. Several years earlier I had the chance to have lunch with him in Israel with a visiting American business executive I knew well, and we chatted politely about that momentarily. Then I spewed forth: “General Sharon, I had been an Oslo supporter, I had considered you somewhat of a radical, but I have to say that I was impressed and inspired by your remarks this morning. For the sake of the Jewish people I am now going to be utterly presumptuous. You can’t be the guy. You have too much baggage. You could never be elected, and if you were, even if you were able to persuade the Israeli public that your views had moderated, you will never succeed in projecting that sense worldwide — right or wrong you will always be seen through the lens of your past. If you are really sincere, and if you really want to put the interest of the state first, then find some young protégé who can carry the banner, and you stand just off-stage and whisper these things in his ear.”

Less than three months later Sharon was elected Prime Minister in the greatest landslide in Israeli political history. So much for my political instincts. But the biggest shock lay off in the future. He would, in fact, do the impossible. He would actually transform his image internationally, which seemed a wholly impossible task.

How wrong was I? It wasn’t just that YES, he WAS the guy. In fact he was the ONLY guy. He was the only guy who had so thoroughly established his security credentials that he could credibly say, the right thing for Israel’s security now is to leave certain areas and establish, for the first time in the state’s history, de facto borders.

As a good friend put it this evening, this poor little country cannot get a break.

April 9, 2003: A Historic Watershed?

Could it be that years from now historians will look back at today as the day that changed everything?  One can never know, but one can hope.  The jubilant destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was the only image in my lifetime that could compare to the image today of an equally jubilant crowd of Iraqis climbing to the top of that 5-story statue of Saddam, affixing a rope around its neck, and asking the friendly American tank operator to help them bring it down.  I guess Arabs yearn to be free of brutal dictatorships after all!  What a shock that must be to the systems of those who self-righteously admonished us against imposing our values on another people.  Only a twisted understanding of morality, which equates firefighters with arsonists, could contemplate that democracy and dictatorship are equally acceptable choices of government.  Democracy is precisely the freedom of people to be led by a government which is accountable to them.  The “imposition” of democracy has a name all its own — liberation.  And that’s what we all had the privilege of witnessing on the streets of Baghdad today.

It is useful to read the American Declaration of Independence from time to time and be reminded that it makes no effort to be particular to its situation.  It speaks of universal truths, of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s G-d,” not under the trademark of those who journeyed to these shores but the property of all humanity.  It reminds us of the wisdom of its authors who understood that all people yearn for freedom.

So now that genie is out of the bottle in the Arab world.  Some said an American war against the Saddam Hussein regime would be a recruiting boon for Bin Laden.  I say that the success with which the coalition has achieved its objective, and if coalition leaders remain steadfast in their promise to bring democracy to Iraq, this war will have been a boon instead to the followers of Thomas Jefferson.

What we now have to hope for now is that Baghdad 2003 = Warsaw 1989.  We have to hope that freedom spreads as rapidly through the Arab world as it did through Eastern Europe.  One wonders what must be going through the minds of Basher Assad and the ayatollahs in Teheran.

There were so many poignant images today, and those of the statue being felled have already become historical classics.  But the ones I’m attaching is the one most meaningful to me.  These pictures truly are worth a thousand words.  It tells the story of American values of freedom.  It tells how our soldiers go to fight not for land or treasure or glory, but for freedom.  And however old these kids are, they understand what that means.  If only so many grown-ups throughout the world understood it as well.  

Let us hope that the historical lesson proven today is not as fleeting as those of the 20th century seem to have been.

PS – It’s a pretty far fall for someone who got 100% of the vote less than a year ago!

Back to Top

July 4, 2003: A Vision for America: Interdependent Self-Sufficiency

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

That was the founding vision of the United States of America, by any measure the greatest society ever to appear on this Earth. And that must remain its vision. Every American generation has had to reconcile this vision with the challenges of its own era, and each has ultimately -- sometimes after bitter and costly struggle -- chosen to broaden the constituents of freedom and the depth of freedom’s meaning.

So too must the American generations of the 21st century.

They must broaden its constituency by promoting freedom and liberty beyond its borders. And they must broaden the depth of freedom’s meaning by creating a greater sense of national and local community.

America’s first generations established institutions that would endure and preserve freedom and domestic tranquility. Later in America’s first century another great generation took on the dissonance of a nation founded on the principles of freedom engaging in the practice of slavery. In this past century successive generations again expanded domestic freedom through their elected representatives and the courts, granting equal rights in the economic and civil arenas as well as providing a safety net for those who needed it.

And now a new American generation is again forced to examine precisely what rights are unalienable and to whom they are granted. And what is particular to our time is that we now truly live in a “global village.” Through technology the world -- with its population growing exponentially in number -- has become a profoundly smaller place. Therefore this examination cannot be neatly confined to naturally fortified borders.

The future of American freedom, and indeed of America, is contingent on its success in continuing to export the values of freedom and liberty around the planet. American need not be shy in this matter, this is not a matter of “imposition” but one of liberation, for freedom and liberty should not be seen on a scale of cultural relativism but as the prerequisite for each people to truly express its own uniqueness, and for each society to make its contributions -- commercial, cultural, philosophical -- to the great world mosaic.

And now the stakes are all the more higher than ever before. The same exponential march of technology which brings us such profound gifts, such as the ability to speak to anyone, anywhere in real time or to travel the continent in hours, will also ultimately give a handful of evildoers the ability to erase an American city from the map. The proliferation of technology is a genie, which cannot be contained. So the only way to combat it is to take freedom global. Just as people from all corners of the earth have risked life and limb to travel to this country for the blessings of its freedom, we now must take risks to bring freedom to them. The cause is no less noble than our domestic civil rights movement, and no less critical than our intervention in Europe in the 1940’s.

This does not mean taking our military to every corner where tyranny still reins, although there should be a serious national conversation about that option when the stakes are saving millions from starvation or genocide. But it does mean a foreign policy, well coordinated with other free nations, which has as its primary objective the expansion of liberty to all peoples. This is a radically different approach than that taken the past, but it is one, which is far more consistent with our fundamental values, and one, which may be necessary to our very survival.And at the same time, the generations in the 21st century must again grapple with the uniquely American dimensions of liberty. The safety net created after the Great Depression has been severely diluted in recent years, positively affecting many Americans who had been trapped in a system of backward incentives, but having potentially devastating implications for others.

The debate cannot not be whether or not to help those who cannot provide for themselves – for we must. The only question is to what extent they will be provided for through the mechanisms of government that “we the people” create, and to what extent from the compassion of individual Americans.

Individual achievement in America is a critical pillar in our success, and should continue to be rewarded as it always has been. But Americans should also come to see themselves more as part of something larger. That means both the American community in aggregate, and the community in which they live their lives.

Our vision for the 21st century should encourage the establishment of ever more vital communities across America.

The first requirement of vital communities is an economic foundation, which perpetually maximizes opportunity. This means the exercise of fiscal discipline in budgeting, whether at the kitchen table or the Capitol. It means expanding global trade and creating more incentives for innovation. It means recognizing that the retired population will expand enormously as baby-boomers retire and as everyone lives longer, and planning for that expansion so that all Americans can live out their lives in dignity.

Creating more vital communities will also mean a system of education, which continues to provide successive generations the ability to do at least as well as their parents, have done. That means making the legal achievements of the last century real in this one through the expansion of equality of opportunity at all levels of education. It also means finding a way for all Americans to have access to good and affordable healthcare.

Vital communities will require alternative energy sources and a cleaner environment, so that successive generations can leave to the next a greener landscape.

And the expansion of vital communities will also require us to find ways to encourage youth to choose service over selfishness, to choose compassion over violence. This means not permitting any generation to take the blessings of liberty for granted. It means an expansion of opportunities and incentives for youth to give of themselves through national service or volunteerism. If the 20th century gave birth to a Peace Corps, perhaps the 21st should see a Liberty Corps – young people educated in the gifts of freedom and encouraged to educate others around the world about the value of those gifts.

America remains a shining beacon, the hope of all mankind. But in every generation America must renew its meaning. And now the task falls to us.

Back to Top

February 3, 2003: The Case For Hope and Pride over Fear and Unfairnes: The Lieberman Candidacy and the Jewish Community

FOREWARD

SUMMARY:There is a reticence among some in the American Jewish community to a serious presidential candidate who is Jewish because of fears of anti-Semitism, consequences for the war on terror, nervousness about Israel and concern about issues related to religious observance. These concerns seem to surface only within the Jewish community, and are ultimately without basis.

In the weeks before and since Senator Joseph Lieberman formally announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for President, there has been a reticence in some parts of the American Jewish community, a reticence that stands in sharp contrast to the widespread elation and pride that followed Vice President Gore’s selection of Senator Lieberman as his running-mate in the summer of 2000.

The reasons for this reticence have been varied. Some cite a fear of anti-Semitism resulting from a viable candidate for President who is Jewish, or from a potential presidency. Some worry about the international implications of having the worldwide war on terror led by a President who is Jewish. Others claim that Senator Lieberman will inevitably have to “bend-over-backwards” to prove that his personal religious faith does not impact his foreign policy toward the Middle East, thus compromising Israel’s interests. And then there are some who fear that Senator Lieberman’s observance will interfere with his ability to carry out the duties of President.

All of these fears are ultimately unfounded, and this is an effort to substantively and decisively refute any and all such concerns. It should be stated clearly at the outset: The premise of this document is not that American Jews should support Senator Lieberman’s candidacy because he is Jewish – merely that those otherwise inclined to support him should not fail to do so because he is Jewish. While there is nothing wrong with ethnic pride, the stakes are too high for candidates to be judged on anything but their merits. Which candidate can best protect America’s interests abroad, by military and diplomatic means? Who can return the country to prosperity? Who can be trusted to fight terrorism and promote a lasting peace in the Middle East? Who has the decency and integrity to lead the free world? These are the questions American Jews and Americans of all backgrounds should be asking, and basing their answers on the experience, records and campaigns of each candidate. Nothing more, nothing less

ANTI-SEMITISM

Senator Lieberman may be a good candidate but he is unelectable. America is not ready for a Jewish President. There are too many anti-Semites. And besides, if he won, everything that went wrong in the country, and in the world, would be blamed on the Jews.

SUMMARY: Fears of anti-Semitism in America are greatly exaggerated, and there is little basis in fact for American Jews to worry about the consequences of a President who is Jewish for the community as a whole. Mixed with the pride of Senator Lieberman’s selection as a candidate for Vice-President in 2000 was some concern that his run would provoke latent anti-Semitism that many were certain lurked just beneath the surface in America. Granted that Lieberman is one of 11 Senators who are Jewish, and that over 30 members of the US House from all regions of the country are as well; granted that Jews have reached the highest levels of virtually any industry one can think of in this country. Nonetheless, many Jews in the US, particularly those whose memories extend back to the war era, and whose parents fled persecution in Europe, cannot fully fathom that they are truly welcome here as equal partners in all aspects of national life. And many of them were certain that a Jew attaining such a high national profile, particularly one as clearly identified and committed as Senator Lieberman, would finally reveal that prejudice.

Al Gore told Joe Lieberman on the night his selection was announced that his “Jewishness” was not considered in making the selection but that he, Gore, had asked around to sense what prejudice the ticket might face as a result of the selection. He told Lieberman that what he discovered was that the only people who thought there might be an anti-Semitic backlash were his Jewish friends – and that he was convinced the fear of anti-Semitism was much greater than the reality.

So, what resulted? Exactly how much anti-Semitism was candidate Joe Lieberman faced with in 2000? How many signs, how many hecklers, how many coded words from commentators? The answer is – none at all. That’s right. Campaigning across the length and breadth of the country for three months for an office one heartbeat away from the highest in the land, Senator Lieberman did not come to face-to-face with a single incident that was anti-Semitic in nature. In fact, to the extent his being Jewish was discussed, it was seen as a net-plus. Church-going Americans were impressed with his dedication to his faith. His traditionalism made him an attractive candidate to many mainstream voters, even those who had recently become disenchanted with most Democrats. Members of other minority groups identified with his status as a “first.” As Rev. Jesse Jackson famously told the Senator, when a barrier is broken for one minority, it helps all others.

As Election Day approached, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg watched his numbers carefully with an expectation that the Gore-Lieberman ticket would, in the end, garner somewhat fewer votes than the final poll numbers predicted – that there would be a hidden anti-Semitism factor based on people who lied to pollsters, embarrassed to express their prejudice outside the privacy of the voting booth. In fact, as anyone who followed those numbers closely knows, the number of votes that ticket got came as a surprise to everyone. Conventional wisdom based on polling numbers in the final 48 hours of the campaign was that the Bush-Cheney ticket would win the popular vote, but that the Gore team could still capture the Electoral College. In fact, the opposite occurred. The Gore-Lieberman ticket got nearly 51 million votes – the most of any Democratic ticket in American history, and second overall, only to President Reagan’s 1984 total. So instead of a downtick in the final vote tally, there was a significant up-tick. So much for latent anti-Semitism.

A poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times in February 2003 found that fully 90% of registered voters were either neutral or positively inclined toward voting toward a Jewish candidate for President. In a January 2003 Fox News poll with similar results, the small number of voters disinclined from a Jewish candidate was no larger than that number unlikely to vote for a Catholic President, and this 44 years after one was elected – John F. Kennedy.

The Kennedy analogy is particularly instructive. At this stage in the 1960 campaign, Catholic Americans told Senator John F. Kennedy that he had no chance to win because of his religion. It seemed even more unlikely to them that Kennedy could win than it does to most Jews in America today that Senator Lieberman could win in 2004. But then, as now, America was facing serious challenges at home and abroad, and Americans simply voted for the person they thought best equipped to handle those challenges.

All this is not to say that there is no anti-Semitism in this country. One can ask the Anti-Defamation League how many swastikas were painted on homes or synagogues in the last year, you can find “restricted” country clubs, you can hear an occasional slur in some neighborhoods or a stereotype from a commentator. But anti-Semitism is in no way politically acceptable in mainstream circles -- not among liberals, not among moderates, and not among conservatives. And it sure doesn’t seem that many people otherwise intent on voting for Al Gore switched their vote because of his running mate’s religion. Which would lead one to conclude that anti-Semitic prejudice will not hinder Senator Lieberman’s Presidential campaign, and that the public is no more likely to blame unpopular actions of a Lieberman Presidency on the Jewish community than they blamed President Carter or President Clinton’s mistakes on all southern white males or President Kennedy’s failings on American Catholics.

Anti-Defamation League head Abe Foxman perhaps summed it up best when he said, “I believe America is politically mature today and ready to have a Jew as a President. I am finding that the American Jewish community may not be here yet.” On the latter point, one hopes Foxman’s worries are overstated. But the impression represents a tragic, if historically understandable, irony.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Maybe America is ready for a Jewish President, but now is not the time. We are fighting an international war against militant Islam, how can the commander in chief be an Orthodox Jew? Aren’t we better off with a middle-American Protestant?

SUMMARY:Our enemies in the war on terror make little distinction between brands of infidels, and it is not the religion or ethnicity of the President that concerns our allies, it is his policies and general attitude toward them.

There are essentially three constituencies to keep in mind with regard to the American President and the war on terror. First, the American people. As has already been described at length, they appear convinced that America’s best interests are served by having the best leader, irrespective of ethnic or religious background.

The second party is our enemy. Does anyone purport to believe that Osama Bin Laden will hate America even more if it elects a Jewish President? Among the many internet-powered myths that circulated in the months following September 11, was one that President Bush was actually Jewish and was prosecuting the war to serve Israel’s interests. It got a good laugh in informed circles. But amongst the militant Islamists, it is not surprising that they would assert that it is the Jews who already control America and are seeking to broaden their control globally. The fanatics of al Qaeda and their ilk make little distinction between brands of infidels and it is hard to imagine an American voter of any background choosing their leader based on speculation on the difference in degree that Islamic fundamentalists hate Christians and Jews.

Finally, there’s the rest of the world. And yes, though paranoia may fuel much of the speculation about anti-Semitism in America, the phenomenon continues to be all too real in much of the rest of the world. Europeans developed the fine art of hating Jews over centuries and it was not extinguished with the vanquishing of Nazism. After a half-century respite, anti-Semitism is now again acceptable in polite circles of European aristocracy, frequently veiled thinly as criticism of Israel. Anti-Semitism is also rampant in Arab countries and a part of the daily menu of media fed to children and adults throughout much of the Islamic world. But acknowledging all of these facts, it is never articulated how this sentiment would compromise America’s position if it chose a President who was Jewish. In fact, the President of the United States is the leader of the world’s most powerful country, and no nation could afford to take the position that they would not deal with him because of his religion.

That is why -- as a point of fact -- Senator Lieberman has been widely accepted as an important American leader all over the globe -- including in Arab nations. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Lieberman has traveled extensively throughout the world, and probably as much as any US legislator has in the Arab world. He is respected in Arab capitals as an important American official, without regard to his personal faith. In this respect the Senator is not unique. Daniel Kurtzer, also an observant Jew served for three years as the American Ambassador to none other than Egypt. The Egyptian government respected him for his experience, intellect and most of all for the fact that he represented the most powerful nation in the world. They even accommodated his religious obligations and defended him against attacks by extremist elements in their country. The same would have to be true to an even greater degree if it was not the Ambassador, but the President of the United States who was Jewish.

There are things concerning the President which influence how the outside world, both government and people, relate to the United States. But they have nothing to do with questions of ethnicity.

Following an outpouring of goodwill and sympathy in immediate aftermath of the terror attacks on America, unquestionably America’s esteem in the estimation of much of the world has fallen since to new lows. It is not because of President Bush’s religion or ethnicity, it is because the President has abandoned international treaties and conventions with impunity, has jettisoned the rhetoric of diplomacy and has demonstrated an utter insensitivity to the pride and dignity of other world powers. As President, Lieberman, through his goodwill, his open demeanor, his understanding of other cultures and his diplomatic skill, would restore America’s prestige in the world, without diminishing America’s power. And, as was the case when he first burst onto the national scene, within a month of his inauguration no one would focus on the fact that he is Jewish.

ISRAEL

At this critical point in Israel’s history, the last thing it needs is an Orthodox Jewish President who will have to prove his patriotism and evenhandedness by bending over backwards to distance himself from Israel. Right now we have an extremely pro-Israel President and we are better off with him than risking our chances with a Jewish President.

SUMMARY: Senator Lieberman has a pro-Israel record which is second to nobody, his support of Israel is rooted in deep convictions and he is not afraid to say when his political adversaries are correct – as he has with much of the current Administration’s policies toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There is no record at all to support the assertion that Senator Lieberman would, as a Democratic nominee, or as President, act in any way other than those consistent with his foreign policy principles. A strong Israel and a strong US-Israel relationship are very much dictated by those principles.

Senator Lieberman does not come to his pro-Israel perspective out of political calculation. As the Iraq situation demonstrates, he has a certain worldview, which has been consistent throughout his political career. It puts a premium on democracy and human rights, and it is inclined toward American intervention when fundamental American values, and innocent lives, are threatened, as Islamic lives were threatened in Kosovo and Bosnia. As he has prepared for his possible, and now actual, run for President, he has held true to these principles, and articulated them forcefully. In fact, lasts spring when the Administration called on Israel to cease its defensive operations to stop terrorism, Senator Lieberman took President Bush to task and led the effort to pass a Senate resolution in support of Israel.

If there were any basis in fact to the concern that Senator Lieberman might distance himself from Israel for political reasons, it is fair to assume that basis would have been demonstrated sometime over the last 14 years. Wouldn’t a Jewish politician with the highest aspirations, have to assure Americans and others alike that his loyalties were to America’s interests only?

Let’s look at just some of Senator Lieberman’s record:
∑ According to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), 56 issues of consequence to Israel have come before the Senate in the 14 years Senator Lieberman has been a member of that body. By their count, the Senator has taken the “pro-Israel” position 53 times. His only substantive dissent was a refusal to sign a 1991 letter to the President opposing a sale of planes to Saudi Arabia, which he thought was important to containing Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, there is hardly a Senator who has his or her name more frequently attached to the issues at hand (e.g.: the Mack Lieberman letter of 1999 expressing disappointment with the Administration for invoking the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy waiver.).

∑ In 1991 Senator Lieberman was one of only 10 Democratic senators to support the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Seven years later, he sponsored legislation in the Senate calling for US foreign policy to support regime change in Iraq. He remained vocal on this point for the succeeding four years, until that became the stated objective of American foreign policy, and has publicly and vocally supported President Bush’s policy toward Iraq over the last twelve months.

∑ In 1999, after he helped shepherd a bill through Congress requiring the US to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he warned the Clinton administration against failing to do so: “Non-fulfillment of the law does no good to the US-Israeli relationship or to the prospects for Arab-Israeli peace.”

∑ In April 2002, after the Passover Massacre provoked Israel to launch Operation Defensive Shield, which included a thorough, but temporary, reoccupation of major Palestinian cities to search out terrorists, President Bush insisted that Israel cease the operation and withdraw “without delay.” Senator Lieberman said that the President had “muddied our moral clarity” in the war on terror by “publicly and persistently pressure[ing] Israel not to do exactly what we have rightly done to defeat the terrorists who struck us on September 11.”

∑ In January 2003 Senator Lieberman repeated his support for the Administration’s policy of “regime change” in the Palestinian territories and approximated the Palestinian Authority’s effort to reign in terror groups at 10%.

All of this does not just demonstrate that Senator Lieberman has a pro-Israel record. It indicates that he has an “out-front” pro-Israel record. It proves that he hasn’t merely been a “back-bencher” on the issue who votes the right way but tries to do so inconspicuously. He has consistently been a “go-to” person on issues in the Senate for those concerned with the US-Israel relationship. And all of this in the context of his being the first observant Jew in the Senate, when it might have been politically easier to keep a low profile on a hot-button issue in which others perceive you have self-interest.

Even if Senator Lieberman has a record of support for Israel and campaigns to suggest that record would continue as President, that is still no guarantee of how he will govern, and what the consequences will be. President Clinton campaigned promising to be strongly pro-Israel but he frequently brought Yasser Arafat to the White House and pushed Israel to make concessions that led to the current violence. Furthermore, in recent years the Democratic Party has demonstrated itself to be less trustworthy on Israel than have the Republicans.

It is a popular myth that President Clinton put undue “pressure” on successive Israeli Prime Ministers to negotiate under duress. But let’s look at the facts.

In August 1993, American law prohibited officials from dealing with members of the PLO, and Arafat was forbidden to even enter the United States. In September of that year, the administration of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin dramatically announced the secret discussions taking place at Oslo and the agreement reached for mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. President Clinton was such a passive player in that process that he did not even attempt to recreate the Carter-Begin-Sadat handshake when the Oslo Accords were signed on the White House lawn. No doubt, Clinton enthusiastically endorsed the Oslo process and tried to keep its momentum going throughout his administration. But it was always the Israeli government that took the lead. All parties confirm that it was Prime Minister Barak who suggested and pushed hard for a Camp David summit in the summer of 2000, even as Clinton expressed deep skepticism over its promise.

Camp David, the beginning of the current campaign of terror, and the election of Prime Minister Sharon entirely changed the equation in the conflict, to the point where a comparison of the current administration’s policy on the issue to that of the prior one is an apples and oranges comparison.

As to the concern about Democrats generally, Senator Lieberman has long distinguished himself as part of the party’s Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy tradition. In this, see a strong defense and active role for America in the world as essential for our security and for spreading America’s values of democracy and freedom around the globe.

But could Lieberman be any better for Israel than the current administration?

First, Joe Lieberman would keep America strong and respected throughout the world. By disdaining our alliances and seeing going-alone as often the only option, President Bush has sacrificed America’s standing and made it more difficult for the US to further its interests. Let us not forget that an America seen as an outcast damages America’s interests as well as the interests of its close allies, like Israel.

Second, a President Lieberman would insist, as President Bush has, that a new Palestinian leadership, not compromised by terror, emerge as a pre-requisite to a move toward Palestinian statehood. He would encourage the institutionalization of civic and political freedom, democratic values and the rule of law in the territories, with the understanding that when peoples are genuinely free to express dissent, and when leaders are actually accountable to the people whose interest they represent, and there is an accepted framework for the peaceful transfer of power, compromise and accommodation gradually emerge. (Unlike the current administration, however, Lieberman would probably not set a date-certain for the emergence of a Palestinian state as the Bush Administration has for just two years from now -- they may protest that such can only happen if prerequisites are first met, but the international community only hears “2005”).

In the meantime, as his spring 2002 rebuke of the administration reveals, Lieberman would not discourage Israel from taking whatever means Israel felt were necessary to defend itself from terrorism.

With the Bush administration having explicitly endorsed a “two-state solution” as its vision for the outcome of the conflict, and with Sharon having taken on his own party to support the notion of a Palestinian state, one will be hard-pressed to find a candidate for President this cycle that does not speak of two states. (Given demographic trends, those who want to see Israel remain a strong, democratic, Jewish state should hope for a solution that puts the majority of Arabs west of the Jordan under the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign – as long as that sovereign doesn’t threaten Israel or permit violence from within its territory against Israelis.)

But didn’t Senator Lieberman change his positions during his December 2002 visit to the Middle East?

No, he did not. In December of 2002, Senator Lieberman spent a total of seven days in Israel and two visiting three Arab states and American troops. He did not meet with Yasser Arafat. He frequently articulated his views on the conflict. Yet, second-hand accounts of his trip and his comments led some Lieberman critics to charge that he had altered his views on the conflict. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It is important for people to keep a few facts in mind. Sources matter. A lot of the descriptions and accounts of the Senator’s visit were based on Palestinian journalists and some actually came from “The Arab News,” the Saudi-based source which last year reported as fact that Jews used the blood of Palestinian children to make hamantashen for the festival of Purim. Suddenly, that became a credible source for news about Senator Lieberman’s conversations in Riyadh.

A second thing to remember is that stories are easily manipulated through the inclusion, omission and emphases of certain facts. For example, Senator Lieberman described the humanitarian situation in Ramallah as “desperate.” He never stated or implied that Israel bore responsibility for that situation, he has made it clear countless times that blame for the current violence rests entirely upon the shoulders of the Palestinian terrorists, and of the Palestinian Authority, led by Arafat, which has been complicit in much of the terror. However, just an objective observation of the conditions was reported widely as a surprising rebuke of Israel.

Senator Lieberman did encourage the Saudis to restate their peace initiative from last spring. By that did he mean he thought Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders? Of course not. He meant that Saudi Arabia, the heart of the Arab world, should remind the world that it suggested a formula toward a comprehensive recognition of Israel and resolution of the conflict.

Combinations of careless reporting and willful misleading emphasis, on the part of media or political opponents can often create a controversy where there is none. It is no secret that the political operatives in the Republican Party regard Senator Lieberman as one of the most formidable challengers to the President and it is very much in their interest for him to stumble early. What better way to embarrass him than to create stories about rifts within, what will be viewed by many observers as his base, the Jewish community? In truth, of course, his base is much broader than that, and clearly there is a wide spectrum of views within the Jewish community about Senator Lieberman. But the community should be very careful to be cognizant of attempts by outside parties to manufacture controversy in an attempt to undermine the Senator.

When I vote for candidates for national office, Israel is the most important issue to me by a wide margin, and I have a policy of never voting against a candidate who has a strong record on Israel, so I cannot support Senator Lieberman.

There are people who strongly endorse the sentiments above, and in fact, many members of the pro-Israel community supported Senator Lieberman’s opponent in the 1988 race that made him a Senator, since the incumbent, Republican Lowell Weicker, had a very strong pro-Israel record in the Senate. This is a legitimate perspective, and one cannot dispute the characterization of President Bush as a “pro-Israel incumbent.”

Nonetheless, particularly if the person holding this view more often supports Democrats than Republicans, it is not unreasonable for to ask that person to support the most pro-Israel candidate in the Democratic nominating process, and then revisit the issue, in light of the campaign and events that transpire in the interim, once the nominees are selected. All supporters of a strong Israel should hope that American voters in next year’s general election are choosing between the candidates in their respective parties who are most trustworthy on the issue.

RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE

Being President is a seven-day-a-week job. How can someone who is so stringent about Shabbat observance be trusted to it? How would he deal with a national security crisis that comes up on Saturday?

SUMMARY: Senator Lieberman’s religious observance would not interfere in the least with his Presidential responsibilities.

The definitive response to this concern was written by Rabbi Yehudah Mirsky in The New Republic after Senator Lieberman’s selection as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and can be found at http://www.tnr.com/082100/mirsky082100.html

Senator Lieberman’s religious observance not only permits, it requires, that he take whatever measures are necessary to promote the imperative of life, regardless of the requirements of the Sabbath, and therefore his observance could never come into conflict with his duties as President.

Senator Lieberman has always made a practice of refraining from political activity on the Sabbath, but doing the necessary work of government not as a compromise of his religious principles, but because those principles require it. In the most devoutly Orthodox communities throughout the world, physicians, ambulance drivers, dispatchers regularly depart from traditional Sabbath-observance in the interest of saving lives. The work of government has such profound effects on society, that its core functions run 24/7 not only as a practical matter but as a primary religious obligation.

CONCLUSION

SUMMARY: American Jews should not support Senator Lieberman’s Presidential candidacy because he is Jewish. But if they determine that he is the strongest candidate, they should not fail to support him because he is Jewish.

By all means American Jews should not oppose any candidate – including Senator Lieberman – on the basis of that candidate’s faith. The notion that Jews would consider opposing a candidate for office because he is Jewish strikes me as a perverted, nearly obscene, irony, particularly after all the community has done over several generations to fight prejudice and break glass ceilings for all minorities. That notion is not only unfair, it is also inconsistent with the best principles of America, and hands a backhanded victory to bigots worldwide. All Americans should demonstrate to the rest of civilization that the secret to success, the key to prosperity in the 21st century is to judge individuals based on their personal capacities, not their group identities, whether their names are Lieberman or Letterman. And if Americans stick by those principles, we will select the person best qualified to lead the free world, and if that person turns out to be a proud Jew, the lesson will resonate even more profoundly.

AFTERWORD Finally, from a Jewish community perspective, there is an “upside” to a Lieberman candidacy, and to a potential Lieberman presidency, that is little talked about.

In January of 2000 my wife and I had the privilege to accompany the first group of students to participate in the innovative and exciting program called “birthright Israel” that offers young Jews worldwide the opportunity for a free, educational 10-day visit to Israel. As Sabbath commenced in Jerusalem, the students, who were by-and-large bereft of serious Jewish education or experience could choose between traditional services and small discussion groups about Shabbat. My wife, a corporate attorney at the time, and myself, a venture capitalist each led discussions with such groups and had the same experience. The students couldn’t believe we were serious professionals in our fields, and managed to strictly observe the Sabbath. It came as a complete shock. Eight months later, when we heard the news of Senator Lieberman’s selection, we imagined what those students must have been thinking.

For the first time in Jewish memory, being Jewish is an option, not a condition. Young Jews will only “exercise” that option if they see a value-added. It is instructive that of all the many Jewish politicians, the one with the first one to run on a national ticket, and the first one to seriously contend for the Presidency, is one who has exercised his option to have the values and rituals of Jewish tradition inform his life in a serious way. There has been an unstated assumption that, even if being Jewish was no longer a major limiting factor in American life, being a seriously observant Jew certainly was. No one has done more than Senator Lieberman to turn that impression on its head.

To the degree that Senator Lieberman can be a role model, as a serious contender for the Presidency, as someone who even his political opponents acknowledge has unimpeachable integrity, as someone who has made the choice to have Jewish tradition inform his life – to that degree, it augurs to the benefit of those who hope for the perpetuation of a Jewish renaissance in America.

Again, none of this is in itself reason to support Senator Lieberman’s candidacy. But it should give pause to those in the Jewish community who are unalterably opposed to the notion of a serious Jewish Presidential candidate.

Michael J. Granoff, who has a leadership role in many Jewish organizations including AIPAC and Hillel, manages a small private equity firm that focuses on commercializing early-stage life-science technologies. A strong supporter of Senator Lieberman’s Presidential candidacy, Mr. Granoff has no formal affiliation with the campaign and nothing in this document shall be construed to have been suggested or endorsed by the campaign.

This document will be updated throughout the campaign to reflect any new concerns about Senator Lieberman’s candidacy that arise within the American Jewish community.

Back to Top

June 28, 2002: Richard Rodgers b. June 28, 1902

“Oh, what a beautiful mornin’...”

Is there a breathing person in Western civilization who could not finish that lyric?

You need not be an aficionado of what has come to be called “The American Songbook,” those popular songs written by American composers, largely for the theater, during the 20th century, in order to know and love the music of Richard Rodgers. He has been called the most listened-to composer of any kind of music in history. And in case you think that is hyperbole, consider just some of the melodies he wrote:

The Sound of Music
Oklahoma
The Carousel Waltz
Manhattan
Something Wonderful
The Lady is a Tramp
My Funny Valentine
Shall We Dance?
Where or When
Some Enchanted Evening
You’ll Never Walk Alone
It Might as Well be Spring
Getting to Know You
Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered
Falling in Love with Love
I Could Write a Book
The Sweetest Sounds
Isn’t it Romatic?
Etc., etc., etc.

Rodgers music transformed everything musically that followed, from the Beatles and the development of the rock genre, to his successors in the musical theater.

It was a beautiful morning 100 years-ago today when Richard Rodgers was born on the Upper West Side of New York.

You can learn more about Rodgers, and listen to clips of over 100 of his songs, at www.rnh.com or the centennial site, www.rr2002.com.

Back to Top

Today is the 90th anniversary of the birth of Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson who represented the state of Washington in Congress for more than four decades.

Senator Jackson’s career offers many lessons that are applicable to this strange new world of 2002. Jackson was a New Deal Democrat, arriving in Congress at the beginning of President Roosevelt’s second term in office. He was an environmentalist and a fierce opponent of privatizing the energy industry. It was his cool-headedness during the McCarthy hearings which revealed the degree to which the anti-Communist movement had become a witch hunt. He was a strong and early champion of the Civil Rights Movement.

And at the same time, there was no more virulent defender of freedom and democracy, and no bigger advocate of steadfastness and determination during the Cold War than Senator Jackson. Long before Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union an evil empire, Jackson characterized it in those terms and staunchly advocated that America maintain military superiority at all costs. It was the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974, which was his vision, that made human rights a centerpiece of American foreign policy toward the Soviet Union. A direct line can be drawn between that legislative action and the freedom of hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews, as well as the end of the Cold War. One biographer described the lessons Jackson took from World War II as follows: “the folly of isolationism and appeasement, the importance of democracies remaining militarily strong and standing firm against totalitarianism, and the need for the United States to accept and sustain its pivotal role as a world power.”

Jackson described Israel as “an oasis of civilized progress,” and articulated as well as anybody the fundamental shared values of freedom which bind the interests of the US and Israel together.

If he were with us today, no doubt Senator Jackson would be decrying terror in the same manner he did Nazism and Communism, and would make no distinction against whom it was directed. He would be fully behind the US’s war on terror, and outspoken about Israel’s right to defend its citizens. At the same time he would be forcing us to think critically about how to spread freedom as a natural right for all people, as well as an antidote for terror, and he would not tolerate attempts to muffle discussion of policy in the name of patriotism.

Scoop Jackson epitomized public service, individual thinking and the best of what America is meant to be. And so, especially at this time in our history, it seemed that the occasion of this anniversary should not go by unnoticed.

Back to Top

February 7: Eulogy for Ralph Kasper z"l

Poppy Ralph's autobiography begins as follows: "This is dedicated to all my grandchildren, their children and their children's children, so that my history would not be buried with me. The day I was born, June 23, 1911, was a glorious day for me, and I'm sure for my parents as well."

June 23, 1911 was a glorious day for everyone who was privileged to meet Poppy Ralph. The character of Pop was not complicated. His philosophy was that life was to be enjoyed, that the most was to be made of every moment, that there was never a situation that could not be enhanced by a laugh. His attitude toward life might be described as "charmingly irreverent." He took every opportunity to make new friends, whether he was at a party, in a restaurant, or waiting in line. And while he could most certainly be stubborn and impatient, even in his frustration his inimitable laugh was never far from the surface. Once, when he had waited long enough for a show at EPCOT to begin, he commandeered the microphone and, with hundreds of assembled theme-park-goers as his audience, gently suggested to management that they had all waited long enough. Pop would have been happy to subsist on salami and vodka alone if Nan would have let him, and he frequently bragged that he never ate anything that was green. His unforgettable advice, which gained a following even among my own friends was, "Wherever you go, make sure to take along a salami."

In the autobiography he refers to himself as a child as "incorrigible," and describes how his jealousy over the attention feted on his new sister led him "one fine day, when nobody was around," to attempt to set fire to her beautiful new carriage.

When confronted by the Mob at a construction site, Pop brazenly and falsely told them he was a good friend of then-district attorney (and later Presidential candidate) Tom Dewey.

Thank G-d I have so many wonderful memories of Pop myself. Let me share just a few. When I was five or six, and my parents were away, he began to call every evening to check in on me. For a long time we continued the routine of exchanging "jokes of the day." In later years he cherished the time when, in feeding him golf balls to drive, I snuck in a fake ball that exploded on impact into a huge white puff. After the swing, he turned to me with an expression of mock bewilderment and said, to coin a "Popism," "What hoppened?!"

When we came to visit at the home in Jamaica, I had my very own drawer in the kitchen stuffed with all the things I wasn't allowed to have at home. Pop and Nan took Gillian and I to all the sites in and around New York, and on a most memorable trip to Washington for my eighth birthday. From our hotel, visible right across the street was the Watergate Hotel, which had become infamized just two years earlier, and I can pinpoint Pop's pointing that out to me as the impetus for my interest in politics.

And then, when most grandparents retired to South Florida, Pop and Nan moved to Orlando. What more could grandchildren of 11 and 9 ask? Indeed it took only two days until Gill and I paid our first visit. Pop set aside the unpacking to take us to all the attractions, including accompanying us on rides that even I wouldn't go near today. A few years later they took me to watch one of the first Space Shuttle launches at Cape Canaveral. Even just a few years ago, when I would visit with friends, and they would take us to Disney, my friend and I would be long worn-out when Pop would insist we stay until the midnight fireworks.

While other teens spent the last weeks of summer vacation with friends, nothing excited me more than touring the National Parks of Utah and Wyoming with Pop and Nan and their friends. When I spent the year in Israel, they came and spent a month visiting. With Pop, there was always another adventure in store. Even in retired life, no one could keep track of them, as they scurried around the country, around the world, in cars, planes and cruise ships.

You'll notice that I've had trouble referring to "Pop" without referring to "Pop and Nan." Indeed, the phrase "Pop and Nan" has always been to me a single unit. (And in the last few years they have been known to my friends as popandnan@aol.com). On the trip from Florida Monday, Nan and I were both struck by the fact that it was the first day we had ever spent together outside of his company. Through a relationship that lasted 60 years, they were a pair that could not have been more inseparable. It was no accident that I decided many years ago that I wanted to become engaged in the same place they did - on the George Washington Bridge - and did so almost two years ago.

So it's easy to see how contagious Pop's curiosity about the world, his uncommon zest for life and his ever-present sense of humor were, and no doubt none of us who were close to him would be the people we are without that influence.

Poppy Ralph was a lawyer and a builder by trade, but he built much more than houses. He built a community, serving as B'nai B'rith president both in Queens and in Florida. And he built a beautiful family that we are all so grateful to be part of.

This week we read in the Torah the story of the children of Israel leaving Egypt, the miracle of the Red Sea parting for them. It is said in the Midrashic commentary that before G-d parted the sea, a brave Israelite had to begin the journey - to wade in the waters up to his neck. If he had been there, it would have been Pop who would have volunteered for that task. His courage, his energy, his adventuresome spirit, and his drive to go to all lengths for those whom he loved would have made him the one. This Shabbat is also known as "Shabbat Shira," the Sabbath of Song, because of the jubilant singing of the Jewish people after their redemption. That jubilant spirit is also very appropriate to the life of Poppy Ralph.

The last paragraph of his autobiography reads, "One of the most satisfying expressions was made by my eldest grandchild Michael. He said to me, 'I hope that when I have grandchildren they will have the same wonderful relationship as I have with you.'"

My quintessential image of Pop is him offering his hand for me to shake, after some activity, and saying, "Hey, we had a good time, didn't we?" Yes, Poppy Ralph, we had a good time. A very good time.

Back to Top

December 5: Gotta Love America!

I am on my way home from a visit to Ceretek, the California company I chair, where out of our 12 full time employees we have seven women, two Chinese Americans, one Japanese American, one Indian American and one observant Muslim (who keeps a calendar on her desk with times for the five daily prayers and the conclusion of the Ramadan fast each day) all working together to find a treatment for ovarian cancer and other human disease.

Now, I am on a jetBlue flight from Oakland to JFK. It's an outstanding airline, this flight is costing $154.75 (as opposed to like $2000 I was paying on American a year ago) plus it has 15 channels of live satellite television for free - I just watched the launch of the Space Shuttle live.

The one thing you don't get is meals. Instead they come around with a choice of snacks - blue potato chips, bagel chips, corn chips, chocolate chip cookies, etc. Our Puerto Rican flight attendant, Alexis, just came down the aisle with the selection. I asked if he could lower the basket so I could see the options (of course my agenda was to see which were kosher). Without batting an eye he said, "Everything is kosher except the corn chips." I asked for the cookies and as he handed them to me he pointed out the hecsher (certification of their being kosher).

As Sen. Lieberman said last year, "Is this a great country, or what!"

Back to Top

March 2, 2000: George W. Bush Gets Ambushed By Comic in Another Name Gaffe (Wall Street Journal)

By JULIAN BELTRAME
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The name of a world leader has gotten George W. Bush into trouble again.
After a rally in Canton, Mich., last week, a man posing as a Canadian television reporter told Mr. Bush that Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine had endorsed him as "the man to lead the free world into the 21st century."
Mr. Bush beamed. "I'm honored," he said. "I appreciate his strong statement. He understands our belief in free trade," the aspiring president added. "He understands I want to ensure our relationship with our most important neighbor to the north of us, Canadians, is strong. We will work closely together."
Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, Canada's prime minister is Jean Chretien, not Poutine. Poutine is a French-Canadian concoction of french fries and cheese curds smothered in gravy that is much beloved in Quebec.
The man posing as a journalist was Canadian comedian Rick Mercer, whose segment on a satirical weekly TV show often lampoons American ignorance of Canadian matters. He once had the governor of Arkansas congratulate Canada on building a "national igloo" to protect its Parliament building. The show broadcast Mr. Bush's reply earlier this week. "We got him hook, line and sinker," said producer Geoff D'Eon.
Calls to Mr. Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer in Austin, Texas, weren't returned Wednesday.

Back to Top

May 11, 2000: Congress Gives Clinton Rare Trade Victory (Reuters)

I have to brag a little bit on behalf of my father who has devoted the past five years of his life to achieving the goal described below. This is a wonderful victory not only for him personally, but for American consumers, American investors and the hundreds of people he employs in Central America, many of whom have already called, in tears, to thank him for his efforts. I am also proud to say that he has been asked to represent the textile and apparel industries at the White House Rose Garden on Tuesday, where President Clinton will sign the bill into law and hand him the pen.

Yeah Dad!

Thursday May 11 3:30 PM ET

Congress Gives Clinton Rare Trade Victory

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress gave final approval on Thursday to legislation extending billions of dollars in trade benefits to the nations of Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, handing President Clinton a rare trade-policy victory.

The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 77-to-19, sending it to the president for his signature. It was the first major trade bill to be approved by Congress since lawmakers authorized U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.

The legislation, backed by the House of Representatives last week, would grant more than 70 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Central America greater duty-free access to the U.S. market.

Clinton hailed the final vote, saying it was an ``example of the kind of thing we can do if we work together.''

``It's an encouraging sign that Congress can overcome contentious issues in trade legislation and approve bills that are clearly in the best interests of the United States and our trading partners,'' added U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky.

White House officials said the bill would boost apparel trade by billions of dollars and help the world's poorest nations reform their economies.

The legislation will also require Barshefsky to rotate retaliation against countries that refuse to comply with WTO rulings. That measure is aimed at keeping pressure on the European Union, which has lost WTO cases involving beef and bananas.

Opponents said the trade bill shortchanged African and Central American states by setting caps on textile imports. Others said it provided countries too much access to the U.S. market, putting American textile workers in peril.

``As cheap imports continue to flood the domestic market, job losses will not only continue, but increase,'' said Sen. Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican.

Supporters said the benefits were clear. ``This legislation will encourage greater two-way commerce between U.S. businesses and potential trading partners,'' said Thomas Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Costa Rican President Miguel Angel Rodriguez said the legislation would help a region hit hard by hurricanes in 1998 that killed more than 11,000 people.

For El Salvador alone the bill could create 100,000 new apparel industry jobs over the next three to four years and triple textile exports to between $3.5 billion and $4 billion, according to Ambassador Rene Leon.

Boost For Clinton

Final passage gave a much-needed boost to Clinton's trade-policy agenda, which suffered a devastating blow in 1999 when WTO talks collapsed in Seattle.

Passage also cleared the way for Congress to turn its focus to a landmark trade agreement with China. Some lawmakers had threatened to oppose the China bill if Congress failed to help Africa and the Caribbean.

Under terms of the final agreement, the United States will extend duty-free, quota-free benefits to apparel made in Africa from U.S.-produced yarn and fabric. Apparel made in Africa from African fabric would receive the benefits up to a cap.

The poorest countries in Africa would receive all of the trade benefits, with no restrictions on the source of fabric for four years. For Mauritius and Kenya, the bill would remove existing U.S. quotas on textile and apparel imports.

A Clinton administration official said the bill could boost shipments of African-made apparel to the United States to $4.2 billion by 2008, up from the current $250 million.

Under the compromise the United States would also provide duty-free, quota-free benefits to apparel made in the Caribbean and Central America from U.S. yarn and fabric. But the benefits would be capped for apparel made from regional fabric.

In addition the final bill included provisions that would deny duty-free benefits to companies that ship apparel to Africa or the Caribbean from other regions in order to reship them to the United States.

It establishes a permanent agricultural ambassador in the office of the trade representative, and extends normal trade relations to Albania and Kyrgyzstan to ensure that American companies benefit from their entry to the Geneva-based WTO.

The bill also demands that African nations eliminate the ''worst forms of child labor'' in exchange for the trade benefits, and urges the U.S. government and American businesses to take a more active role in eradicating AIDS in Africa.

A more far-reaching AIDS provision was dropped by congressional negotiators, upsetting many Democrats.

In response, Clinton issued an executive order on Wednesday promising that U.S. officials would not stand in the way of countries seeking to obtain less costly AIDS medication for their poorest citizens as long as the measures complied with international trade rules.

Back to Top

August 7, 2000: Gore to Chose Senator Lieberman As Running Mate (Reuters)

August 7, 2000, 7:16 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Al Gore plans to name Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate, sources said Monday.

Back to Top

August 7, 2000: Senator Joe Lieberman

August 7, 2000, 10:15 AM
Subject: Senator Joe Lieberman

"My Senate colleagues, like my Connecticut constituents, have been not just tolerant but very respectful of my religious observance, which I truly appreciate. On my very first Sabbath at the Capitol, in 1989, before I had the routine down, I was planning to sleep on a cot in the Senate gym until Al Gore insisted I stay at his parents' apartment across the street. When I see Al's wonderful mother, Pauline, she always calls me her 'tenant.'"
- p. 102, "In Praise of Public Life," by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, 1999 (A book I highly recommend).

Tovit and I spent the weekend with Richard and Esther Joel and family, and Keith Krivitzky. All weekend I argued that it was highly plausible that Gore could choose Lieberman. It's not that I thought it was highly likely, it's just that none of the "finalists" seemed terribly plausible. Kerry is too liberal and would be a major liability in a debate with Cheney because of his Gulf War vote. Edwards was just too inexperienced. None of the others seemed to add anything.

I'll break my reaction up into there parts (shall we call them the "three p's'?)"

Policy: Dead-on perfect. I told Tovit many months ago, if Gore is looking for an ideological match, there's no one closer than Joe Lieberman. Along with Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, he founded the "New Democratic Nework" (www.newdem.org) with which I am very active. He's a free-trader, an interventionalist, a moderate on domestic fiscal policy. The media will talk about his condemnation of Clinton, but that aside, on the issues he really was always the obvious choice for Gore.

Politics: Here's the surprise - he could be a net plus. The conventional wisdom is that, as the first Jew on a major ticket, it is a big risk. And no doubt there are millions of Americans who would never vote for a Jew. But the question is - how many of those would OTHERWISE be voting for Gore? Not a lot. How many wouldn't vote at all? Some, that's the wild-card, it's more likely very extreme elements that don't add up to much. Remember, a "heartland" state like Wisconsin, with less than 1% of registered voters Jews, has not one but two Jewish Senators. And now, Gore basically doesn't have to spend a nickel of resources in New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. AND, he now has a real shot at very key states like Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, where Jews vote in significant numbers. I stopped for gas on my way to work today, and filling up along side me was a Haredi family from Crown Heights. A boy, about four, noticed my Hebrew "Gore 2000" pin and his father asked if I had an extra. I gave it to him and asked what he thought about Lieberman. He said he was genuinely shocked. I said asked if he and his community voted in 1996. Yes, for Dole-Kemp. Would he vote this year? "How can you not vote for a Torah Jew?" he said.

Personal: Awesome! This is a great day for America and a great day for the Jewish people. Everything I know, from public and private sources, indicates that Sen. Lieberman is a fine representative of the Jewish people who will makes us proud. I helped his wife Hadassah secure some medical professionals for a conference on women's health she convened in Jerusalem last year, and she is as down-to-earth as you can possibly imagine. My one hope: That he is clear that chilul Shabbat for pikuach nefesh is NOT a compromise but an obligation. And no doubt pikuach nefesh has to be broadly defined if you hold the second highest office in the land. The good news for him: If he, like the current vice president, stays at my parents' Utah house on a ski vacation, Tovit and I have some pots and cutlery in a back closet that he can use!

OK, I have to do some real work :)

Back to Top

October 13, 2000: Why This Time It's Really Broke

Those of us who supported the Oslo process, whether in the American spirit that there is nothing that can't be achieved through negotiations, whether out of trust in the instincts of Yitzchak Rabin, or whether out of a sense of exasperation, have seen setbacks before. There were the terrorist attacks, the missed deadlines, the prisoner releases, the let-downs from the Palestinians, the election of Netanyahu, the skirmishes in which the Palestinian police were either passive or complicit, and of course the assassination of Rabin.

So why only yesterday did things reach the point of no return? Why are those of us who supported the process now forced to concede not only that it has failed, but that it was so ill-conceived that it never had a chance, and that anything resembling actual peace will have to wait at least another generation? The hard, but unavoidable reality is that Arafat can never again be called a "partner for peace," he will never again be trusted by the Israeli public, nor should he be. Barring the most pollyannaish, unimaginable scenario -- a democratic rebellion among the Palestinians, a la Yugoslavia -- this time it's really broke.

Not a few Zionists woke up yesterday with a feeling the British must have experienced the morning of September 1, 1939. Of course Hitler invaded Poland. That's true to his character. How could we have thought otherwise? How could we have believed that one capable of such evil would be anything but contemptuous of written agreements? How could we have been so naive?

Since the stunning news of Oslo seven years ago, our friends who opposed the process implored, "Look what Arafat is saying to his people," "Look at how the Palestinian Authority-controlled media is reporting," "Look at the hate they continue to teach their children?" But somehow we hoped there was some innocent explanation or this duality. That Israeli negotiators had received some satisfactory explanation of this behavior behind closed doors. That it didn't matter because when the Palestinian people recognized the fruits of peace all would be all right. We all knew the history -- the hijackings, attacks on school children, Leon Klinghoffer, the execution of American diplomats. But yet we hoped, evidence to the contrary, that the tiger had changed his stripes. Yet now we know such doubts cannot be overlooked. There is an unmistakable straight line between those disturbing signals from the Palestinian leadership, and the pillaging of Joseph's tomb and unconscionable lynching of Israeli soldiers.

While it is clear that Hitler was purely evil, Arafat's character is complicated by cowardly, inept leadership. Even if our naive hopes had some basis for reality, even if Arafat himself was resigned to a peaceful, two-state solution, he did not have the courage to even try to sell it to his people. Reliable reports from Camp David explain his seemingly irrational decision to give up everything over what amounted to a semantic difference over control of the Temple Mount, not because of some deeply held principled belief, but out of fear of assassination. That is the fundamental difference between Yassar Arafat and Anwar Sadat. The interests of the Palestinian people may have been the second most important thing to Arafat. His own personal interests were primary.

President Clinton said recently in a speech about democracy, without mentioning the peace process specifically, that, contrary to conventional wisdom, he had found democratically elected leaders much more flexible, much more willing to take risks, than all-powerful dictators. Speculating why this might be true, he said, "Maybe it's because when a dictator loses, he doesn't just lose an election, he loses everything."

So what now? What is the alternative to the peace process? Obviously, primary is finding a way to halt the violence. A national unity government is an important signal to the Palestinians and the rest of the world. And when some sense of calm is restored, Israel must take an unprecedented public relations offensive to preserve the diplomatic and economic gains achieved over the last seven years. Countries like China and India have to be made to understand that Israel took risks for peace, went the extra mile, but ultimately found an unwilling partner, and that there is no reason to break relations. Most importantly, King Abdullah of Jordan should be given all possible support, publicly and privately, to continue his brave experiment of moving an Arab country toward economic development, democratic reform and acceptance of Israel. If he can preserve the balancing act, and in doing so increase the fortunes of the Jordanian public, the example of the benefits of this path may become irresistible to neighbors on all sides. Finally, investors from all over have to understand that a continuation of the Palestinian problem will not impact the technological pace of development in Israel's new economy.

It is a heartbreaking time for us former supporters of Oslo. But, thank G-d, the Jewish people remain strong. The will to persevere cannot be defeated. And we will not give up hoping that in the next generation peace might somehow be achieved.

Chag Sameach.

Back to Top

November 4, 2000: Parshat Noach 5761, Kehilat Orach Eliezer, New York City As prepared for delivery by Michael Granoff

We’ve all had the experience of a project not turning out the way we hoped. But doesn’t it seem a little unexpected for that to happen to H’? Last week we read the whole creation story.

Then this week, we see H’deems the very creatures he created in His own image -- a notion R’ Gilad talked so beautifully about last week -- worthy of destruction.

What was the problem?

V'tishachet haaretz lefnei H', vtimaleh haaretz chamas - the earth was corrupted before H' and the earth was filled with violence. (Br. 6:11)

And so, after selecting Noach and his family to survive, He floods the earth and decides to start all over.

But then, just as the ground is drying and the new world is taking hold - again we see Hashem dissatisfied.

The people are building a tower.

The “ben adam l’chavero” – interpersonal relations - problem of the generation of the mabul is solved, but now there’s a terrible “ben adom l’Makom” problem as the people, unified, think they are greater than Hashem!

They proclaim their tower to be “be v'nase lanu shem”- making a name for themselves

So what does Hashem do to set the world on its destined course after these two failed starts? He finds a third way.

He implements a whole new strategy

First He takes away their common language. It is important that the first act involves language. Before the flood we are told of the corrupt and violent society that exists - and the root of most corruption and violence is in speech.

It is pointed out by the Alter Rebbe among others that the word for ark, Teyvah, is also the word for word - so Noach quite literally enters the word to escape from the world (It’s also interesting that the dimensions of the ark - 300x50x30 - spell lashn.)

And one cannot make this point on a Saturday November 4 without recalling that horrible Shabbos afternoon five years ag that Shabbos ended we all learned the horrific news that the Israeli Prime Minister had been killed - worse yet in the name of Judaism - and clearly as a result of inciteful speech.

So speech continues to be serious business.

Following the dispersion, speech cannot be taken for-granted, cannot be casually used toward corrosive ends, and humankind’s natural aggressive tendencies will again be directed toward each other, not in the narcissistic way of the tower-builders that offends Divine sensibilities.

So their won’t be another Tower - another Man against H’ moment - but what about the types of problem we saw in Noach’s generation?

What about the corruption and violence?

Well, right after we read of Hashem's confounding of the language and scattering of the people, we read the generations and first hear of Avram. In a multi-lingual, far-flung, diverse world, certain common values need a champion. And Avrahm was to represent that role.

So, after two false starts, this is H’s strategy for try number three:

Distribute mankind into a variety of cultures; And create a Jewish people to carry the flag of monotheism and morality, trying to bring some unity to this discordant new world.

HOW DOES IT WORK OUT?

Let’s look at it through a Biblical/historical perspective and then with a more modern approach.

Three parallel encounters with H’ reveal some incremental progress in the early going:

First, today’s parsha. H’ tells Noach he’s going to destroy the world by flood. Noah may be righteous enough in his generation to be the one family saved, but he doesn’t tell H' - hey wait a minute. What do you mean you’re going to destroy the whole world? Don’t act so quickly. He just goes about his business and builds the ark.

Later - H’ tells Avraham he is going to destroy Sodom.

Avraham does enter into some negotiations, and succeeds in raising the bar a bit. And in fact, where as “Et Haelokim hathalech Noach” - “Noach walked with H’,” H’ tells Avram to walk before Him - “…t’halech lefani v’haya tamim” (BR 6:9; BR 17:1)

Finally after the time of the episode of the egel - the golden calf - H’ tells Moshe he’s going to destroy the Jewish people. Moshe’s response is, well erase me from your Book, I'll sacrifice myself to save the people. Moshe genuinely puts the common good ahead of that of his own. How’s that for leadership?

AND HOW’S THE NEW STRATEGY WORKING OUT THESE DAYS?

I think you’d have to say, not too badly.

And the greatest example of this formula’s success is this remarkable country in which we are lucky enough to live - the United States of America.

At the start of next week’s parsha, H’ tells Avraham that he will be father to a great nation, “And I will bless those that bless you, and him that curse you, I will curse; and in you, shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Br. 12:3) The US has blessed us as Jews and has in turn been blessed by H’.

Leon Wiesltier said recently of the Jewish journey in America, that this does not just represent a change of address, it represents a total change. The US is a bold experiment that uncommonly responds to both false starts for the world.

Where as Rashi notes that the word used describe the generation of the flood “Hamas” means “robbery - a wanton disrespect for people’s property” which is a prerequisite for social order -- the protection of personal property was one of the first rights enshrined in the US Constitution.

And the US also represents a positive reversal of the curse of the Migdal - a coming together of those who speak different tongues, not to defy H’, but to honor Him.

Honor him by exercising its great power for good. By sharing its bounty with nations less fortunate. And most of all, honor Him by treating each of its citizens as created in His image. And even considering one from Avraham’s seed for its second in command!!

The US is the proud legacy of Noach - I believe it well represents what H' had in mind to begin with. So, will it last? Well, our charge, as children of Avraham, is to do all we can to preserve it.

Here’s a great example. The following comes from a speech delivered to the 1958 Rabbinical Asembly which caught the eye of none other than Richard Nixon who a decade later invited the speaker to give a sermon at the White House. Here it is:

“Reb Y'hoshua Ben Chananyah urged the Roman emperor Hadrian in 130 C.E. not to arm the barbarians, not to give them technical knowledge which ultimately they would use to destroy Rome, but to give them instead an understanding of what life is all about, which the Jews were trying to spread in the world." Who spoke these words? None other than R' Louis Finkelstein, the inspiration for KOE.

So now we’ve drawn the line from the universal, to the Jewish world, to the nation we live in, right here to our own community.

And what we here in our community are doing to carry forward H’s new strategy for the world should make us very proud.

Think about our most precious values ­ remember our 4 s’s?

Sensitivity, Sociability - making everyone feel at home, remembering always that every individual is created in H’s image - correcting the generation of the Mabul

Seriousness in our spirituality - acknowledging H’s Greatness, His Oneness, the failure of the generation of the tower.

Service - Actively reaching our to our local community, requiring community service as a condition of membership, (AND IF YOU’RE NOT INVOLVED IN IT, PLEASE TALK TO ADINA)

So let us continue to help H’ implement his new strategy for the world. Let us continue to fulfill our obligations, proudly and publicly, as Jews who recognize their role in H’s design.

Let us also fulfill all of our obligations and responsibilities and citizens of this great nation that has gone miles further than any other to create - not just a more perfect union - but a more perfect universe.

That’s why I consider voting to be a very religious act, and I hope everybody here will fulfill that obligation this Tuesday (even Danny Reichwald!).

Finally, let’s fulfill our obligations as members of this community within the Jewish people and within America, which places particular emphasis on the values of tolerance and service, values which make us as a human race worthy of the second chance offered us by our Creator. Shabbat Shalom.

Back to Top

November 8, 2000: Election Night in Nashville

The events of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning will be recounted and retold for generations to come. Tovit and I were unbelievably fortunate to have the privilege to be in Nashville, surrounded by people as excited and as passionate as we were, all of whom were focused so strongly on a Gore victory. Many had literally worked for the last 13 years to see Al Gore be President. Many knew Gore from his youth, or knew Lieberman from his days growing up in Connecticut. Still others were party legends. The confluence of people and of circumstance created an experience we will carry with us always, however this election ultimately turns out. I wanted to record these events in as vivid detail as I could while they were still fresh.

----------

Even for those love the ideological battle, when election day finally comes, the haunting majesty of democracy causes partisanship to be replaced with patriotism, divisive rancor with union. This particular election day was an extraordinary mix of emotions which included patriotism, partisanship, hope, despair, astonishment, ethnic pride, and more.

Early in the morning, Tovit and I went to cast our ballots about a block from our home. On line just ahead of us was an elderly couple amused by my "Gore-Lieberman" kippa. The woman, apparently in her early 90's, told us, her eyes red, how in 1932 she voted in an election in which just one name appeared on the ballot: Adolf Hitler. Today, she came to vote for Joe Lieberman.

We then flew to Nashville, and, as various exit polling rumors emerged, the emotional roller coaster began. We were up in Florida. We were even in Pennsylvania. We were down in Tennessee. We were down in Florida. And so on. In my pocket I carried the crib sheet I've been tallying and updating since August with the various electoral vote combinations we needed to win, as well as 3 pieces from the jigsaw puzzle I bought Tovit last year to help her learn the states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. (Incidentally, with the exception of New Mexico, which I expected Bush to win, and pending Oregon, and obviously Florida, my final crib sheet was precisely accurate.)

Along with a half dozen or so other arrivals to Nashville, Tovit and I went over to a union office building and called hundreds of local voters to make sure they had gotten out to the polls. That in itself was an interesting experience. It was a bit of a surprise to us provincial northeasterners visiting the Bible Belt how many answering machine greetings in the Nashville area end by wishing that you be blessed by a certain New Testament character. Following the phone bank, we went to a nearby hotel to the Lieberman guest suite. Though the Lieberman family did not, in the end, join us, we mingled with their friends from New Haven, Washington, and elsewhere. Rabbi Yitz and Blu Greenberg were among those in attendance. CNN was on and the first official results began to come in. Expectedly, most of those favored Bush, but as long as none from my crib sheet were among them, I remained cautiously hopeful.

Next, we went to another hotel, to an event sponsored by the "Democratic Leadership Council." The DLC is a centrist Democratic organization associated with the New Democratic Network, the organization founded by Joe Lieberman and through which I came to know the Liebermans. Here, there were new emotions. Thankful that we brought a camera, the first picture I took was of the buffet table on the far side of the room, and the signs on it reading "kosher." In fact, perhaps half of the several hundred guests were from the Orthodox Jewish community. Gore-Liberman kippot, of all varieties, abounded. Other treats included t-shirts, pins, and bouncing balls with sayings like "Batman; Superman; LIEBERMAN!" Since the DLC represents the centrist, pro-business, pro-globalism, new economy wing of the Democratic party which I consider to be my ideological home, seeing so many friends from my spiritual home there as well was simply an eerie experience.

There big screen TVs broadcast CNN, and the night took a sudden, very positive shift. When CNN projected that the Gore-Lieberman team had hit the "trifecta," that is that we were projected to win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, there was an explosion. Strangers hugged. Many wept. I went through my scrib sheet to try to find a combination by which we could still lose, which was unlikely but possible, and kept me sober though obviously excited. My father called from New Jersey. My good friend Herbert called from New York. Even Andrew Treitel called from Israel, even as I was sitting with his aunt. Soon after, it was announced that Joe and Hadassah would not actually be joining us, as they had planned, but they did speak to us by telephone. Joe sounded exhausted and reserved but was clearly gushing with pride. Hadassah, whom Joe introduced as someone who in the course of the campaign had "become a rock star," was very emotional. "It's scary to me, because this all might work out, and Joey might be Vice President," she said. However, moments after that call, the networks retracted their projection about Florida, and the emotional seesaw went in the other direction.

Soon after, it was announced that people should make their way to the VIP seats at the War Memorial Plaza a block away where the speeches would take place. The weather was beginning to get chillier and it had begun to drizzle slightly. I was much more concerned with monitoring the outcome than with getting a good seat for the speech. We decided to move on to another gathering to which we were invited at the top floor of a building overlooking the plaza. The time was about 10:00 P.M. The next four hours are indelibly imprinted on my memory.

The complex consisted of about four medium-sized rooms, each comfortably containing a few dozen people, and a hallway between them which buzzed with commotion all night. Of the two main rooms, one had a large television broadcasting CNN, the other adjoining room had a large table which contained six computers with DSL lines to track the results. Present were many of the senior people in the campaign, except for a handful of very top advisors who were with the Vice President. Other top Democrats, members of Congress and party leaders, were there for all or some of the evening.

Occasionally, we would look out the big bay windows onto the plaza below. The stage stood there vacant, big television screens on either side showing the electoral map. The crowd swelled and ebbed, umbrellas popping up as rain began to fall harder. No one quite knowing what to expect.

For much of the time, this is how things looked from where I stood. Peter Deutch, the Democratic Congressman, also incidentally an Orthodox Jew, who represents much of Broward County, Florida, the most Democratic area of the state, operated one computer. Next to him sat the head of the Democratic party, former mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell. I sat on the edge of the table, adjacent to the computer, my Palm and its calculator in one hand and my crumpled crib sheet in the other. As more people began to realize that we on the internet were getting quicker and more precise information than was available on CNN, more gathered around us. The scene was frantic, but the camaraderie was absolutely moving. In all my life I have never felt as I did during those hours. The speed of the roller coaster increased with every click of the "refresh" button. And the mix of elation and despair, the indescribable energy and tension in the room, combined with the very palpable sense of history in the making made for emotions that one is simply not accustomed to experiencing.

Peter Deutch, knowing the subtleties of Florida as anyone on earth, was our point-man on each county. Ed Rendell was our master strategist, at one point pulling his cell phone out and calling the Nevada campaign chair to make sure everything was straight-up there -- if we won Oregon and Nevada, we would pass the magic 270 even with out Florida. I was our statistician, taking the percentage of the vote remaining to be counted in each county and extrapolating based on results to date in that county how great the impact would be on the overall Florida vote.

(With this sense of history so strong, at several points I took pictures, and even recorded snip-its of sound on my pocket digital recorder. These will most certainly be saved for prosperity, and we'll try to post them on www.tovit.com soon.)

"OK, 12 percent still out in Broward, it's trending 65% our way," Deutch would holler, "5 percent still out state-wide, we're down by 30,000." I would then do the math, "That's 300,000 to go, we need 180,000, 30% of what's left is in Broward, therefore..." For a time, I had an intense feeling of amnesia, thinking back to August 17, 1990 when I watched our horse, "Die Laughing," come from 10th at the 3/4 mark, flying down the stretch, praying that he would get up before the finish line. It seemed so unlikely, I recalled, with 300 yards left, but he won that race by a nose. I wanted the same thing to happen here. And every time it seemed far-fetched, another refresh indicated we had gained more ground. This pattern went on for what seemed an eternity. We got closer and closer.

Then, suddenly, without warning, the bottom seemed to fall out. A press of the refresh button saw our margin go from 10,000 to 20,000. Then to 30,000 then to 50,000. What happened? No one knew. But we hardly had time to react when an awful sigh came from the adjacent room. "CNN is now projecting that George W. Bush will carry Florida, and will be the 43rd President of the United States." A pall cast over the rooms like a blanket smothering a fire. First there was dead silence as the shock set in. Then some people started to weep. Many embraced. Others stood stunned. What now? Gore would likely give a concession speech at the War Memorial. Many of us just couldn't bring ourselves to go. Exhausted physically and emotionally, most of us decided to return to our hotels. Tovit and I shared an elevator, and subsequently a car, with Jonathan Miller, the young promising Treasurer of the State of Kentucky, and his sister Jennifer who works for the DNC. Jonathan was an aide to Gore in his Senate days and stayed close to him ever since. He was one for whom this was a 13-year investment, and his dejection was extreme.

To add insult to injury, as we took the elevator to our room, three drunken bums, seeing clearly where our loyalties lied, crudely and spitefully mocked our depression, even as it was clear the fate of the country was far from their own minds. When Tovit and I reached our room around 2:30 Central time, I wanted only to go to sleep - for a very long time. In a total role reversal, Tovit wanted to watch the speeches on TV but I said I did not even want to see the TV on. For the first time in about 2 years, aside from Shabbat and on airplanes, I actually turned off my cellular phone. I didn't even go to the window from where we could see people filing to and from the War Memorial Plaza. I said the evening prayer, we had a good cry, and got into bed without setting an alarm.

After awaking, much earlier than I wanted at around 8:30, I spoke some of my raw emotions into my recorder. "What an awesome and mesmerizing experience and what an awful result. In that desperate final hour all I kept thinking about was how deeply I believed in the virtue of our cause. How I would cede all personal gain in a flash in order to have the result I believed the country needed. Now my largest worry is the Middle East. I remember the days of intimidation and blackmail of Israel from the last Bush administration." It was as low as I've felt in a long time.

Tovit then awoke and wanted to put the TV on. Still unable to bear the site of "President-elect Bush," I told her she could only after I'm safely in the shower. I got in the shower and a moment later there was a scream from the bedroom. "It says on the screen 'Presidential race too close to call'!!!" It couldn't be, I said. But why not, I thought. If they could take Florida away from us, why not from him as well? And with all the crazy things that had already happened in the campaign and the election, wouldn't it just be fitting? I had even predicted to some before Tuesday that I was half expecting to leave Nashville with the outcome still in doubt. In fact, that was becoming reality. (In my insomniatic, obsessive tension Monday night, I watched the last quarter and overtime of the football game, in which I randomly picked Green Bay to be "Gore." Minnesota freakishly missed a last second, easy field goal, and then Green Bay won in overtime as a receiver caught the winning ball he had at first missed, but it rolled up his back and arm without touching the ground and he ran it into the end zone. Well, I thought, maybe the real Gore will win in an equally freaky way! If only I knew!)

So while we slept for six hours, most of the world remained riveted to the drama, and just outside our window, give or take a block, campaign chairman Bill Daley told the hearty souls remaining there, "Our campaign continues." Now it was back to business. A note under our door announced a special breakfast meeting with Peter Knight, one of the senior campaign officials. I turned on my cell phone to find that I had no less than 23 unheard messages since 2:30 A.M.! Granted, 18 of them were from three people.

Tovit and I went to the breakfast where Peter told us where we stood. He began by saying we were going to win and that our motto is, "There was never any doubt!" He also said it would take $3,000,000 to pay campaign expenses associated with the recount. Within 15 minutes the whole sum was raised right there in the room. (During the "bidding," my father had the misfortune to call - and it cost him!) The campaign also needed lawyers, lots of them, to go to Florida and supervise returns. I was so proud of Tovit who unhesitatingly volunteered.

Soon after, we checked out and headed for the airport, Tovit to Tallahassee and me to Chicago, as previously scheduled. At this hour, she is there, and will learn in the morning if her services are needed. If so, she'll stay, if not, she'll come here. If there are more needed, I'll go there, but there's no evidence of that as of yet.

Based on the situation in Palm Beach, I remain very hopeful that this thing will still turn our way. I know that there is a fine line here. Before this gets completely out of hand, for the sake of the nation, one of the candidates is going to have to concede. If the recount does not turn the vote in our favor, if the remaining absentee ballots don't, and if the Buchanan votes in Palm Beach are not sufficient to change the outcome, I think the Vice President has to think long and hard before pursuing other remedies. To his credit, Richard Nixon passed up a chance to appeal irregularities in his close race with Kennedy. However, the recount, the remaining ballots, and the Palm Beach situation all clearly have to be addressed before an outcome can be final. The Vice President did win the most votes in the election, and that at least gives him a strong leg to stand on. And remember, the vast likelihood is, if not for the Palm Beach situation, it would be Gore ahead by one or two thousand votes. So for now, anyway, the campaign does continue. (Incidentally, Florida is one of those states where electors are legally bound to cast their vote as determined by the voters, so there is no chance for a few to defect in protest, as some have speculated.)

Whatever the outcome, this is one election day that Tovit and I will never forget, and it is an experience I wouldn't have traded for anything in the world.

Back to Top

December 13, 2000: The Bush Civil Rights Initiative

The Bush Civil Rights Initiative
by Michael Granoff

Among the many ironies of this post-election drama, one should resonate beyond the current chaos. Traditionally liberals have relied on broad, sweeping rights of the letter and spirit of the Constitution to make their cases. Now it is the campaign of Governor George W. Bush which invokes these rights to oppose manual recounts. This argument should be examined, not just for how it relates to this dispute, but for how it can and should add the next rung to the latter of civil rights in America.

The principles of equal protection, including equal voting rights, for all citizens under the law, have evolved and expanded ever since the Constitution was first enacted. Amendments prohibiting slavery and extending equal protection to the state, as well as the Federal level, were enacted in the wake of the Civil War. The enfranchisement of women was only adopted in 1920. And the Voting Rights Act was only passed in 1964 (5?).

The position of the Bush campaign as argued before the Supreme Court is that the manual count sanctioned by the Florida Supreme Court violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection provision because it did not mandate a single standard by which the votes should be counted. Therefore, the argument goes, if one county decides to count "dimpled chads" and another does not, then, depending on your opinion of the legality of counting dimpled chads, either voters are having their votes excluded from the count, or others are having theirs diluted by the inclusion of illegal votes. It was a position which seemed to interest even those Justices who did not side with the motion to grant the say on Saturday, and it would be a compelling argument, except for one thing: If you accept it, then you have to concede that the voting process, not just the counting process, runs afoul of the Equal Protection clause, not just in Florida, but in each of the 50 states.

In the Supreme Court hearings Monday, David Boies, representing Vice President Gore, convincingly demonstrated that ballots in counties which voted with the "punch-card" system were 5 to 6 times as likely to register as an undervote - no vote for President - as those in counties which used optical scanners. Even in Broward County, where the most liberal, indented chad standard was employed, only about a quarter of the undervote ballots recovered a discernable vote. Since there is no alternative explanation is conceivable for this phenomenon, it is clear that voters in counties with the punch-card system were not treated equally with respect to their voting rights, at least as egregious a violation of the Equal Protection rights as would be an objective attempt to discern the intent of those same voters. As has been widely reported, counties with the more modern optical equipment are likely to be the more affluent counties, whereas the old and inexpensive punch-card ballots are by-and-large used in counties with a greater proportion lower-income, and largely minority, citizens.

If Governor Bush is to win the White House on the strength of the argument that Equal Protection requires each ballot to be counted uniformly, than it is incumbent upon him to aggressively pursue legislation giving states the guidance and resources necessary to see that every citizen has a uniform opportunity to cast that ballot. Doing such would not only be a consistent and virtuous first initiative, it might be just the measure to demonstrate his intent to unify thhe nation, which he so often echoed in his campaign. Few times in its history has America been more in need of such unity, and Bush has given himself the perfect opening to act.

Back to Top

April 18, 1999: Peter James Fisch inquires about his garbage truck

Peter James Fisch · 1630 30th Street, #341 · Boulder CO · 80301

April 18, 1999

Park Hyatt
24th at M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Park Hyatt:

I'm planning on staying in your hotel on May 26 and 27. I wanted to clear something up with you in advance.

I drive a garbage truck. No, I am not a GARBAGE MAN, I just use an old garbage truck as my primary vehicle. I got it really cheap from the city of Boulder ($1200) when they bought a new line of garbage trucks. Plus insurance is really cheap!

I will be driving my garbage truck to your hotel for my visit and will leave it at your hotel when I am there and when I am touring Washington. There is a problem that I often run into and I want to avoid during my stay. The problem is that passers-by have a tendency to throw their garbage into the back of my truck. I guess it's understandable, it being a garbage truck and all. But I don't have a permit to dump the trash, and so I have to pick it out myself (pretty gross!).

Can I park my vehicle in front of your hotel and give the doorman a few extra bucks to keep an eye on it, and prevent people from throwing their trash into it? I do not want to inconvenience anybody but I have heard that Park Hyatt bends over backwards to meet the needs of its guests and I didn't think this would be such a reach.

Please let me know as I am finalizing my itinerary now.

Thanks Park Hyatt!

Peter James Fisch

Back to Top

April 19, 1999: Peter James Fisch writes to Governor George W. Bush

Peter James Fisch · 1630 30th Street, #341 · Boulder CO · 80301

April 19, 1999

The Honorable George W. Bush
George W. Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc.
P.O. Box 1902
Austin, Texas 78767-1902

Dear Governor Bush:

As a hardcore conservative Republican, I want to congratulate you on the fine job you are doing in trying to put this country back on the right track.

I'm writing today with a little idea I've been giving a lot of thought to over the past several months. Two of the pillars of Republican idealism are promoting a strong family values agenda and cutting taxes, giving the citizens of this country the discretion to spend their money rather than Washington. I could not be more supportive of these ideals.

My idea encompasses both ideals in a most unique proposal that I hope you will champion. I have personally not been able to demonstrate strong family values thus far in my adult life for a very simple reason. I do not have a nuclear family of my own! I realized that in order to have a family of my own, so I could help promote the Republican ideal of strong family values, I first had to find a spouse. Easier said than done! My records indicate that in calendar year 1998 I spent $4,127.67 courting potential mates (tips included). That is no small sum. Here's where my idea comes in! Why not propose that single Americans over the age of 18 be allowed to DEDUCT THE COST OF DATING!

This idea has several factors in its favor. Obviously it will encourage young Americans to date, helping them along in finding the spouse they need to make the family they need to have family values! Second, it will be another form of tax relief for the young workers of this nation. Finally, I believe it will really help the social lives of me and many others. Here's how: Some of my best dates have been the kind of ambiguous ones - you know the story, you go out with someone who you're really friends with but one or both parties might have something more in mind. Now, before I file my taxes I can call one of them up: "Hey Janie, remember when we went to the movies last August. Do you think I can deduct that from my income?" Now that would be much easier for me than actually telling Janie I thought it was a date. That gives me an opening to go on more dates with Janie, moving the relationship forward.

This is an idea whose time has come, and you are the man to make it happen! Why not make it the centerpiece proposal of your upcoming Presidential campaign.

As the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, I'm giving you first crack at it, but if I don't hear from you soon, I might have to share it with other Republican hopefuls! So write back soon!

Take care, Governor! Say hi to Dad for me!

Sincerely,

Peter James Fisch

Back to Top

June 1, 1999: Tovit's "Burger Buddy"

Semer will love this. The rest of you might enjoy it too.

Following the Third Annual Memorial Day weekend in Utah, the cast departed yesterday (except that I stayed until this AM to come to SF). Tovit flew through Chicago, and, tracking the flight on the web, I saw that she had a pretty bad thunderstorm delay. Not a big fan of flying to begin with, I knew she would be aggregated, tired and, above all, hungry. Thinking of ways to ameliorate her experience, I called on our buddy Ken at the world's best kosher burger joint in Skokie. (Source of Mark and Simone's Fed-Ex breakfast burgers the day after their wedding.) None of the yeshiva buchers working at the restaurant had cars, so I asked him to make a general announcement to the diners asking if anyone wanted to make a few quick dollars.

Andrea Lesch, a native of Seattle studying at Loyola University, came to the phone. I told her she had $30 coming to her if she delivered a Burger Buddy and fries to Tovit as she disembarked from her flight at O'Hare. She accepted the mission. I gave her the gate information and new arrival time, based on the computer tracker.

When Tovit got off the plane, she was immediately encountered by Andrea holding a sign bearing her name. "Please accept this hamburger with love from Michael Granoff," she said as she handed Tovit the bag and departed.

While many on this list would undoubtedly withstand days-worth of delays for a Burger Buddy, I'm not sure Tovit thought that it made the delay worthwhile. But at least it gave me another good story!

Back to Top

Mike

March 11, 1998: KOE Farewell Address

First of all, I want to say that my decision not to seek a third term in this role, which wasn't finalized until a week ago, was one of the most difficult I in a long time.

And let me say, contrary to some rumors floating around, the decision had nothing to do with internal poll numbers that showed me trailing, and most certainly, nothing at all to do with the fact that the board of trustees denied Eli and my request for an internship program.

But seriously, I have most certainly put a lot into this organization over the last several years, but I've gotten even more out of it. And I suggest that each of you to consider what you might get out of being more involved in KOE. I think you'll find that the time, the energy that you put in can be a very small investment, compared to what you get in return. You get not only a feeling of satisfaction, but you have a lot of fun along the way as well. I've gotten to know so many people through my involvement in KOE over the last several years in ways that I would other wise have never had the chance.

I can't go any further without recognizing one person in particular without whom these last two years would not have been nearly as rewarding or as successful. When Eli and I became co-Presidents two years ago I was not at all certain how it was going to work out. Eli and I often have different ways of approaching things and different styles, but it turned out that these differences gave us the chance to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. I have learned a tremendous amount from Eli, and he's been a source of calm at moments when I less than calmly responded to the several crises that arose during our term. I think it's been a terrific partnership and I'm very grateful for it.

I'm going to get into just a couple of substantive matters in just a moment, but first let me give you a couple of statistics just for fun.
Here are some numbers for you, two years ago, and today: Two years ago, number of people on the membership list, 94. Today, 289. Number of people on the e-mail distribution list, Two years ago, 17. Today. 231. Number of trustees. Two years ago, 11 trustees. Today, 29.
Now these following statistics are only for this past year. Here are the total number of e-mails sent or received by the KOE e-mail address, divided by category: General 937, Board, 321, Chairs 21, Executive, 319, Finance 78, Ramath Orah 25, Jewish Home 52, Youth Hostel 37, Move 159, Brochure 152, Structure 57, Ritual 17, Search 160, Shavuot 12, TW@KOE 491, Yedidiah 29. For a grand total of 2,859 e-mails!!
Disk space: 33MB from this year, 14.4MB from the previous two years

Now let me get just a little bit serious for a couple of minutes.
Last year I gave a "State of the Minyan" address in which I tried to articulate what I thought were the things that distinguished us as a community. As I've repeated ad nausea since then, I think there are four: 1) The seriousness with which we take t'filah and learning, 2) the emphasis we put on welcoming newcomers, whatever their background might be, 3) the special sensitivity we exhibit, particularly on gender issues, and 4) the community service which gave birth to us and has continued to define us. I believe even more today that those four elements are the key to KOE's continuing to thrive. When I defined those things last year, I was also implicitly saying that I didn't think this building - the Jewish Home - was in itself intrinsic to our identity. I was thrilled that so many of you agreed with me and voted for us to move to the Youth Hostel last fall. But now that that transition has successfully been completed, it's time for us to do a cheshbon hanefesh, to reflect on those things that really do distinguish us. I'm thrilled that new committees, such as the ritual committee and the community service committee, have already begun this process.
I want to talk about just two things in particular, that I feel very strongly about in terms of the future of the minyan. The issues are, simply put, inside and outside: That is, our internal governance as the mid-size organization we now are, not the baby one we were. And our relationship to the outside world - and the implications of our independence on those relations.

The way I see it, when KOE was at Dr. Finkelstein's apartment, and that was before my time, but that was its infancy. The years in this building I see as the childhood years. Now we are in the Youth Hostel and I think we are at the stage of adolescence - a period of tremendous growth, not yet fully mature, but much more defined than we used to be.
Up until this point, all of the matters of governance, administration, finance, ritual, community service, toranut, kiddush, etc., all of those things could neatly fit into the two hour block we have each month for the trustees to meet. I have said this before, but I want to say it to the whole community: That is no longer the case. The growth I have described has put us at a stage where we no longer have the luxury of dealing with the smaller issues in that forum. There are two possible answers: We can meet more often - and as busy as everybody is I don't think that's something there would be a lot of support for - or we can change the paradigm of governance for KOE. Here's how I think KOE should be governed. I think the elections that take place this afternoon should mean something. I think when the whole membership endorses a number of individuals to serve roles in the organization, that they then have the confidence of the membership to exercise a wide degree of discretion. This is truthfully a major reason that I chose not to run - because I fundamentally believe that this is important to our continuing to thrive as an organization and a community, and I recognize that had I said this with the intention of running it could have sounded self-serving. But I think that most administrative matters should be dealt with individually, or in unison, by the executive committee you're about to elect. As for non-administrative matters, I think that trustee meetings should be to hear the reports of various committees, such as Ritual, Community Service, Learning program, etc. to discuss policy issues related to the committees' work and to authorize policy changes. On-going programming should be the realm of specific committees. I know this is dry stuff, but it's the smooth performance of these functions that lets us focus on the stuff that really matters to us all.
Old Model - X program on Y day.
New model - lets see more types of x programs, and then let the committees take that advice and run with it.

I hope to continue to come to meetings, but I've got to be honest with you: I don't want to come if we're going to talk about how often the membership list should go out, whether or not we should get a post office box, how long the new mechitza pole has to be. After the way Eli and I conducted the search and move process, I don't think we can be accused of not caring about process. But process just as important as process is progress. And I think we have to look at some of these things in a new way.

Second area I want to talk about:
Reaching Out
The search process last year would have been a useful exercise whatever the outcome because it gave us the chance to define ourselves as a community. One thing that emerged is that many of us feel very strongly about not being affiliated. The mere word 'Orthodox' in the charter of Congregation Ramath Orah made it a non-starter for many. I not only can understand that, I frequently assert that I find that labels divide more than they define and I define myself merely as someone who strives to be halachic.
But if we are going to be vigilant about our independence, we can take two possible tacts. We can say that we are so removed from any other group or organization that we will not become involved with anybody. We won't co-sponsor events, we won't announce the events of other institutions and so forth. Or, we can say that we do not label ourselves specifically so we have the freedom to do useful events, events that reflect our values, with any organization. And of course, there is always the extreme example - that's not what I'm talking about, but within reason it is my very strong feeling that we should be reaching out to work with Jews of any philosophy or denomination, so long as they understand that our cooperation is not an endorsement of any religious or political agenda, and so long as we are doing programming which is consistent with our values. The shelter staffing program with Anshe Chesed, which I had the opportunity to participate in last week, is a perfect example.

I firmly believe that this organization is making a loud and powerful statement - and I don't want that muffled by refusal to participate with other shuls and organizations. We are uniquely positioned to build bridges - not to the 21st century - but between Jews, and in the general community as well. We have a history which give us credibility but we also have the freedom of independence. Let's use that freedom wisely.

Let me just conclude by saying what a privilege it's been to serve as co-President with Eli for the last 2 years. I know that both of us have worked tremendously hard because we both believe that this is an organization which is making an important statement on the ground about issues which are essential to Jewish continuity and to Jewish unity. I'm not going to say that you won't have me to kick around anymore, I intend to stick around, and to be involved. And my final hope is that everybody here will also find a way to be involved so we can channel the enormous creativity and energy that exists in this room into an illustration that makes a compelling statement to the whole Jewish world.

Thank you.

Back to Top

May 12, 1998: It's the Global Economy, Stupid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike's Musings May 1998 Michael J. Granoff

IT'S THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, STUPID
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week's announcement of the purchase of Chrysler by Damlier-Benz marks a watershed event in the global economy. As with consolidation in the banking industry, giant, international, industrial mergers will likely take this cue and begin to form visionary new entities without borders that will shape the global economy of the 21st Century.

Some, led by the likes of Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader and Ross Perot, view such developments with horrified alarm. They believe a healthy America is one that erects walls - keeping foreign goods, services and people off of our shores, in stark contrast to the policies and values that made this country the richest and freest in the history of humankind. One wonders why they might not take this notion to its next logical step by proposing a constitutional amendment that would permit New York to block competitive goods from New Jersey, or to keep out those carpet-bagging commuters who take jobs that could otherwise belong to New Yorkers!

The economic rationale for open borders is virtually unassailable. When each region and nation to produce the goods and services they are best at producing, and then trade those goods freely with others, the efficiency benefits all parties. Corporate consolidations, like those announced last week, seek to combine global resources to make gain even more efficiency, without regard to political borders, resulting in more plentiful and suitable jobs for workers, as well as lower prices and greater selection for consumers. (There is, to be sure, short-term displacement, just as there is with technological advancement, but the best way to help those displaced is to train them to function in a global economy, not to distort economic reality by artificially protecting their jobs.)

But as compelling as the economic argument is, there's an even more fundamental justification for free trade. To understand this argument, take a broad sweep of history, from the beginning of humankind through many millennia in the future and imagine a landscape of three great eras.

In the first era people were scattered all about, creating distinct cultural identities and values, physically incapable of influencing or being influenced by other people in different parts of the globe.

In the second era, which encompasses about the last 2,000 years, interactions between these cultures began to become possible, the watershed century clearly being the one we are about to depart from, in which global communications went from being measured in months to nanoseconds. Suspicion and fear, resulting in catastrophic consequences on countless occasions characterized this era, the 20th century in particular.

Finally the third era, which I hope we are about to enter, is one in which global commercial, cultural and personal interaction becomes so ubiquitous that its scary elements gradually begin to dissipate. In this era, the unique cultural identities developed in the first era become the strength through diversity on the world stage that has been demonstrated in microcosm by the United States.

The hope for this third great era is embodied by the most fundamental values of each of the major American political parties - the Republicans' championing of free, unregulated markets and the Democrats' deeply rooted value of the equality of opportunity for all -here taking that notion to a global level.

It is frightening to see that despite the longest sustained expansion in US economic history, largely the result of increased openness, many Americans seem timid about continuing down this road. The economic rationale for open borders is palpably demonstrable. The political rationale for such a policy, which creates thriving capitalistic democracies all over the world, is also self-evident.

But at its core the direction American chooses to go in the years ahead will really boil down to a battle between the past and the future, between fear and hope, between self-doubt and confidence, between a world of fortified borders and a world of cooperation and openness.

Back to Top

May 15, 1998: Death of the Chairman (Frank Sinatra)

I just wanted to encourage my friends to pay some attention to the torrent of media coverage that has already begun at the passing of the 20th Century's greatest entertainer. Frances Albert Sinatra was the most distinct, distinguishable and distinguished voice ever recorded. His legend will live forever and I have no doubt that 100 years from now his work will be no less ubiquitous than it is today.

Mike

PS: When you see Jonathan Schwartz on various programs and papers - that's the guy who I regularly harass on the radio. He is the world authority on Sinatra.

Back to Top June 30, 1998: Mayor Proposes Strolling Permits

NEWS

MAYOR PROPOSES STROLLING PERMITS

Measure Would Close Sidewalks to Some at Peak Times

By FREDRIC U. BAKER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Reuters, June 30, 1998, New York) - Mayor Rudolph Giuliani proposed today that permits be issued for pedestrians on certain midtown sidewalks during peak hours. "This is the next logical step in the quality of life campaign I began over four years ago," the mayor said at a brief press conference announcing the plan. "Pedestrian congestion is just as much a concern as is vehicular congestion. It not only frustrates our citizens, it costs us millions in time lost. Particularly during the summer and holiday periods, when hundreds of thousands of tourists share the same narrow sidewalks with the millions who work here, the crowding can reach intolerable proportions."

According to the plan, the permit requirement would be rolled out gradually. It would begin with the area around Rockefeller Center, Fifth and Sixth Avenues between 48th and 52nd Streets, referred to by the Mayor as the "red zone," and would be enforced during "peak periods," defined as 8:00 A.M. - Noon and 4:00 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. An aide to the mayor suggested that if the plan succeeded in reducing pedestrian congestion at peak times in that area, it would then be expanded from 42nd to 59th Streets, and possibly would also be tried in the blocks surrounding around Herald Square.

At the start, businesses with operations inside the red zone would be given a set number of bright-colored passes which employees could wear around their necks. "We don't want to have to put a large number of officers out there to enforce this, so we've made the passes very large, bright and easy to spot." Area hotels would be supplied with a fixed number of passes in two colors - one for their business guests and one for tourists. Tourists would be prohibited from strolling in the "red zone" during the enforcement hours. The mayor was strongly challenged on this point by reporters. "Look, you know I love to encourage people to visit New York City, the greatest city in the world. But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that they stay away from our busiest areas of commerce during peak periods when the flow of pedestrian traffic is particularly effected by their generally slow pace, skyward gazing and photo shooting. They have plenty of other places to spend their time, and they will have access to all areas at non-peak periods."

During the first month, pedestrians in the red zone at peak times without permits would be given warnings. Following that, there would be a $25 fine per violation, enforced by the same unit the mayor designated to crackdown on jaywalkers earlier this year.

The measure would require the support of the City Counsel. Speaker Peter Vallone said he was not initially inclined to the idea. "First it's jaywalking, then it's the street vendors and now he wants to keep most people off of the streets all together? This is simply getting out of hand. I'm not suggesting that pedestrian congestion is not a serious matter, but I think the mayor is once again trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. I think this measure will have a very difficult time in the Counsel."

Meanwhile, Patsy Kline, of the New York office of the American Civil Liberties Union said she would have a statement tomorrow after conferring with the National Director in Washington. At first blush, she added, the measure seems at best offensive and at worst patently unconstitutional. "When you start to talk about requiring people to wear labels identifying them as workers, visitors or tourists I think you're getting into some very dangerous territory," she said.

The mayor said he expected his measure to gain widespread public support. "I think all New Yorkers are aware that at certain times some of our sidewalks have just become far too crowded. I think they'll see this as a reasonable measure to alleviate that congestion." Vallone suggested the City Counsel will take up the measure after the Independence Day recess.

Back to Top

September 25, 1998: George Gershwin, b. Sept. 26, 1898

"Gershwin was, and remains, one of the greatest voices that ever rang
out in the history of American urban culture" -- Leonard Bernstein, 1973

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

Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of George Gershwin.

Although his life was tragically cut short at the age of 38, Gershwin's impact was as monumental as it was universal. His music crossed through every genre of his time and even created new ones. He wrote sophisticated concert music, opera, classical concertos, Broadway musicals, movie musicals, ragtime, folk, jazz, blues and more. Those who have studied the development of American music credit him with opening up entirely new avenues of creativity, and with paving the way for all virtually all types of music that later became popular in America, from Elvis to the Beatles to contemporary rock. He was simply the most influential composer of the 20th Century.

His musical/opera Porgy and Bess is considered by many the greatest score ever written. Some of his best known songs include Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, My One and Only, Lady Be Good, Nice Work if You Can Get it, 'S Wonderful, Someone to Watch Over Me, They All Laughed, A Foggy Day, Strike Up the Band, Bidin' My Time, Of Thee I Sing, He Loves and She Loves, Love is Here to Stay, Isn't it a Pity, Shall We Dance, Love Walked In, They Can't Take that Away From Me, Fascinating Rhythm, Let's Call the Whole Thing Off and his own personal favorite, I Got Rhythm.

NPR and WQEW (1560-AM) in New York will be playing Gershwin exclusively all weekend long. Additionally, there are dozens of Gershwin tributes all over the country in the next several weeks. More can be learned about these events and about Gershwin on dozens web sites including www.gershwincentennial.com, from which the following is taken:
------------------------------------------------------------------

George Gershwin, born in Brooklyn, New York on September 26, 1898 was
one of the musical geniuses who changed the face of the American
musical. From the minute the first piano arrived at the Gershwin home,
George, at the time only 12 years old, showed remarkable talent. "No
sooner had the upright been lifted through the window of the front room
than George sat down and played a popular tune of the day. I remember
being particularly impressed by his left hand. I had no idea he could
play and despite his roller-skating activities...he had found time to
experiment on a player piano," said his older brother Ira.

Gershwin's musical training began when he was nearly 13. He was
surrounded by the world of Tin Pan Alley. At 15 George Gershwin quit
high school to work for $15 a week as a pianist and "song plugger" for
the music publisher, Remick's. He soon became aware of the uneven
quality of many of the songs he was required to play. Knowing that he
could compose better tunes, he made the rounds of other music publishing
houses. Many of the songs that date from this period were successfully
revived by Gershwin some years later, for he always made a point of
storing material for future use. "Nobody by You," from La La Lucille
(1919) was written while Gershwin was at Remick's. "Drifting Along with
the Tide," heard in George White's Scandals of 1921, as well as "Some
Rain Must Fall" and "Dancing Shoes," introduced in A Dangerous Maid
(1921) also trace their genesis to his days as a song plugger.

In 1916, his persistence to publish was finally rewarded when the Harry
Von Tilzer Music Company bought his song "When You Want &lsquoEm, You
Can't Get &lsquoEm, When You've Got 'Em, You don't Want &lsquoEm"
written with Murray Roth--the first published work for both men.
"Swanee," made famous by Al Jolson, brought Gershwin his first real
fame.

When he teamed up with his older brother Ira in the early 1920's they
were among the most popular Broadway songwriters of the era. George and
Ira created a ceaseless flow of brisk, infectious rhythms and
affectingly poignant ballads. Working together, they fashioned the words
to fit the melodies with a "glove-like fidelity." This extraordinary
collaboration led to a succession of 22 musical comedies, among them
Lady, Be Good! (1924), Oh, Kay! (1926), Funny Face (1927), Strike Up the
Band (1927/30), Girl Crazy (1930), and Of Thee I Sing (1931), the first
musical comedy to win a Pulitzer Prize.

From his early career, Gershwin had ambitions to compose "serious
music." The wonderfully familiar, yet sophisticated, works include:
Rhapsody in Blue (1924), Concerto in F (1925), Preludes For Piano,
(1926), An American In Paris (1928), and Second Rhapsody (1932). The
brilliant work, Rhapsody in Blue was premiered at the Aeolian Hall, New
York on February 12, 1924 with Paul Whiteman conducting his Palais Royal
Orchestra and George as the piano soloist.

One afternoon in the autumn of 1926 Gershwin showed his secretary a thin
book and declared, "One day I'll make an opera out of it." The
just-published book was titled Porgy. The "folk opera" as Gershwin
called it, Porgy and Bess (co-written with DuBose and Dorothy Heyward
and Ira Gershwin) was the Gershwin brothers' most ambitious undertaking,
tightly integrating unforgettable songs with drama. It debuted at the
Colonial Theatre in Boston on September 30, 1935 and moved to the Alvin
Theatre in New York two weeks later. In addition to its revivals in 1942
and 1953 and subsequent world tours, Porgy and Bess was made into a
major motion picture in 1959.

George Gershwin pursued art as he did his music, with an intense
vitality. He accumulated one of the finest collections of contemporary
art in the country. In the eight short years he was active as a painter,
sketcher and watercolorist, he exhibited an impressive growth in
draftsmanship and control of color. Many of those familiar with his
artwork believed that with time his talent might have flowered into
something comparable to his genius at songwriting.

Back to Top

December 23, 1996: Eulogy for Eva Granoff z"l

For my friends who are interested, and who couldn't be at the funeral, I'm taking advantage of this wonderful technology to send the following remarks that I prepared. I ended up speaking without reading, but I think it went very much as follows. I was preceded by my father, my uncle (her son-in-law) and my cousin. They all spoke very movingly and I wish I had transcripts of their remarks as well. But I think this captures fairly well what my grandmother meant to me. So I wanted to share it with my friends.

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

On Wednesday, just after finishing my exams, I heard that Grandma Eva had been hospitalized. After speaking to Dad, and I hearing that she was stable, I needed to rent a car to go to the suburbs of Chicago for kosher meat for next semester. Not really paying attention to the make of the car, as I started to drive I suddenly noticed from the hood ornament it was a Buick. At that instant, I laughed out loud. I don't know if other people remember this, but Grandma used to think that every car was a Buick. I remember at one time Dad got an Oldsmobile. When she saw it, her first reaction was, "Oh, Marty, it's beautiful, I see you got another Buick." All right. Same GM family. But later he got an Audi. Again, "It's a beautiful car, Marty, it's a Buick, no?"

What does this tell us about Grandma Eva? It tells us that cars were not her field. Family was her field. Right now she's smiling. Her family is together. This is what always made her happy.
** Ad lib about parsha - Ya'akov's last wish was for Yosef to forgive his brothers for selling him into slavery and for the whole family to take his remains from Egypt to Israel for burial, which they do, burying the last patriarch of the Jewish people, as we bury the matriarch of our family **

Imagine what it must have been like for this young girl, with such a strong instinct for family, to first live in constant fear for their safety, then to leave her family for the uncertainties of a place half a world away. Few of us here can relate to such a thing. We all have our ups and downs and our times of trial, but imagine a young child having to leave her family and everything she'd ever known with almost no formal education and to be thrust penniless into a country not even understanding the language.

Look at what she and Poppy Abe did together. Look how they worked to give their children everything they needed to make the most of themselves. ** Ad Lib about interview with Grandma where she says in her first job in this country she did so well she was earning more than the men. ** Look at how they made it such that Jeryl, Gwynne, Karyn, Gillian and I - only the second generation born on these shores - were brought up in a world where what we can achieve is limited only by our imaginations.

Just imagine if she and Poppy Abe had not taken that enormous leap of faith - to give up everything they had known and come here. Our generation might never have been born. If we had we would have faced a childhood of tyranny and oppression instead of one of boundless opportunity.

I will always be grateful that Grandma lived to see me grow to be an adult. I'll always remember meeting her at Dad's office and going to see shows growing up. I will always remember coming down to visit her in Florida - no matter how punctually I arrived she would always greet me with "Oh, tanks G-d, I was so worried, I thought already that something had happened" - and that farina that no one has ever been able to replicate. I'll always remember coming to visit her in Brooklyn - and how difficult she made it to leave. I'll also remember the shoeboxes full of rugela she used to Federal Express to me in college. The first time, she called me late one afternoon to ask if it had arrived. When I told her it hadn't she got all upset and, you know, insisted she would sue them. Well, it came the next morning. After this pattern played itself out one more time I realized that Grandma thought that FedEx provided same day delivery rather than next day delivery. So from then on when she called I just told her how delicious they were and waited for the to arrive the next morning. And I was right. They were delicious.

Thursday night I watched the videotape of her 80th birthday party - turns out she was 82 at the time, but who's counting? Last night I watched a series of interviews I did with her several years ago. She was so full of life. She was so full of celebration.

B'zrat Hashem, with the help of G-d, I hope to one day have grandchildren. I'm going to show them these tapes, and tell them about Grandma, and about how their good fortune, like mine, is owed entirely to hers and Poppy Abe's great courage.
When we first thought of having a party for Mom and Dad's 30th Anniversary last week we briefly thought that we shouldn't because we just had one for Dad's 60th birthday six months earlier. But then we remembered Grandma always saying that there was no excuse to pass up an opportunity to celebrate.
Today we gather here to acknowledge her death, but perhaps even more importantly, to celebrate her life. A life in which every child and grandchild and great-grandchild was loved beyond limit, a life in which every present and every visit couldn't come soon enough, a life in which every car was a Buick. Good-bye, Grandma Eva. I love you.

Back to Top

September 1992: Stump-Speech on behalf of Governor Bill Clinton

The following are excerpts and fragments from the "stump speech" I gave while campaigning for Gov. Bill Clinton in the fall of 1992.

I want to thank _________________________________
for organizing this, and all of you for coming out here tonight, I know how busy the life of a student is I was one not too long ago.

We're pleased with how we're doing, we feel our message of change is resonating, but there's a long way to go and we need your help! There are a lot of people who still haven't made up their minds and as Dan Quayle said on October 21, 1988 in Troy Ohio: "It's no exaggeration to say that the undecideds could go one way or another."

I'm going to tell you a little bit about why I'm so committed to this election, then I'm going to talk a little bit about some of what I see as the major differences between the candidates, then I'll speak a little more specifically on issues that are particularly important to us as Jews and then I'll tell you a little bit about how you can help in the final weeks of this effort.

First I want to tell you why I'm so committed to this campaign. Lots of people have been telling me, oh you must be getting into a career in politics, you must do this kind of stuff all the time, are you going to Washington after the election, etc. The truth is I am not all that involved in politics, the reason that I am so committed to this race is because as a young person and as a Jew I see this as the clearest choice we may ever be confronted with in choosing a President and the stakes may never be higher. I think on November 3rd we'll be choosing more than just a President, I think we'll be defining what kind of an America we're going to live in for the next generation. And, as I said, I think we're faced with a clear choice.

There's another thing I want to be perfectly clear about: There are many reasons to vote against George Bush, and I'll talk about some of them, but I think that they're exceeded by the number of reasons to vote for Bill Clinton. This is not a case of the lesser of two, or I guess now the lesser of three, evils--Bill Clinton would be a strong candidate in any year. It just so happens that he's running in a year in which the alternative is so weak.

I first heard about Bill Clinton in 1986. I was reading an Israeli publication which talked about a program called HIPPY, Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, developed at Hebrew University by Dr. Avima Lombard. The article talked about the success the program had already had in Israel and the fact that it was getting a lot of attention elsewhere. It mentioned that at that time, four agencies from Arkansas had sent representatives for training at the direction of that state's Governor who had inquired personally about the program. The article went on to quote both Gov. Clinton and Hillary, raving about the program and its Israeli developers and expressing their enthusiasm about its potential to help youngsters in Arkansas. Today, thanks to HIPPY, Arkansas is a leader in preschool education.

There are vast differences between Bill Clinton and Al Gore's vision for America and that of George Bush and Dan Quayle. It was George Bush who has seemed to propose the theory that the President has a responsibly to set a kind of moral tone for the country. I think the behavior of the President does indeed influence that of the country as a whole and that a President's values are often reflected in the populace. For the last 12 years, I think the moral tone that has been resonating from the White House, and I feel this way particularly about the last four years, has been one which is perhaps best characterized by George Bush's own admission that he would do "anything it takes" to be reelected. I saw a bumper sticker on my last bus trip that I think is a byproduct of this mentality. It said, "I'm spending my kids' inheritance." Well, that might as well be the federal government talking about our generation. I think the notion is consistent with the Republican philosophy of the 80s: we saw borrowing and the perpetuation of enormous debt both in the federal government and among individuals. As young people, both of these phenomena should make us take pause. We also saw huge financial scandals, and extraordinary the greed, also I think, byproducts of the environment created by Republican rhetoric and policy which seemed to say "you can have it all--oh, and don't worry about the other guy."
128--intellectual politics of division

If you look at his campaign tactics, I think you see more evidence of values which are contrary to strong leadership. Of course, the Willie Horton ad of 1988 has become the legendary example of the "politics of division" (define term). I think we saw another demonstration of it in his speech in Houston. You all remember, he said, "Who are you going to trust, a guy who raised taxes once and regrets it or a guy who raised taxes and fees 128 times and loved it every time." Lets leave aside the fact that some of these fees were ridiculous ($1 for convicted criminals, extension of the dog racing season) just look at what the man said. He's comparing apples and oranges, he knows it, a campaign aide admitted to the Boston Globe "We know it's not true, but it works." Well, I think what was behind this ridiculous assertion was the same kind of multiplication by division as with the Willie Horton example: George Bush bet that there would be more people who would let that absurd 128 figure scare them than discerning people who would say, "Hey, wait a minute. Those are two different things." I think, not for the first time, George Bush underestimated the American people. (No wonder we haven't seen any vision for the last four years--it's the office he wants, and the responsibility? "Not my concern, too busy, gotta be up there in Maine, out there in Camp David, off at some big European conference," that's seems to be the Bush response.)

Here is where I see perhaps the greatest difference between the candidates, and why I find it ironic that the perception is that, while Clinton might have more specific, more thought out and generally better policy proposals, Bush has him beat on the quote "character" issue. I think things have changed a lot in the last few weeks and months, but I'll tell you where I think this misconception grew out of. There are certain themes in this campaign which may sound very cliché and political on the surface, but if you look beneath the surface--take a look at the campaign, take a look at Bill Clinton's own conduct in the election and before--you see that it's not just political rhetoric, but in fact it's real.

He spoke at the convention about the fact that "we're all in this together," that we all have to contribute, it reminded me of JFK's famous charge--Ask what you can do for your country. Some more of these themes such as "Putting people First," "Bring people together" "There's no us and them, there's only us," these are not just part of Bill Clinton's political speeches and literature, they're part of his life and its reflected in the campaign. We have a department for virtually every constituently organization--I'm with the Jewish Affairs Department, we also have one for African Americans, Asian Americans, Older Americans, Republicans for Clinton, former Perot supporters for Clinton, this is just a few--there's really room for everybody. I've been fortunate to meet a lot of people who are very close to Bill--I did meet him very briefly--but everybody who knows him well has the same things to say about him--first of all they talk about his brilliant mind, but then they tell you about the way he treats people, the way he relates to people--it's everything you hear him say publicly and more. (At HU speech:include Dicker/Stein Soviet Union trip story)

This philosophy of inclusiveness, I suggest, is in sharp contrast to the Republican convention. Those of you who saw it saw that at that event a very narrow definition of an American was presented and the patriotism of those Americans who didn't fit that definition was challenged. This was most clearly manifest in the spotlight was given to Pat Buchanan. I do want to talk about this for just a minute because as Jews I think this is something we should really be very concerned about. This is a man who has expressed praise for Hitler, now this is all on record, has mocked the pain of survivors, during the Gulf crisis said the only ones "beating the drums of war" was Israel and their "Amen corner" in the US.--by the way, that's us--in a war in which kids with "names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzalez and Leroy Brown" would die. The fact that that party considers this man mainstream--that's troublesome. And Pat Robertson's influence was also felt. I had a lot of calls right after that convention, some from friends who were solidly for Bush four years ago. They all wanted to know the same thing. How can I help?

Bill Clinton has a very different understanding of leadership. First of all, look at the fact that he worked his way through Georgetown, through a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford and Yale Law School. Look at the people he surrounds himself with, that's something that I think tells an enormous amount about who he is and how different he his from Bush. First of all he married a woman who is considered one of the top 100 lawyers in the U.S. and Hillary has been such a tremendous asset to the campaign. And, of course of his choice for Vice President, Al Gore who himself has run for president and whose qualifications are questioned by no one. Look at the fact that the two of them always campaign together, the bus trips, talk shows everything. I think this shows you how he first chooses the best, most qualified people, and then puts them very visibly in his vicinity, no fear of being either embarrassed or overshadowed by them, complete confidence in his own abilities. This is, I think something that really distinguishes him from President Bush. I think I know some of the reasoning that went into the selection of Al Gore. I really couldn't even begin to try to explain on what grounds the President selected Dan Quayle four years ago.

Let me tell you a little about the campaign. First of all the people are very reflective of this all-inclusive philosophy I was talking about, I told you about the different constituency organizations, but this diversity is true of the individuals as well. I'm speaking both at the top levels in Little Rock and in my office in New York and at the grassroots levels--they're by and large young, bright, talented, energetic people. Incidentally, from a Jewish perspective you should also know that in Bill Clinton's close circles, both in terms of friends and advisors, there is an extremely high proportion of Jews--some of you might have seen the NYT piece on the "men advising Clinton" in which 6 of the 7 they focused on were Jewish. His campaign manager, and one of his closest friends, Mickey Kantor is Jewish, and you should also know, many of these people are very actively Jewish organizationally and in terms of Israel, they're really people connected to our community and they really do have the Governor's ear. And this is really quite a team (quick response at GOP convention story) --and that's just indicative of the way everything is done in this campaign. Let me tell you, if the way this campaign is being conducted is any indication of how BC will lead this country--I can't wait for you to see it.

Let me just remind you of one thing that you probably don't need to be reminded of. People really are hurting. I was in Israel last year and when I got off the plane and was trying to get through customs quickly I commented to the agent, "I'm glad to be back," and he said, "No you're not." I was taken aback, but I soon saw what he meant. 80% of Americans think we're going in the wrong direction. 95% think we need real change. People are out of work or afraid of losing their jobs. Many of my friends who graduated with me 16 months ago still haven't found work. We need new vision, new leadership, new ideas. And that's what BC and AG bring. They want to put America back to work, make America an exporter again, a creditor nation again, like it used to be, they want to invest in the future--that's us!--not expand the debt we'll have to pay back. They have a plan to send everyone who wants to go to college or graduate school there and help the US at the same time--(discuss plan)--and an apprenticeship program for those who don't want to go--a focus on job retraining, defense conversion. These are things that we as young people have to think carefully about and we have to think about who is really going to have us in mind.

Another thing you should know about Bill Clinton: It's ironic that George Bush has tried to tie him special interest groups and so forth, because he really makes a remarkable effort to stay independent not only of these groups but of being too tied to one school of thought. He takes a very pragmatic approach to tackling problems and he doesn't look for the easy or the short term solution. He wants to implement what works. He looks at 12 years of Republican trickle down economics, sees the effect on the society and says, it doesn't work. But then he doesn't fall back to old standard Democratic ideas, he talks about new ones: Investing in the future: education, job training, infrastructure development, health care. Another thing the Republicans like to accuse him of is "waffling," because, they say, like on NAFTA for example, he doesn't just say yes or no. Well, the reason he doesn't is his idea of taking a position on something is more complex than theirs, it's not a matter of what's politically expedient, its a matter of what works. In the case of NAFTA he says yes, he likes the concept, but he'd fine-tune some things. They can call that waffling, I call it problem solving.

Finally, I want to talk about those issues that I think are particularly important to us as American Jews and supporters of Israel. I don't think I have to go into too much detail on George Bush and James Baker's feelings toward Israel. It shouldn't really be any surprise, Baker--always the pragmatist--wrote in his senior thesis at Princeton in 1952 that the U.S. was wrong to recognize Israel and "support 2 million Zionist while incurring the enmity of 60 million Moslems." We all remember September 12, 1991: One lonely guy against 1,000 powerful lobbyists--followed by anti-Semitic mail. And then the chutzpah to come back and speak to B'nai B'rith almost a year to the day later, with the election 8 weeks, not 14 months away and his popularity at 35, not 70%. You know how they used the humanitarian loan guarantees as a political lever on the settlement issue--which is rightfully for Israel to negotiate with the Arab states about, not the United States. Has anyone here studied at Hebrew University? Well, you know, George Bush called you a "settler who obstructs the peace process,"

So what about Bill? Well he favored the loan guarantees from the beginning without conditions, recognizes Jerusalem as the indivisible capital of Israel, supports the peace process and would continue it without a hiatus, but he emphasizes that the US must play a role as a catalyst and that agreements can only come between the parties themselves. He talked to a group of Jewish leaders last week and he put great emphasis on the fact that more should be done to end the Arab boycott. He also is very much pro-Democracy, something we heard a lot about during the early years of the Reagan administration but doesn't seem to be all that important to the conduct of foreign policy of Bush and Baker, they just seem to deal with countries like Syria and Kuwait as they might with any friendly Democracy and didn't even take advantage of a brilliant opportunity to promote democracy in the wake of the Gulf war. BC has visited Israel, I told you earlier about the HIPPY program, and he loves to tell this story, and he tells it so well about his preacher (tell story).

I think it's very difficult to define what is a "pro-Israel" president since so many of us disagree on what's best for Israel. But I think Bill Clinton meets the two criteria that are critical in a President from the perspective of Israel. First, he has a deep understanding of Israel's unique history and unique place in the world; and second Bill Clinton knows the Jewish community, knows what are interests are and will consider them in any decision that he makes--most importantly--he will listen to us. I've talked about his advisors and their connection, his friends, we really will have an ear in the White House which is a whole lot more than we can say now.
Social justice issues

I think another issue that should concern us particularly as Jews is the category of social justice issues and this is more than just a matter of the Supreme Court--we have a big stake in maintaining the separation of Church and state and this is an area in which BC is an expert. He taught constitutional law at the U of Arkansas and he talks about how he "emphasized the centrality of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom to political democracy and personal liberty." GB calls for a constitutional amendment to put prayer in public schools, his justices have continually removed barriers to sectarian religion and eroded privacy rights. He actually called Clarence Thomas the most qualified man to sit on the court! Never mind if the allegations are true or not, there are so many talented people in this country how'd he come up with Thomas? Well, I guess when you're looking for a black conservative who opposes abortion there's not a lot of choice. But I think you'll see a whole different breed of appointments from BC. He just knows so many people himself and he has such high standards in the people he chooses, this coupled with his strong principles and constitutional understanding will really stand us in good stead.
I want to wrap up with one more story he likes to tell. I think a lot of the negative image problem he had earlier on was that people saw that he was ambitious but didn't know what the vision was that was tied to this ambition. Well, the loves to talk about a professor he had at Georgetown and she used to teach that there were two fundamental facts that one should understand: (1) that tomorrow can be better than today and (2) that each individual has a responsibility to make it so. That's BC's vision for America. I think it's a very Jewish notion. And I want to see you help us make it the inspiration for all Americans.

As I said at the outset, I really think when you pull that lever on November 3rd your going to be choosing between two very different images of what America is. If you're understanding the America that we saw defined at the Republican convention, an America which holds Soviet Jews hostage to political ends, an America where a candidate can make promises like "No New taxes, kinder gentler, 30 million new jobs, etc." and then come back four years later and have to attack his challenger because he has no record of his own to defend, if that's how you see America, then vote for George Bush. But if you think we can do better, if you think that Bill Clinton's record in Arkansas on jobs, on education all with the second lowest tax burden in the country, if you think that record means something; if your understanding of America is one in which everyone has a share, everyone has a stake, everyone has a contribution to make and a promise means something and if you want a President who understands what Israel is all about and understands how fundamental separation of church and state is, if you want a President to whom the word trust really means something, then vote for Bill Clinton. We may never again have a choice as clear or a moment more important than this one to change courses. So I hope you'll do everything you can to send Bill Clinton and Al Gore to the White House on November 3rd.

Now, just a couple of things you can do to help us--and we need you. You're out there, think of all the people you come into contact with everyday! Less than a third of students voted in the '88 election. There are more than 1,000,000 unregistered American Jews. Both those figures are inexcusable. We have to change that. And you can do it! Start with your friends, both here and at other schools and elsewhere across the country. Reg. deadlines are coming up you have to do it starting tonight. Once you've gotten everyone you can registered, you have to make sure they know the issues. I'll give you information. Spread it around. Write letters to the papers, don't let any charge go unanswered. Be pro-active, write Op-ed pieces. Go on the radio. Set up tables. Hook up with the campaign on campus. Make sure that people who are registered at home get absentee ballots sent early. Wear a button, put a poster in your window. Stay in touch!

Back to Top

February 28, 1991: Letter to President Bush concerning the Gulf War

The Honorable George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C., 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I've never written a thank you letter to a President before. Indeed, as an unabashed liberal college senior, I never anticipated writing to thank a President, certainly not a Republican one, and certainly not for a military achievement. But I guess a lot of people's thinking has changed over the last few months. And so, let me offer you my sincere gratitude for so clearly identifying a genuine evil, confronting that evil, and ultimately destroying that evil. Your courage was extraordinary and the leadership you demonstrated is unparalleled in recent times.

Those who opposed military action thought that their course of restraint was the most morally defensible. I hope those people saw the faces of the Kuwaitis as their country was liberated and heard the stories of the horror of Iraqi occupation. They reminded me of the stories of desperation and despair I have heard of the victims of the Nazi atrocities who were abandoned by a distracted world. Mr. President, you have sent a message to all who would contemplate such evil that the civilized world will never again stand silently by. I hope it is a message that lingers.

No doubt, Mr. President, I will continue to disagree with your approaches to fiscal and social challenges, and your responses to poverty and depravation here at home. I may even disagree with many of your foreign policies. But as you said last night, this is a time for us to stand united in pride for the accomplishments of the brave fighters for freedom. I am proud of them. I am proud of my President. And I am very proud to be an American.

Gratefully yours,

Back to Top

January 22, 1989: Letter to President Bush on the topic of Soviet Jewry

January 22, 1989

The Honorable George Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

First, let me congratulate you on your inauguration and on your truly spectacular address. If you can bring the ideals of that speech to the governing of this country, it truly may be a kinder and gentler nation in four years time.

I do not wish to exhaust any more of your time than is necessary, so let me get to my point. It has come to my attention that the authorities in charge of immigration into the United States are no longer taking for-granted the refuge status of Soviet citizens, specifically Soviet Jews. This is an issue of great concern to myself because, in addition to the pride I have in living in this great country of immigrants, my own grandparents came here from the Soviet Union in the early part of this century, escaping the persecution that befell most of the family they left behind during World War II.

It is true that Soviet Jews today are not in quite the same degree of danger. However, let me tell you Mr. President that I visited that country just three weeks ago and visited Jews who are not permitted to emigrate, known as I'm sure you know as refuseniks. While many of them want to go to Israel, it is crucial that the United States maintain an open door to those who wish to start new, free lives in this country where they are free to observe their own traditions. They are not free to observe their traditions in the Soviet Union, and furthermore they are persecuted and harassed because they have expressed their desire to leave. These families are caught in a "catch-22." Several have young boys, my age, who cannot even attend school because the harassment is so extreme, and are forced to learn in the dark loneliness of their tiny apartments.

I know how strong your commitment is to world freedom, Mr. President. In that spirit, I urge you to use your influence to assure that no Soviet Jew brave enough to begin the emigration process, finds a locked door at the end of that dangerous journey. Thank you and best wishes for the next four years.

Sincerely,

Michael Granoff
Co-Chairman Tufts University Hillel
Oppressed Jewry Committee

Back to Top

April 10, 1989: Letter to Senator Frank Lautenberg on the topic of Soviet Jewry

Michael J. Granoff
98 Packard Avenue
Somerville, MA 02144

April 10, 1989

The Honorable Frank Lautenberg
717 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Senator Lautenberg:

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time in the lobby of your office last Thursday to discuss with myself and other New Jersey members of the Student Coalition for Soviet Jewry the current situation facing the Jews of the Soviet Union.

In our short discussion you impressed all of us with the knowledge you had of the specifics surrounding the issue of Soviet Jewry in 1989. I might add that we were equally impressed by your advisor Diana Rubin, with whom we subsequently met in a more formal setting. As we discussed, we would like to see the current resettlement aid plan now in the Senate passed (S489), but with adjustments to make it more in line with the House version, HR1605. We also think that waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment is still premature at this time, but the National Conference on Soviet Jewry is examining the merits of such a plan. While it is difficult to influence internal Soviet policy, any measures that can be taken to combat the growing anti-Semitism under glasnost would be much appreciated.

As I told you, when I was in the Soviet Union in January I sensed frustration among such long-term refuseniks as the Uspenskys with the arbitrary nature of the Soviet emigration policy. They did not sense any improvement in terms of their day to day lives with the one exception that they do not feel physical harassment is as large a threat as it once was. Essentially, as long as their applications for emigration are not accepted by the Soviets, they rightly feel that glasnost is no more than a hypocritical media game with the West.

I thank you for all that you've done in the past and for your continuing efforts on behalf of Jews in the Soviet Union. I will be in touch again with any further information that might be of interest. Thank you again for the generosity of your time.

Very Sincerely,

Back to Top