A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Robert Avrech On The Tsunami

As usual, Robert Avrech has it right with respect to the terrible tragedy in Asia:

I lurk on Jewish websites for grieving parents and everyone seems to ask the same question about this massive tragedy: what did God have in mind? And anyone who is foolish enough to answer looks, well, foolish. All answers are simplistic and reductive, and leave only larger questions that are all but unanswerable. I have no patience for the pat answers that some people propose: It's a test, it's an accounting, ultimately it's all for the good... These truly dumb answers bring out a kind of maniacal fury in me.

When Ariel was sick, I stopped looking for answers because, I quickly discovered, it was a waste of time. As Job (42:3) says to HaShem: I can understand nothing. It is beyond me. I shall never know.
posted on 12/29/2004

 
Judaism and Tragedy Redux

A friend of mine sent the following to me yesterday in the form of an e-mail, my responses are dispersed throughout and appear in italics:


I had a shiur on Shabbat which strayed from its usual topic. The Rabbi gave a mussar talk on your favorite topic: the World Trade center disaster and Hashem's intervention for the good. Well, he mainly focused on Hatzolah and said we may not be able to see why things happened at teh time, or maybe even never, but that Hashem plans everything for a reason. I re-read your comments on your Blog. Now while you object to the terminology "for the good" and state that mourning is also an important Jewish mitzvah, do you also object to the deterministic view that Hashem plans everything - no chance?

I believe that people have free will to do what they want in life. As for whether Hashem plans all external events (i.e. illness, tragedy, good fortune, etc.), I don’t know. I believe that Hashem can and does intervene in the world, but also believe that Hashem usually allows the world to operate b'derech hatevah, in its normal course. In other words, Hashem may allow a tragedy like 9/11 to happen by not stopping evildoers like Bin Laden.

I suppose this means that everything as a whole is directed by Hashem for some higher good, reason, or goal, not necessarily an individual's particular good or goal. So many of the sages in their mussar works defend this concept.

This I agree with – that an individual’s good may not be the right perspective, but the good of the Jewish people or perhaps the entire world.

So who (what sages) agrees with you that "for the good is wrong"? Or maybe you just object to trying to find miracles in everything bad, although I think that may be the other sides point: that no matter how awful a tragedy, it is directed at some goal by Hashem. Perhaps we don't have to take joy in the idea that Hashem allows tragedies to occur even though there is some distant goal in mind.

I don't have a problem with the concept of gam zu l'tovah in the abstract, but do have a problem in looking for non-existent miracles in terrible tragedies, as well as trying to decipher these miracles and the reasons for tragedy as though we have a direct line to G-d.

In addition, even if we believe the view of a higher good behind a tragedy, we might not have the right to tell those suffering that there is a higher good or even try to speculate for them what it is. Instead we help them mourn.

Yes, and this is supported by the mourning in Judaism both for personal losses (shiva, kaddish, etc.) and for communal tragedy (i.e. Tisha B’av and the other fast days).

I wonder if the need to say it is all for the good is more of a coping devise for people who did not suffer than for those who did. I remember hearing Elie Wiesel coping with this issue of when asked by Oprah Winfrie if he thought he was special for surviving. He said no and that people far greater than him perished. I think it is hard for people to live through a disaster or escape it and they need to reconile their feelings even if it flies in the face of the sufferers themselves.

I think all of it is a coping device for people who did not suffer. I would never object to someone who is in mourning or endured a loss from saying "it's all for the good," but nearly always it's others who say it on other's behalf.
posted on 12/29/2004

 
Tsunami Coverage

I don't have time to follow the news as closely as usual (and my cable box is broken), but my sense is that in the immediate aftermath of the disaster in Asia, the media was rather apathetic. While the tragedy was hardly ignored, it wasn't covered nearly as closely as it should have been. Now that a death toll in the tens of thousands has been confirmed (with more than a million losing their homes), media interest has picked up.

The media apathy likely stems from two sources. First, there wasn't much dramatic video footage. Second, and more disturbingly, the U.S. especially is more concerned about relatively trivial matters here than global disasters.
posted on 12/28/2004

 
Jets, Nets & Mets II

1. When I was 17 just out of a charedi high school, I somehow got a job covering U.S. sports for The Jerusalem Post. I was in very close proximity with other members of the media during games.

Most media members are down to earth, but some have an excessive sense of self-importance, believing that they themselves are the main story.

The media's current obsession about Chad Pennington's refusal to answer questions after Sunday's game is a good illustration. Pennington probably shouldn't have blown the reporters off, but who really cares? Certainly not the average Jets fan. All I care about is that he was fantastic on Sunday, throwing three touchdowns and making no mistakes.

2. The Vince Carter trade is a good one, even if Jason Kidd continues to insist on being traded, as I expect he will. The Nets didn't give up any players who can't eventually be replaced. In the meantime, their frontcourt and defense are awful, but the reality is that they aren't a championship contender this year anyway. A core of Kidd, Jefferson and Carter, with the additions of a solid power forward and some depth in the form of big men for the bench, might put the Nets back among the Eastern Conference elite next season, though I'm skeptical that Bruce (The Rat) Ratner will spend the money to sign a legitimate power forward and backup center.

If Kidd goes, the Nets might be able to acquire a younger point guard and decent power forward in return.

The Carter trade is an acknowledgment that letting Kenyon Martin go was a terrible idea, but by no means makes up for it. The damage from selling off K-Mart is not reversible. Martin is a better fit in the Nets offense than Carter is, and he, Kidd and Jefferson had excellent chemistry. If the Nets had kept Martin, Alonzo Mourning would have stayed and Aaron Williams - who went to Toronto in the Carter trade - would have provided insurance as a backup power forward and center.

3. I'm still skeptical about Pedro Martinez, but admit that it will be fun watching him pitch at Shea.

Some of GM Omar Minaya's moves continue to puzzle me, though. Last night he declined to tender a contract to Orber Moreno, who pitched very effectively last season before injuring his shoulder. As a result Moreno is now a free agent and probably won't be back.

Perhaps Moreno's injury is serious, but if he signs elsewhere and pitches well, Minaya's move will be costly. Moreno is relatively low cost (he earned a little over $300,000 last season) and it's not easy to find young effective relievers for under half a million dollars.

UPDATE: My criticism of Omar Minaya's decision to allow Orber Moreno to become a free agent appears to have been premature, in light of the Mets' signing Moreno to a minor league contract. Hopefully Moreno's rehab will be a success and he will make the major league team and pitch effectively again in 2005 and beyond.
posted on 12/21/2004

 
Jets, Nets & Mets

1. My first child, a baby boy, was born on Sunday afternoon just before the 1:00 games. After four hours in the nursery, he joined us in my wife's room during the second quarter of the Jets vs. Steelers game.

He quickly discovered that life as a Jets fan can be frustrating. He's not old enough to yell at Paul Hackett's predictable playcalling or the pathetic 12 first half penalties. But even in his first hours, he expressed his disgust at the Jets in other ways, by sleeping and crying throughout the game, and, in a mischievous allusion to Chad Pennington's performance, soiling his first diaper as things went awry in the second half.

2. In early July, Bruce (The Rat) Ratner assured Nets fans that "Cost-cutting is absolutely not my intention. My intention is to make the team competitive now. Obviously, one of the difficulties that we inherited, (were) contracts which are extensive. But we understood that when we bought the team. What we want to do as owners is do everything we can to keep Kenyon Martin."

When the Nets let Martin go two weeks later, Ratner insisted he made the right move, claiming, in an interview with Harvey Araton of the New York Times, that signing Martin would have been a financial disaster.

Now, in Tuesday's Times, The Rat says that getting rid of the Nets soul "hurt everything. It was a mistake." He says the Nets should have offered Martin a contract, instead of refusing to negotiate, as they did. Of course, he doesn't take responsibility, eloquently explaining, "There was a lot going on." Ratner assures us that even though he let Martin leave for virtually nothing at that time, "my conclusion was overwhelming, it's better to keep Kenyon." He blames others for convincing him to sell K-Mart to Denver.

Finally, Ratner displays his basketball acumen in concluding, "Yes, we don't have Kenyon but we have Jason. If we keep Jason, there's no reason why we shouldn't be very good." The Rat only knows real estate, not anything about basketball, so he doesn't understand that if, after the Nets jettisoned more than half of their team, Jason Kidd has nobody to pass the ball to, and the Nets can't play defense or rebound, they shouldn't and won't "be very good" even with Kidd. Perhaps The Rat might understand better if a real estate analogy was offered: If you sell Central Park and move half of Manhattan's businesses, real estate on 5th Avenue might go down just a bit.

3. If the rumors are true, the Mets are going to sign Pedro Martinez to a 4 year deal for $56 million. That's a lot of money for a power pitcher with a bad shoulder and declining velocity.

Many predict that Pedro will become another Mo Vaughn, an injured bust who doesn't last even one season, let alone all four. They may be right. On the other hand, Martinez might be another Roger Clemens. The Sox let Clemens go after the 1996 season, when he was 34, concluding that he was past his prime. Four Cy Young Awards and 136 wins later, the decision was clearly awful.

I think it's possible Pedro can be a very good pitcher over the next four seasons, but I can't say I like this move. When the Yankees spend big money on someone like Kevin Brown and it doesn't work out as hoped, they just move on to the next star, like Carl Pavano, even while continuing to pay a disappointment like Brown.

In contrast, the Mets have broken the bank with Martinez, and if things don't work out and they're stuck with his huge contract, it'll prevent them from signing other players. The Mets need to get younger and try to build a team that could contend consistently down the line. If they are going to maintain relative fiscal restraint, they can't afford to make mistakes with players near the end of their careers, who will have no trade value in the event of injury.
posted on 12/14/2004

 
Classless Minaya

Some of the rumored moves by Mets GM Omar Minaya are quite puzzling, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until those moves actually happen.

However, an article in Thursday's New York Times about Minaya's treatment of Al Leiter is very disappointing.

The Times reports that Minaya gave Leiter a low-ball offer and just three days to accept, and then, when Leiter's agents called to accept, failed to return the call and ultimately rescinded the offer.

After seven years pitching for the Mets, Leiter deserved to be let go with decency and respect. Personally, I think he pitched well enough last season to warrant coming back for another year. But while I can live with the decision to pursue another pitcher, Minaya's classless tactics are unacceptable.

Ironically, the despicable treatment of Leiter does indicate that Minaya has autonomy to make personnel decisions. Leiter is close to Mets ownership, and the Wilpons cannot be happy about the way the team's long relationship with Leiter ended.
posted on 12/08/2004

 
OU and Baruch Goldstein

The winter issue of Jewish Action - the magazine published by the Orthodox Union - arrived at my home last night, and I was very disappointed to read an absurd defense of Baruch Goldstein by Toby Klein Greenwald.

The new issue is not yet online at the Orthodox Union's website, but apparently in a previous issue that I did not receive, Ms. Greenwald referred to Goldstein's murder of 29 Arabs at Maarot Hamachpelah in Hebron as an "incident." A reader appropriately wrote a letter to the editor to object, pointing out that Goldstein killed 29 civilians and that nothing justifies his actions.

Ms. Greenwald responded in length by questioning whether Goldstein's victims were in fact innocent, and rehashed as factual all the exaggerated defenses of Goldstein emanating from the extreme right. Worse, Ms. Greenwald extensively cites a recent book by Chaim Simons about Goldstein, and quotes a few passages from Simons that make him sound as though he is objective. In fact, while Simons may raise some legitimate questions, he has long advocated extremist positions such as transfer of at least some Arabs from Israel, and his book ultimately suggests (though it takes pains not to "conclude") that Goldstein's killing of 29 Arabs was justified under halacha as an act of self-defense. The 1929 massacre of Jewish Hebron residents is used as a prime argument in favor of Goldstein, ignoring that the IDF did not exist then.

The morality of killing Arabs aside for just a moment, Greenwald and Simons also do not appear bothered by the fact that Goldstein's murder was the proximate cause for Prime Minister Rabin's transfer of Ohel Yitzchak - by far the main sanctuary in Maarot Hamachpelah - to Muslims on all but a handful of days. Thanks to Goldstein, Ohel Yitzchak is defiled each and every day by Islamic fundamentalist crazies. Prior to 1994, while Arabs did conduct prayer services there, Israel maintained primary control over all three sanctuaries in Maarot Hamachpelah.

Goldstein also ensured that Arab terror attacks were seen as part of the "cycle of violence." For a long time after the Goldstein massacre, the New York Times and other major media outlets mentioned the Hebron massacre whenever covering a Hamas terror attack.

To me, one's stance on the murders by Goldstein and by Yigal Amir (of Prime Minister Rabin) are a barometer of whether one's views can be deemed within the realm of political sanity. To the extent that the idea that either act was justified can be deemed at all legitimate within observant Jewry, grievous harm will be done to our spiritual, moral and political standing.

The OU generally offers a moderate political voice, and while Ms. Greenwald's response cannot be ascribed to the OU, it would have been appropriate for the editor to have issued a short note stating that the views she and Simons express are theirs alone, and not those of the Orthodox Union. I don't believe they did, though it's possible that I missed a disclaimer.
posted on 12/03/2004

 
Judaism and Tragedy

Four months ago, I posted to lament the ridiculous miracle books claiming that the 9/11 disaster was somehow mitigated by a large number of miracles. I wrote, in part, that "I view all the miracle stories as indicative of a great deal of immaturity among some observant Jews. The idea being sent seems to be that God protected certain people because of their piety. We are supposed to believe that scores of people arrived late to work because of an old man who delayed morning services, or that a woman locked herself out of her house and called her husband home from work, where most of his colleagues perished."

A post by Robert J. Avrech about his experience at a Camp Simcha retreat for parents who have lost a child further illustrates this point.

Mr. Avrech writes that at a group session, one man who lost a child repeated the phrase "Gam zu L'tova." - "This too is ultimately for the good." Mr. Avrech, fuming, responded about his son Ariel's passing: "Ariel suffered horribly for years and years. There was nothing good about that. Ariel wanted to live. He fought every inch of the way. He did not give up; he did not surrender. He wanted to live. He did not want to die. So there is no way you can convince me that his death, or the death of any of our children is ultimately for the good. The death of these good and holy children is horrible. I resent what you are saying. It's an insult to me, and also an insult to my son!"

I don't think Mr. Avrech's anger was really directed at the man who lost a child. Rather, it likely came from a build up of fury directed at all those who told him that Ariel is now in a "better place", that it was all part of "G-d's plan", and that "this too is ultimately for the good."

I remember once attending the funeral of a 41 year old mother of three children. Several speakers stated that it was a great miracle that this woman lived nearly 18 months after being diagnosed with cancer. After all, her doctors had expected her only to live a year.

After the 9/11 disaster, a friend of mine assured me that those who were murdered on that day were now in a much better place. In fact, he even assured me that they would refuse to come back to earth if given the chance, since they were in the Garden of Eden. "What about their families?", I asked him. "Don't they need them here?" He acknowledged that this was a "problem" but continued to assure me that in the end, Hashem only acts for the good and that there was no need to be so depressed.

I doubt that these kinds of well-meaning but extremely insensitive statements are made only by observant Jews. I assume that a lot of people from all faiths and a lot of people who are secular, not knowing what to say and perhaps wanting to comfort themselves, recite silly cliches about tragic events and to those in mourning.

What bothers me, however, is that Judaism recognizes that not everything is for the good. While Nachum Ish Gam Zu's concept of "gam zu l'tovah" may be an ideal and a way to avoid despair, we are in fact required to mourn both personal tragedies and national tragedies. We don't claim that the destruction of the First Temple and Second Temple were really good; instead we have fast days to remember the destruction of the Temples and of Jerusalem. Even as we celebrate our liberation from Egypt, we eat bitter herbs on Pesach in memory of our slavery there. With respect to the national tragedies, we don't equivocate and pretend that a miracle actually occurred in our favor. For some reason many of us do engage in such equivocation with respect to personal tragedies - especially when it is someone else's personal tragedy. We should know better than that.
posted on 12/02/2004

 
Pet Projects

Today's New York Times reports on Shinui's voting against Likud's proposed budget because it "offered United Torah Judaism some $67 million in support for its pet projects."

In fact, the $67 million (or more precisely, the 290 million shekels), were to be allocated to charedi yeshivas, which have incurred previous budget cuts in that last two years far in excess of that amount.

I'm pretty cynical about the political machinations of Shas and UTJ, each of which bases its political stances on supreme national issues upon whether the government funds its institutions. UTJ was until a few days ago a staunch opponent of the Sharon plan to withdraw from Gaza and part of Samaria. Now they are ready to join the government. Shas too is figuring out a way to wiggle out of its attacks on Sharon's political shift.

That said, referring to partial restoration of funding for yeshivas as "pet projects" is offensive and inaccurate. While it was in the coalition, Shinui demanded funding for universities and "cultural institutions." It is unlikely that the Times would refer to that funding as being for Shinui "pet projects."
posted on 12/02/2004

 
Barghouti and Yad Vashem

Today's Jerusalem Post and Haaretz both published excellent editorials in today's paper.

The Jerusalem Post's editorial line has become somewhat more leftist since David Horovitz became editor-in-chief, but that didn't stop them from strongly objecting to a release of Fatah terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti. Their editorial states, in part:

"[Barghouti] seems to have captured the imagination of some Palestinian, American, and even Israeli opinion makers...

"If there is anyone more responsible than Yasser Arafat for the needless terror war that has cost thousands of Israelis and Palestinians their lives, it is Barghouti, who proudly claims to be that war's architect...

"To some, all of this is a non sequitur, since it is not up to Israel, after all, to choose a new Palestinian leader. If a majority of Palestinians want Barghouti to lead them, why should Israelis, particularly those who believe in democracy, stand in the way? Why should Israel insist on keeping him in jail?

"The reason is a matter of both national dignity and the rule of law...

"It is ironic that many of the people who say we should not choose Palestinian leaders are ready to anoint Barghouti as the only legitimate leader, especially when that 'legitimacy' is based mainly on slaughtering Israelis. Should our highest aspiration for the post-Arafat era be someone who tried to out-Arafat Arafat?"

Haaretz's editorial concerns the new database on the Yad Vashem website which has posted the names of, and information about, 3,000,000 of the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.

In part, Haaretz editorialized:

"It is very difficult to digest the scope of the horror of the Holocaust. How can one grasp the murder of six million Jews whose only crime was that they were Jews? But perhaps now, through the Internet, it will be possible to look at the picture of innocent Leah of the house of First, hugging her two children, Shifra and Salek, who died in Warsaw, or at Heinrich and Margarete Yaacobi of Berlin, who died in Theresienstadt, and from their life stories, the visitors can begin to build a broader picture.

"Beyond the unfathomable tragedy in the destruction of six million people, a tour of the Pages of Testimony also reveals how great the loss was to the Jewish people, and not merely the numerical loss. So many many scientists, rabbis, artists, intellectuals and public servants, people who fulfilled their potential and people who only partially did so, whose lives were ended instantly and whose contributions to the Jewish people and the state of Israel can only be guessed at...

"When we visit the Yad Vashem web site and look at the faces of the dead, it is not a one-way view. Those people, who could have been with us and part of us now, look back at us, and with questing eyes."

While not intended, the Haaretz editorial is further reason for why Barghouti must not be released. The murder of many Jews (and a Greek Orthodox monk) by Barghouti is also an unfathomable tragedy to the Jewish people. Some of the victims fulfilled their potential and some of them only partially did so. All of their lives were ended instantly and their contributions to the Jewish people and the state of Israel can only be guessed at. Releasing their murderer is the ultimate indignity to both them and us.
posted on 11/24/2004

 
Jewish Press Column

My column in this week's Jewish Press is online and also appears below. The piece argues that the exit polls did not accurately estimate the Jewish vote in the presidential election, and contains raw data that did not appear in my prior posts (here and here) on the topic.

The Jewish Vote: Don’t Believe The Exit Polls

The election day exit poll results have been reported as factual throughout the general and Jewish media. If they are to be believed, President Bush received no more than 25 percent of the Jewish vote.

It is reasonable to be concerned that in light of these polls, President Bush will be less supportive of Israel in his second term, concluding that former Secretary of State James Baker was right when he used a vulgarity in dismissing Jewish interests relating to Israel because “they don't vote for us anyway.”

But while John Kerry captured a large majority of the Jewish vote, there is evidence that the exit polls have underestimated Jewish support for Bush.

In the 2000 election, the exit polls predicted victory for Al Gore. This year, they projected that Kerry would win the popular vote and both Ohio and Florida. Obviously, these polls are very flawed.

The exit polls got the election results wrong in a very large sample of thousands of voters. In the case of the Jewish vote, the exit polls sample a tiny number of people who happen to be Jewish. Almost none of these polls specifically poll only Jews and as a result, the number of Jews polled is so small as to be statistically meaningless.

As an example, CNN’s exit poll is based on a fairly large overall nationwide sample of 13,660 voters. Of these 13,660, only 3 percent, or 410 people in all 50 states, are Jewish. According to CNN, 25 percent of these 410 Jews, or 102 people, voted for Bush.

Relying on a nationwide sample of 410 Jews is unreliable enough. To take a sample of 410 Jews and proclaim that who these 410 voted for means anything is absurd, especially since these 410 people just happened to be Jewish. Again, CNN did not specifically conduct a poll of Jews. It conducted a poll of American voters, 3 percent of whom told the pollsters that they were Jewish.

When the focus is on specific states, the extent of the exit polls’ unreliability becomes even clearer.

In New York, where 6,868,000 people voted, CNN’s exit poll concluded that 8 percent of voters, or 549,000 people, were Jewish. CNN's exit poll claims that only 18 percent of Jews - or 98,900 Jews - voted for Bush in all of New York State.

The CNN exit poll came to this conclusion after questioning 1452 people in all of New York State. 8 percent of these 1452 people were Jewish. This comes to a grand total of 116 Jews questioned by the CNN poll, of whom 21 voted for Bush.

Taking seriously a poll of 116 people is silly. Nobody knows what areas within the state these 116 people were from. CNN’s poll did not reach all or even many New York State voting stations, and there is no reason to think CNN polled in any of the Orthodox neighborhoods.

In New Jersey, CNN’s exit poll queried 1520 people, 7 percent of whom - or 106 - are Jewish. Of those 106 Jewish people, 24 percent voted for Bush. There are quite a few observant Jews in New Jersey, but considering that only 106 Jews were questioned in the entire state, it’s doubtful that the CNN poll ever made it to any of their neighborhoods.

The actual vote in several New York and New Jersey counties is revealing. For example, Bush won a majority in Rockland County, with more than 60,000 voters, 12,000 more than four years ago, when Al Gore prevailed there by 17 points. Not coincidentally, Rockland County includes Monsey and Spring Valley. But it is likely that CNN’s poll did not question even one voter in those areas.

The Bergen Record reported that “election results from Bergen County show a striking change in the voting patterns within Orthodox neighborhoods. In the district near the Englewood synagogue [of Congregation Ahavath Torah, led by Rabbi Shmuel Goldin], about 45 percent of voters went for Bush, as opposed to 21 percent in 2000. A similar shift occurred in heavily Orthodox neighborhoods in Teaneck, including one where Bush captured 62 percent of the vote after garnering just 14 percent in 2000.”

The Orthodox shift toward Bush in Bergen County was a major contributor to Bush’s garnering 26,000 more votes there than in 2000 and closing the gap from 14 points to 4 points.

Similarly, Ocean County went for Bush by a 60-39 percent margin, after Gore won a majority in 2000. The town of Lakewood is located in Ocean County.

Various estimates suggest that approximately 60 to 70 percent of Orthodox Jews voted for Bush. Perhaps even stronger than Orthodox Jews in their support for Bush were Russian Jewish voters. An American Jewish Committee election day survey showed that 75 percent of Russian Jews in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania voted for Bush.

Russian Jews represent a not insignificant percentage of the Jewish population in the Northeast, and most are non-Orthodox. While together the Orthodox and the Russians still amount to a minority of the overall Jewish electorate, both groups live in a relatively small number of neighborhoods and were likely disproportionately missed by the pollsters.

In a sample of just a few hundred people, which to begin with is statistically inconsequential, failing to adequately poll the observant and the Russians would result in a significant error in the poll estimates. It is likely that the exit polls are off by five points or more.

To the extent that there is media coverage of how Jews vote in the presidential election, in the future there should be election day polls taken specifically of Jewish voters. One pollster, Frank Luntz, conducted such a poll this year on a limited scale, in Ohio and Florida only. While polls of Jews would contain flaws, they would be an improvement from tallies based upon exit polls of 13,660 Americans, 13,250 of whom are not Jewish.
posted on 11/24/2004

 
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner

IMRA today posts a press release from Shurat Hadin/Israel Law Center.

Shurat Hadin identifies its head, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, as "Israel's leading activist attorney" and says that at an upcoming U.S. speaking tour, Ms. Darshan-Leitner "will provide updates and analysis on the lawsuits Shurat Hadin has filed in the Israeli and American courts against Iran, Hamas, Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the PLO, the Islamic charities and the European Union on behalf of the terror victims."

Among the places Ms. Darshan-Leitner will be speaking are Young Israel of Woodmere in Long Island, Congregation Beth Jacob in Los Angeles, and shuls in White Plains and Florida.

According to Shurat Hadin's website, the organization "assist[s] the hundreds of Israeli victim’s of Arafat’s violence to finally fight back against the Palestinian terrorist groups and their financial patrons."

I used to admire Shurat Hadin. However, around March of this year, I received an e-mail from an 81 year old man who was seriously wounded in a PLO terror attack. His son was killed. He asked me whether he had any legal options.

I responded with my thoughts, and suggested that he contact Shurat Hadin. He informed me that he initially had corresponded with them, but that for months they had been completely ignoring his e-mails, perhaps because they had concluded that he did not have any legal options (it appeared that his time to commence a new action may have lapsed). Why, he asked, wouldn't they at least let him know if there was no legal recourse, rather than leave him hanging?

I sent a detailed e-mail to Shurat Hadin, reminding them about this man's inquiry and politely asked that they respond to me or to him, even with a curt statement that nothing could be done. When they failed to respond, I sent a follow-up e-mail a few weeks later. Again, no response of any kind from Shurat Hadin.

Later, through a friend at ZOA, I was able to put the man victimized by the PLO in touch with Susan Tuchman, Director of the ZOA's Center for Law and Justice. While I don't know whether ZOA was able to help him from a legal standpoint, my understanding is that they reviewed his case and answered his inquiries. In other words, they treated him with decency.

Traveling around the world promoting and raising money for Shurat Hadin is surely time consuming, but would it have been too much for Nitsana Darshan-Leitner - whose organization's mandate is supposedly to "assist the hundreds of Israeli victim’s of Arafat’s violence to finally fight back against the Palestinian terrorist groups and their financial patrons" - to answer the e-mails of a victim of Yasser Arafat?
posted on 11/23/2004

 
Jewish Press Columns

I've been getting a lot of feedback from my column in last week's Jewish Press, far more than usual. I certainly appreciate all the kind words.

Perhaps my prior pieces have been too analytical and nuanced for some JP readers; that's what several people (outside the paper) have indicated to me. If nothing else, I hope people who find my columns to be too complex will be more reticent in offering their opinions about Israel's problems, which also are complex.
posted on 11/23/2004

 
Destructive Self-Hatred

Two adjoining columns in the latest issue of the Jewish Press express deplorable hatred toward Prime Minister Sharon.

The first, by Emanuel Winston, states:

"It seems that Sharon is allying himself with forces seemingly as wicked as those who once inhabited Sodom. I do not think, however, that an angel will save Sharon from the wrath of G-d."

The second piece, by Paul Eidelberg, offers anti-Sharon vitriol from another angle. In a mock letter to Likud members, Eidelberg writes:

"You have a monster at the head of your party, who is bringing the State of Israel to the brink... There is no honor, there is no courage, among Jews whose leader is Ariel Sharon."

There are plenty of legitimate ways to strongly criticize Sharon, who is sincere but wrong, as well as the insincere politicians who will support anything so long as it furthers their political careers. The language used by Winston and Eidelberg are not even close to being legitimate. Nine years after the murder of Prime Minister Rabin, nearly 2000 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, and more than 2500 years after the murder of Gedaliah, the lessons of those national disasters remain lost on the dangerous extremists among us.
posted on 11/21/2004

 
Overbearing Rabbis

The singles' column in the Jewish Press is in the midst of a silly discussion of whether or not single men should hold open their car doors for their dates.

One writer, a yeshiva student, writes that they should and rejects the notion that halacha somehow prohibits this, writing:

"My rav showed me how to open a door with the boy in front." (italics added)

Am I the only one who finds it absurd that this guy's rabbi is showing him how to open a car door on dates?

We have gotten to the point where many rabbis insist on turning every issue, no matter how trivial it appears to an ignoramus like me, into one that is a complex question of Jewish law.

The result is unfortunate. On one hand, there are a growing number of yeshivish people who simply cannot make any decision at all without first consulting with a rabbi.

On the other hand, many people - even on the Orthodox right - take hardly anything the rabbis say seriously. Banning the Internet didn't work, banning Making Of A Godol turned the book into a hot item, and objections by some charedi rabbis to the 2002 pro-Israel rally in Washington was met by a massive frum turnout and open expressions of anger at the stridency of Agudah's rabbinical leadership.

It's time for the rabbis to take a step back, especially when the issue is not at all related to halacha. Otherwise we will be left with a large number of mindless followers and a larger number of cynical scoffers.
posted on 11/21/2004

 
Marty Peretz on Europe

In the November 29, 2004 issue of The New Republic (registration may be required), Martin Peretz writes:

Why can't the Europeans--including even the Chechen-traumatized Russians and the newly traumatized Dutch--call Arafat what he was: Osama bin Laden's ideological mentor and the mentor of virtually all the world's prominent terrorists? In my mind, it's rather simple: Arafat, from the 1972 Munich massacre through three decades of random murder of Israeli civilians, killed mostly Jews. And Jews are always guilty of something.
posted on 11/19/2004

 
Protocols

It's been a while since Protocols has been the collaborative site of five young observant Jews that was formed in December 2002 and quickly became the leading Orthodox blog. Things obviously changed after Steven Weiss left for the Forward; Luke Ford's post announcing its impending official end isn't really that surprising.

Of course, Luke and Steven will likely remain on the blogosphere, as will several other ex-Protocols elders.

It is no secret that the old Protocols used to bash the Jewish Press; a weekly feature was the Jewish Press Stupid Letter of the Week. When I briefly commenced a Jewish Press Stupid Column of the Week (it was almost immediately expanded to cover the Forward and the Jewish Week too), Protocols was kind enough to link to it. One of my favorite Protocols comments was a response by Don Miller, who wrote on November 13, 2003:

"Joe Schick is as blissfuly ignorant a chucklehead as are the elders, and equally arrogant to boot... [he is an] obviously unlettered twerp."

Shortly thereafter, Jason Maoz contacted me and I began writing in the Jewish Press. My fourth column, criticizing a prior column in the JP by Steven Plaut, was adapted from a Stupid Column of the Week post.
posted on 11/19/2004

 
The Rat Advertises In The Jewish Press

This week's Jewish Press includes an advertisement for New Jersey Nets "Jewish Family Night." The event is apparently taking place for tomorrow night's loss, er, game, against the Washington Wizards.

According to the ad, tickets are being sold for about half price. That's about double what they go for on the eBay/craigslist market. If you cannot resist the urge to go to a Nets game, at least take already purchased tickets off the hands of a victim of The Rat. Don't give The Rat a new source of revenue for his evil empire.
posted on 11/19/2004

 
Jewish Extremists

When a Torah scholar - a man in his nineties - came recently to this country, his visit triggered a barrage of hate-filled pamphlets, his apparent sin being that he is tolerant on certain religious and ideological issues. When he spoke at a large gathering in Borough Park, buses from Williamsburg brought hecklers who attempted to disrupt his speech. These were not isolated incidents but part of a pattern that has been allowed to fester because it is considered inappropriate for the Orthodox to criticize other Orthodox.
posted on 11/18/2004

 
Jewish Press Column

My column in this week's Jewish Press is now online.

I expect to have another column in the Jewish Press, about exit polls and the Jewish vote, in next week's issue.
posted on 11/17/2004

 
Shidduch Dating At The Meadowlands

A peculiar yet common practice of some young, single Orthodox Jewish males - generally on the right - is to take their dates to a hotel lounge.

In 1996, my class of summer associates at a large law firm was taken to the Marriott Marquis in midtown Manhattan for dinner. The Marriott Marquis was a popular lounge for the discerning frum single and after witnessing the phenomenon, I was sure never to go on a date at a hotel lounge. Even after I was married, I could not accede to my wife's request to have a drink at the lounge of the Bellagio in Las Vegas.

Hotel lounges do, however, provide a quiet place for people to privately talk without violating the Jewish laws relating to yichud.

For most of the 1990's, another opportune public locale for quiet chats was weeknight New Jersey Nets home games. Often an entire row and most of a section could be secured for the modest price of two tickets. If one's date was uninteresting, a mediocre basketball game was more enjoyable and less exhausting than trying to go hours without ordering a second drink.

All this changed three years ago, when the Nets suddenly became one of the NBA's elite teams and played perhaps the most exciting basketball in the league. Even though Continental Airlines Arena wasn't usually filled, it had become full of life, noisy and the game provided too much of a distraction to those trying to have a serious discussion. Not only that, ticket prices more than doubled.

Alas, the golden age of the Nets is gone, thanks to owner Bruce (The Rat) Ratner, whose malicious dismantling of the team is one of the more disgraceful acts in sports history. Not only are the Nets 2-5, but they are boring. The only interesting aspect of the team is the clear demand by Alonzo Mourning, and the slightly more subtle demand of Jason Kidd, to be bought out or traded as soon as possible.

Once again, the Meadowlands is dead quiet during Nets games, the main noise being the clang of missed Nets foul shots. Furthermore, The Rat is now running a promotion in which tickets are being sold for low prices. It is also not difficult to obtain seats for very little on eBay and craigslist. It is quite possible that young people - even those who are observant Jews - might be lured into temptation by their evil inclination, and, heaven forbid, go on a date to a Nets game.

It is therefore necessary to make absolutely clear that as long as The Rat owns the team, it is simply not appropriate to go to any games. Even if tickets are free, one would be giving money to The Rat by parking in the complex. Even if one takes a bus, he or she would probably get thirsty and buy a drink. The only time it might, arguably, be permissible to go to a Nets home game is on a religious fast day if one were to take the bus. Even then, lest an uninformed observer form an erroneous impression that attendance is generally acceptable, it is preferable to be strict and avoid going to the game.
posted on 11/16/2004

 
Where Have All The Comments Gone?

Admittedly this blog hasn't gotten a massive amount of comments, but now it appears that Haloscan has lost or deleted many, if not most, of the comments posted by readers.

It appears that all comments posted prior to July 14 are gone. Presumably, Haloscan only retains comments for a few months, or only retains a set number of comments. Either way, this is not good. I actually needed the comments to my June 30 post about Commonweal Magazine for a new post I was set to write. A number of other posts from June and July of this year resulted in a number of comments, but those are gone too.

If anyone has any idea why Haloscan does this, or if the comments can somehow be retrieved, please let me know.
posted on 11/16/2004

 
A Jets Disgrace

Even after one of the worst coaching performances in sports history, the media continues its love affair with Jets head coach Herm Edwards.

Even Mike Vaccaro, who in today's New York Post blames the Jets coaches for yesterday's meltdown, puts the blame on offensive coordinator Paul Hackett. Of Edwards, he writes: "Edwards is still at that stage of his career where he is only as good as the men around him."

Please. Edwards is in his fourth year as an NFL coach. Pete Caroll, now the head coach at USC, was fired after just one year as Jets head coach in 1994. Just how long does Edwards get a pass for the incompetence of his assistants - who he handpicked - and for his awful game management.

Of course, Hackett continues to be a disaster. The Jets dominated the first half, having no difficulty moving the ball against a Baltimore Ravens defense that seemed mighty overrated.

Hackett's decision to have Lamont Jordan throw an option pass with the Jets up 14-0 and holding the ball at the Baltimore 17 was one of the worst in football history. But while it turned the momentum in Baltimore's favor, it did not alone cost the Jets the game.

What did cost the game is that after that interception, instead of continuing their successful game plan, Hackett reverted to his ultra-conservative, predictable offense. Almost every down was a run. Quincy Carter was only allowed to pass in obvious passing situations, so the Ravens made sure to blitz him every time. And for some reason, Hackett kept Carter in the pocket, even though Carter is a mobile quarterback who can improvise well while rolling out.

Only when Baltimore took a 17-14 lead did the Jets open up their offense, for most of one drive. After moving the ball to the Ravens 17 at the two minute warning, the Jets had all three of their time-outs. While a winning touchdown was not guaranteed, there was no reason to think that the Jets could possibly run out of time. Surely they would have a chance to win it.

Somehow they did run out of time, using the full play clock almost every play. With 55 seconds left, the Jets had first and goal at Baltimore's 4 yard line. Plenty of time for three plays, but again the Jets botched things. The Jets had reverted to their usual fearful style of offense, and settled for a tying field goal.
The Jets won the overtime coin toss, but continued their predictable play-calling of runs of first and second down and passing on third and long. On both of their overtime drives, they failed to get a first down.

The Jets defense played a decent game, but defensive coordinator Donnie Henderson apparently is suffering from at least a mild case of Hackettitis. When the Jets pressured Ravens QB Kyle Boller, he was ineffective. Yet on a number of key plays, especially 3rd and longs, the Jets dropped into a zone defense and allowed Boller time to complete a first down pass. The Ravens two touchdowns were scored on 4th and 8 and on 3rd and 11. On neither play did the Jets blitz.

The failure to blitz Boller follows similar failures to blitz Bills QB Drew Bledsoe last week and Patriots QB Tom Brady three weeks ago. The Jets lost both of those games too.

The Jets are still 6-3, but poor coaching decisions almost cost them home games against the Bills and the 49ers. With Chad Pennington out and a difficult schedule ahead, especially over the season's last four games - against the Steelers, Seahawks, Patriots and Rams - the Jets appear on the verge of failing to make the playoffs after a 5-0 start.

For all the misery of being a Jets fan, perhaps I'm a masochist for schlepping by bus, train and bus from Queens, and then back, to pay to watch this team humiliate themselves season after season. Either way, complaining is the birthright of a Jets fan no less than is misery, and it looks like we'll be doing so for years to come.
posted on 11/15/2004

 
Marwan Barghouti

Whether out of ignorance or malice, many - particularly over the last week - have called on Israel to release Fatah terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti from prison. Barghouti is serving a life sentence for ordering the murder of scores of Israelis.

The argument for releasing Barghouti is that he is a moderate who favors a peaceful solution.

Putting aside that Barghouti is a mass murderer - which only excludes those who murder people who are not Jewish from being deemed a moderate - he has long taken extremist positions and insisted on violence instead of negotiation. The idea that he wants peace is sheer idiocy.

For example, Barghouti told the Jerusalem Post on December 6, 2000 that, "We oppose any return to the negotiations, because now it has become clear that there is no way to make an agreement with the government of Barak... we have asked everybody to accelerate the intifada, instead."

But wasn't Barghouti a supporter of the Clinton Plan, which would have given Palestinians half of Jerusalem, all of Gaza and virtually all of Judea and Samaria?

Actually, no, Barghouti opposed the Clinton Plan. "We can't sign this kind of agreement," he said. "The intifada will continue, and will be escalated in the next few weeks." Barghouti stated that he was opposed to any deal that did not include the right of return for all refugees to Israel.

Even in 1999, shortly after Ehud Barak defeated Binyamin Netanyahu, Barghouti called for the Palestinians to use violence.

With Arafat dead and the Palestinian terror campaign severely weakened by the liquidation of most of Hamas' leadership, why anyone would want Barghouti to be given a position of influence is beyond me. If he were not in prison today, Barghouti would doubtlessly lead a resurgence of violence to ensure that no steps toward negotiation result from Arafat's death. Anyone interested in Middle East peace should demand that Marwan Barghouti serve his life sentence.
posted on 11/13/2004

 
Israel's PR

Last night, I struggled to understand Likud Knesset member Yuval Steinmetz as he was interviewed on a panel on one of the evening news shows - I can't remember if it was on CNN or MSNBC. Steinmetz is an intelligent man of ideas, but his English is heavily accented. Had he spoken in Hebrew, I would have understood much more of what he said. I'm not sure that non-Jewish American viewers would have understood less.

Also yesterday, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold was on the Fox morning show and later on Lou Dobbs' CNN program. Gold, as usual, was fantastic. He made aliyah from Connecticut, so English is no problem for him. He was appearing to promote his new book about the damage the UN has caused prospects for real peace in the Middle East. He is not an official spokesman for the Israeli government.

It is simply inexcusable for Israel to keep putting those who can't speak English on American and British news programs. Binyamin Netanyahu's skills have been completely wasted because Ariel Sharon doesn't trust him. So instead we get Steinmetz and Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom, who also has a heavy accent, though not quite as heavy as Steinmetz's.
posted on 11/12/2004

 
Jimmy Carter and Violence

In today's New York Times, Jimmy Carter writes that following the 1993 Oslo Accords, there was an "absence of serious violence by either side" until the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.

Apparently Carter doesn't consider the scores of suicide bombings, shootings and stabbings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad between 1993 and 1995 to be "serious violence." After all, those events only caused the murder of a few hundred Jews, including a number of Americans, such as Alisa Flatow of New Jersey, a Brandeis student who was murdered in an April 1995 bus bombing.
posted on 11/12/2004

 
Too Late For Too Many

It is 11 P.M. in New York. Yasser Arafat has just been pronounced dead.

Baruch dayan emes, blessed be the true judge. That phrase is easy to say tonight.

Yet Arafat's demise was most untimely. It came much too late.

It is 36 years too late for those who were murdered and maimed in Machaneh Yehuda in 1968.

For the children on the schoolbus in Avivim in 1970, it is 34 years too late.

Arafat passed away 32 years too late for the dozens murdered inside Lod airport in 1972, and for the Israeli athletes who were murdered three months later.

Arafat lived 30 more years after murdering 18 people in Kiryat Shemona, and 27 more - mostly school children - in Maalot the next month.

Those killed in the Zion Square suicide bombing on July 4, 1975 are not here for the news that Arafat is gone.

I have exchanged e-mails with a victim of Arafat's murder of 36 people on the Haifa-Tel Aviv road on March 11, 1978. This now elderly man was severely wounded, his son was murdered.

It is 19 years too late for Leon Klinghoffer, a passenger on the Achille Lauro ship en route to Israel.

It is too late for all the victims of Arafat's deception following Oslo.

For Yosef Tabeja, a border policeman who was on joint patrol with a Palestinian Authority cop who shot him to death in September 2000, and for Yosef Avrahami and Vadim Novesche who were mutilated to death by a crazed mob in Ramallah after making a wrong turn in October 2000, it's four years too late. So it is for Hillel Lieberman, who was murdered trying to save Joseph's Tomb from destruction.

For the victims of the 2000 Gush Katif bombing, including the Cohen family, in which three children lost limbs, it is far too late.

Arye Hershkowitz of Ofra was 55 when he was murdered a few miles away from Arafat's Ramallah compound on January 29, 2001. His son Assaf was 30 when he was murdered nearby on May 1, 2001.

Dr. Shmuel Gillis devoted his life to saving the lives of those stricken with cancer, including many Arabs. He was murdered by Fatah terrorists on his way home from a night shift.

Arafat lived more than 75 years, but Shalhevet Pass only lived 10 months. She was shot to death in Hebron in March 2001.

Yossi Ish-Ran and Kobi Mandell were victims of Arafat's "peace of the brave" in May 2001. They took off a day of school and were brutally stoned to death.

Yehuda Shoham was killed by a rock while riding with his parents in their car in June 2001. Yehuda was five months old.

Shimon Bloomberg and his 14 year old daughter, Tzippi, were severely wounded by a shooting at their car in August 2001. Their wife and mother, Techiya, was killed along with her unborn child.

Shoshana Yehudit Greenbaum, Malka Roth, Michal Raziel, Frieda Mendelsohn were murdered at Sbarro four days later. Mordechai and Tzira Schijveschuurder were also killed that awful day, along with three of their children, including their 4 year old son and 2 year old daughter. Chana Nachenberg and her 3 year old daughter survived, but Chana has not yet woken up.

The 11 people, mostly children, who were murdered in a Fatah bombing at the conclusion of shabbos in March 2002 outside a shul in Meah Shearim might still be here if Arafat had left this world a couple of years earlier.

Arik Krogliak, Tal Kurtzweil, Asher Marcus, and Ariel Zana were murdered in a yeshiva in Gush Katif five nights later.

After shabbos, two night later, Moment Cafe was bombed and 11 were killed.

Just two weeks later, 30 more were murdered on the first night of Pesach at the Park Hotel in Netanya.

Marla Bennett, 24, of California and Benjamin Blutstein, 25, of Pennsylvania, were among the nine victims of the Hebrew University bombing on July 31, 2002.

A few years after his family made aliyah, Ari Weiss was murdered on September 30, 2002. Six months later, Daniel Mandel, whose family also had made aliyah, was killed by terrorists.

On shabbos night in December 2002, Noam Apter and three others yeshiva students in Otniel were murdered during the shabbos meal. Noam locked himself with the terrorists in the kitchen, heroically giving up his own life to save the 100 other students in the dining room.

Rabbi Eli Horowitz and his wife Dina were also eating the shabbos meal, with their family, on March 7, 2003, when they were shot and killed.

Zvi Goldstein danced at his son's wedding on June 19, 2003. The next morning he was shot dead. His parents, who live in Long Island, were seriously wounded.

Goldie Taubenfeld and her 3 months old son, Shmuel, were visiting from New Square, New York when they and 24 others were murdered in a suicide bombing as they rode a bus back from the Kotel on August 19, 2003.

If Arafat had died earlier, perhaps Naava Applebaum would have married Chanan Sand on September 10, 2003. Perhaps her father, Dr. David Applebaum, would still be heading ER at Shaarei Zedek Hospital, and maybe the Shaarei Zedek ER could have treated typical ER patients. But Naava, David and nine others were murdered at Cafe Hillel one night earlier.

On Aza and Arlozorov streets in Jerusalem, Bus 19 was blown up on the morning of January 29, 2004. 11 were murdered, among them Chezi Goldberg, who had written so poignantly about the importance of feeling pain caused by Palestinian murder.

Tali Hatuel was 8 months pregnant when she and her four children were murdered in Gush Katif six months ago.

Nine days ago, a 16 year old suicide bomber was sent by Fatah to explode in a Tel Aviv market. 3 people were killed and dozens were wounded.

May Arafat burn in hell, may the memories of his many victims be a blessing, and may there be no more victims, with G-d's help.
posted on 11/10/2004

 
Neturei Karta

There isn't much to say about Neturei Karta, the tiny, fanatically anti-Israel group that consistently seeks media attention of its unending affection for murderers of Jews.

Needless to say, these are evil people and one can only hope and pray that they will soon incur G-d's wrath.

To its credit, an article in Thursday's New York Times about Arafat supporters keeping a vigil outside the hospital in France conveys the Neturei Karta's pathetic lunacy and one of its motives.

The Times reports:

A handful of media-savvy representatives from Neturei Karta, a sect of ultra-Orthodox, anti-Zionist Jews opposed to the existence of the Israeli state, was on hand, praying and posing for photographers.

"Yasir Arafat is the person who represented the Palestinian cause," said Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, from Rockland County, N.Y. "He did it at the cost of his life, at the cost of his own health and comfort."

According to a senior Israeli official, Mr. Arafat used to pay the head of the organization, Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, $30,000 a month, and documents seized at Mr. Arafat's headquarters two years ago are said to have indicated that Mr. Arafat personally authorized payments to Mr. Hirsch.
posted on 11/10/2004

 
More on Exit Polls and Jews

Last week, I posted to dispute the exit polls indicating that no more than 25 percent of Jews voted for President Bush.

Further evidence appeared in Sunday's Bergen Record. The Record reports that "election results from Bergen County show a striking change in the voting patterns within Orthodox neighborhoods. In the district near the Englewood synagogue [of Congregation Ahavath Torah], about 45 percent of voters went for Bush, as opposed to 21 percent in 2000. A similar shift occurred in heavily Orthodox neighborhoods in Teaneck, including one where Bush captured 62 percent of the vote after garnering just 14 percent in 2000."

These results surely place into question CNN's exit poll for New Jersey, which claims that only 24 percent of Jews voted for Bush. Even if the Orthodox vote is small, it is larger in New Jersey than nationally, as New Jersey includes large observant communities in Englewood, Teaneck, Lakewood and Passaic.

The actual vote results also disprove a comment to my post last week by Mykroft, who stated that "in the Orthodox continuum from MO to chareidi I'd assume the more chareidi the more likely to vote for Bush." Obviously, Teaneck is not a charedi community (nor is it entirely Orthodox, or Jewish, for that matter), yet Bush captured 62 percent of the vote there.

Another poll countering the exit poll results was an American Jewish Committee election day survey among Russian Jews in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey. That survey showed the 75 percent of Russian Jews voted for Bush, with most citing Bush's strong leadership qualities as the primary basis for their vote. Russian Jews today represent a not insignificant percentage of the Jewish population in the Northeast, and most are non-Orthodox.
posted on 11/10/2004

 
Pennington Injured

More bad news for the Jets. QB Chad Pennington is out two to four weeks with a shoulder injury.

Pennington foolishly continued running even after picking up a first down and as a result, was hit hard, injured, and fumbled the ball.

Quincy Carter takes over at quarterback. Back in August, I posted:

"If Pennington suffers a serious injury like he did last year, the Jets are likely doomed. But if Pennington misses 2 or 3 games with an ankle sprain or a separated shoulder, Carter might be able to put up enough points to win a game or two and keep the Jets in contention."
posted on 11/08/2004

 
Awful Coaching

Today's Jets debacle has just mercifully ended.

The Jets coaching was horrific today. Right off the bat, Herm Edwards blew it by electing to kick off after winning the coin toss. As a result, Buffalo got the ball first in both the first and second half, and the Bills scored a touchdown to open the 3rd quarter.

Worse, Paul Hackett's offensive playcalling was predictable and conservative in the second half. In the first half, Chad Pennington was 7-11 for 141 yards, with six of the seven completions to wide receivers. Despite the mediocre play of the Bills' secondary, the Jets responded by running almost every down in the 3rd quarter and early in the 4th quarter, with Pennington failing to complete a pass in five consecutive offensive drives (he only attempted four) and not completing any passes in the second half before leaving the game with an injured shoulder.

The game also exposed the fact that the Jets are neither very good nor very mature. Pennington is not being allowed to throw downfield. The defense is erratic. They have had an easy schedule and took advantage of that schedule until today, but their schedule in the second half of the season will be much more difficult. Rather than compete with the Patriots for the AFC East title, the Jets will likely struggle even to make the playoffs as a wild card, despite their 6-1 start. Last time the Jets started 6-1, in 2000, they finished 9-7 and did not make the playoffs.
posted on 11/07/2004

 
Mark Burnett and Israel

Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor and The Apprentice, is apparently not a fan of Israel.

In an interview with Haaretz, Burnett is asked whether Survivor might film in a desert in the Middle East.

Instead of being diplomatic, Burnett responded:

"No. The whole region is not conducive. Certainly not Israel with the settlements and the problems with the government now."
posted on 11/05/2004

 
Still Dead

Haaretz reports that according to a French hospital spokesman, Yasser Arafat "has not gotten worse."

This reminds me of the classic 1975 Saturday Night Live news segment. Spanish dictator Francisco Franco had been gravely ill for weeks. After he died, for the next several SNL episodes, Chevy Chase reported: "This breaking news just in, Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead!"
posted on 11/05/2004

 
Exit Polls and the Jewish Vote

According to exit polls, President Bush received only between 22 and 25 percent of the Jewish vote.

Miriam Shaviv asks whether Republican support for Israel might change as a result.

I too am concerned. The Republicans might conclude that former Secretary of State James Baker was right to say, "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."

Yet I am sure that the exit polls are wrong. Under any standard, they are completely unreliable.

After completely failing in the 2000 election, yesterday's exit polls projected that Kerry would win the popular vote, Ohio and Florida. So certainly these polls are very flawed.

The exit polls got it wrong in a very large sample. In the case of the Jewish vote, however, the exit polls sample an extremely tiny number of people - too tiny to be statistically consequential. As an example, CNN's exit poll is based on an overall nationwide sample of 13,660 voters. Of these 13,660, only 3 percent, or 410 people, are Jewish. According to CNN, 25 percent of these 410 people, or 102 people, voted for Bush.

Relying on a nationwide sample of 410 Jews is unreliable enough. To take a sample of 410 Jews and proclaim that who these 410 voted for means anything is absurd, especially since these 410 people just happened to be Jewish. It's not as though CNN specifically conducted a poll only of Jews.

It gets worse when one focuses on specific states.

Let's take New York, where in the actual vote, 6,868,000 people voted. According to CNN's exit poll results for New York, 8 percent of New York State voters, or 549,000 people, were Jewish. CNN's exit poll claims that only 18 percent of Jews - or 98,900 Jews - voted for Bush in all of New York State. CNN questioned 1452 people for the New York exit poll. 8 percent were Jewish. In other words, CNN only questioned 116 Jews. Of these 116, 21 voted for Bush.

Putting aside for now that with heavily Orthodox neighborhoods like Boro Park, Flatbush, Monsey, the Five Towns, Monsey and Kew Gardens Hills, Bush had to have gotten more than 98,900 Jewish votes in New York State, why the heck would anyone pay any attention at all to a sample of a grand total of 116 people? Nobody knows what neighborhoods within the state these 116 people were from. There is no reason to think CNN polled the Orthodox neighborhoods - after all, this was not intended as a poll of the Jewish vote, but of the collective vote in New York State.

There are results for each New York State county, but I don't think there are results within the districts of each county in New York. But if those results become available, I think they will show that Bush did far better in Orthodox enclaves than elsewhere within each such county. In others, in the districts containing Boro Park and Flatbush, Bush will have done much better than in the rest of Kings County.

(Thursday's Haaretz has a report from the polling station in Boro Park at which I am registered to vote. It's a block away from the house I grew up in and where my parents have lived for 38 years.)

As it is, some county results are revealing. For example, in Rockland County, Bush won a majority, with over 60,000 votes. Not coincidentally, Rockland County includes Monsey and Spring Valley.

But let's not stop in New York. Instead, let's head to Florida, where CNN's exit poll queried 2862 voters. 5 percent - or a total of 142 - were Jewish. According to CNN, 20 percent of these 142 Jews (or 28 people) voted for Bush. Once again, did the pollsters sufficiently cover Orthodox areas like North Miami Beach and Boca Raton? I doubt it, given that CNN had to cover the entire state.

New Jersey is no better. There, CNN polled 1520 people, 7 percent of whom - or 106 - are Jewish. Of those 106 Jewish people, 24 percent voted for Bush. Again, the Jewish sample is too tiny to be taken seriously, and there is no reason to think CNN even polled the towns with large Orthodox populations like Lakewood, Passaic and Teaneck.

But let's take a look at Lakewood, which is located in Ocean County. Is it a complete coincidence that despite losing New Jersey by a wide margin, Ocean County went for Bush by a 60-39 percent margin? Overall, Bush picked up 143,797 votes there.

So please don't take the exit poll results on Jews seriously. If more data becomes available, I will post again to demonstrate further evidence of the unreliability of the polls.
posted on 11/03/2004

 
Times Refuses to Concede

It's now 3:34 P.M. John Kerry conceded the election a few hours ago, but the New York Times apparently won't give up. Their website reports that as of 3:32 P.M., Ohio remains undecided, with Bush leading Kerry 254-252 in the electoral vote.
posted on 11/03/2004

 
Fay Dicker

Fay Dicker of Brooklyn has an excellent letter in today's Times, pointing out that the mother of Monday's Tel Aviv 16 year old suicide bomber condemned those who sent him but otherwise supported murdering civilians, saying that "they should have sent an adult" instead. She also notes that Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qurei condemned the attack because they don't serve Palestinian interests, not because it is immoral.

I've been seeing Dicker's letters to the editor for years, in various publications. She's obviously a very serious supporter of Israel and letters like hers are an asset to Israel's PR battle. Her efforts are very commendable.
posted on 11/03/2004

 
NHL

Doesn't anybody care that the NHL lockout has no end in sight, and that the entire season might be lost?

We have three professional hockey teams in the New York area, yet the absence of hockey doesn't even receive mention in the print or electronic media. While I haven't listened to WFAN in a few years, I doubt if any of their hosts aside from Steve Somers is even aware of the lockout.

As bad as the Rangers have been over the last seven years, I miss them.
posted on 11/02/2004

 
Nets 2004-05 Preview

In today's Times, Nets exec Rod Thorn says that when Bruce (the Rat) Ratner sold Kenyon Martin to Denver, that Jason Kidd would almost certainly respond by demanding to be traded was not a consideration. Obviously, all The Rat cares about is money.

I'm sick of hearing defenses of The Rat. Yes, attendance is lousy. Yes, the Nets are losing money. None of this, however, is new. Ratner knew of all this when he bought the team for $300 million. He bought the Nets only because it will make him a windfall on his real estate project in Brooklyn. If he had any decency, he'd have kept the Nets competitive. The money he'd lose on the team would be far less than the money he will make on the massive real estate development.

Even more pathetic is that now the Nets are paying big money to non-impact players like Jason Collins ($6 million a year) and even to Thorn, who signed an extension for $5 million a year. If saving money was imperative, why not let Collins go after his contract expires at the end of this season and keep Martin? It's obvious that the Nets didn't even have a plan for the post-Martin era. The only plan is to save money and destroy the team.

If Kidd comes back and Alonzo Mourning contributes, the Nets can have a .500 season and squeak into the playoffs, but they aren't a team that can get past the first round. More likely, the Nets will win 37 or 38 games and Kidd will be traded at the trading deadline. The Rat will be rid of Kidd's contract, which of course is the main thing.

I plan to stick to my decision not to attend any Nets home games. Even if I'm given free tickets (and tickets can be obtained for almost nothing on eBay and Craigs List), I'd likely get thirsty and buy a drink, thereby benefiting The Rat. So sadly, I likely have attended my last Nets game at the Meadowlands.

Of course, it is okay to attend Nets road games. While I'm not a fan of the Dolans, it's certainly preferable to go to a Knicks vs. Nets game at MSG. It's also fine to support the team on the road. Just don't go to home games and inadvertently support The Rat.
posted on 11/02/2004

 
El Al and the OU

There is some confusion about the Orthodox Union's certification of the food served on El Al flights.

This past shabbos, two days ago, Rabbi Yoel Schoenfeld of the OU and assistant rabbi at Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, announced in shul that the OU would no longer be certifying the food on El Al flights. The reason, he said, is that El Al has at times served non-kosher food which it claimed to be kosher.

According to Rabbi Schoenfeld, several months ago, during a delay in Newark, the passengers were served pizza. An observant woman was assured by flight attendants that the pizza was kosher, but it turns out it was purchased from a non-kosher pizza shop in Newark Airport.

More recently, people whose flights were diverted to Budapest and Vienna when the Histadrut strike shut down Ben Gurion Airport were served with non-kosher food acquired from hotel restaurants. Again, observant passengers were assured that the food was completely kosher, with the flight attendants apparently annoyed at the mere insinuation that the food might not be kosher.

Furthermore, Rabbi Schoenfeld said, El Al removes the double wrapping on food served on its flights.

In yesterday's Haaretz, however, the head of the Orthodox Union's kashrut department, Rabbi Menachem Genack, yesterday denied that the OU removed its certification for the food served by El Al. Unclear from the article is whether Rabbi Genack's point is that the OU never certified El Al - and only certifies the caterer it purchases its food on flights leaving from the U.S., which it continues to certify - or that the OU still certifies El Al.

Rabbi Genack's comments thus may or may not be consistent with Rabbi Schoenfeld's.
posted on 11/01/2004

 
Election

The polls are suggesting that the election can go either way. The popular vote is even in most polls, though Newsweek gives Bush the edge. A number of battleground states are too close to call.

Most who are still undecided likely won't vote, or will vote against the incumbent. The trend in Florida has been negative for Bush; if he loses there, unless he can "steal" Pennsylvania or Michigan, he will be defeated.

On the other hand, voter turnout and organization are essential, and Jeb Bush should give his brother the edge in Florida in that regard.

My gut feeling is that Kerry is going to win. Liberals are more motivated than in the 2000 election, and Nader will be less of a factor than four years ago.
posted on 10/31/2004

 
Arafat's Fate

Some have suggested that Israel is better off if Arafat survives his illness, as Israel would likely be faced with U.S. pressure to make concessions to a new PA leader.

I disagree with this thinking. It's not as though Israel hasn't been pressured by the U.S. to make concessions over the last couple of years, even after Arafat was shunned by the Bush Administration. Since refusing to deal with Arafat, Bush pushed the road map on Israel, has insisted on a virtually complete ban on construction in Judea and Samaria, and pushed for the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and part of Samaria.

Israel will be in a better strategic position when Arafat dies. While other PA leaders with involvement in terrorism might be given too much deference - especially in a climate that would likely be sympathetic to Palestinians following the death of their leader - with Arafat gone there would at least be a chance of an eventual end to terrorism. A new PA leader with control over security forces couldn't use the excuse that Arafat isn't letting him take action against terror. Most importantly, with Arafat, Yassin and Rantisi dead, the psychological stench of defeat would hover over Palestinians.
posted on 10/31/2004

 
Letter to the Times

Though the New York Times almost never publish my letters, I have e-mailed them the following letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

The editorial concerning the approval by Israel's Parliament of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza (“Pulling Out Of Gaza,” October 28), refers to the Jews living there as “7,500 militant Jewish residents.”

In fact, the Jews living in Gaza are anything but militant. Most work in agriculture, or as teachers in nearby Israeli cities like Ashkelon. In contrast to the West Bank - where a minority of Jewish residents is extreme - there have been no reported incidents of Jews in Gaza attacking or harassing their Arab neighbors, even as many Jews in Gaza have been murdered or maimed by Palestinian terrorists.

The threats against Sharon have not emanated from Jews in Gaza, who are recognized as moderates and have repeatedly emphasized that their opposition to the dismantling of their communities will be conducted solely through legal means.
posted on 10/28/2004

 
Bill Buckner

When I started following baseball as a little boy in the late '70's and early '80's, there weren't too many players on the Mets to root for, so my favorite player was Bill Buckner, who played for the Cubs, a division rival of the Mets.

Buckner might have been a Hall of Famer if he had stayed healthy late in his career and reached 3000 hits; he finished his career with 2715.

The blame placed on Buckner for the Red Sox loss in 1986 has always been absurd. Somehow there is a myth that if Buckner had cleanly fielded Mookie Wilson's grounder, the Sox would have been champions. In fact, Buckner's error broke a 5-5 tie in the bottom of the tenth of Game 6. But Calvin Schiraldi, who blew a 5-3 lead in Game 6 and then lost Game 7 too, was far more responsible.

Last night some Red Sox fans had a large sign saying that they "forgive" Buckner. Buckner's response reminds me why he was my favorite player:

"This whole thing about being forgiven and clearing my name, you know, I mean ... cleared from what? What did I do wrong? It's almost like being in prison for 30 years and then they come up with a DNA test to prove that you weren't guilty.

"I've gone through a lot of, what I feel, undeserved bad situations for myself and my family over a long period of time, and for someone to come up to me and say, 'Hey, you're forgiven.' I mean, it just kind of brings a really bad taste in my mouth."

Buckner is absolutely right. He had a great career and played hurt throughout the '86 season.

For some reason, Johnny Pesky was never maligned by Boston fans like Buckner was. In Game 7 of the World Series - ironically against the St. Louis Cardinals - Pesky was said to have held the ball while Enos Slaughter scored from first. Whether Pesky actually hesitated and held the ball is now a matter of controversy - and it is more likely than not that if he did hold the ball it was for only about a second - but for decades he was blamed for the Red Sox loss. Despite this, following his retirement, Pesky managed the Red Sox and served as a broadcaster for the team. Never was he subjected to the abuse that Buckner has incurred.
posted on 10/28/2004

 
Times On Gaza

Today's New York Times has an editorial expressing "mixed emotions" about Knesset approval of withdrawal from Gaza. The Times laments that Israel is not unilaterally pulling out of Judea and Samaria too.

The Times libels Jews living in Gaza, who are referred to as "7,500 militant Jewish residents." In reality, Gaza's Jewish residents are, with a few exceptions, quite moderate.
posted on 10/28/2004

 
John Franco and the Mob

John Franco was once a pretty good, if inconsistent, closer, but for about the last five years Mets fans have been wondering why the Wilpons have kept Franco around, overpaying a largely ineffective middle reliever.

Today's New York Sun may have the answer, reporting that Franco has had ties to Mafia leaders. According to the Sun, Franco may be called to testify in the racketeering and murder trial of a mob gangster. Perhaps the Wilpons were afraid of the consequences of cutting Johnny loose.

In other Mets news, the team interviewed Jim Riggleman for its vacant managerial position yesterday. Over eight season with the Padres and Cubs, Riggleman compiled an unimpressive 486-598 record. Of course, prior to joining the Yankees, Joe Torre lost more than 1000 games managing the Mets, Braves and Cardinals, and Torre's 1996 hiring to replace Buck Showalter was ridiculed in the print media and on WFAN. Still, the Mets are all over the place in their search for a manager, and appear to have no idea what they are seeking.
posted on 10/28/2004

 
Tehilim for Arafat

Haaretz reports that according to Palestinian sources, "Yasser Arafat's health has deteriorated and he has lost consciousness."

Let us all pray for Arafat's imminent death, and a more peaceful future for Israel.
posted on 10/27/2004

 
Boston Red Sox

We are about to experience a monumental event in baseball history.

18 years to the night that the Mets defeated the Red Sox in Game 7 of the 1986 World Series, the Red Sox have another chance to finally win the World Series. Probably only a few dozen lucid Red Sox fans remember the team's last victory 86 years ago.

After this, there will be no more chants of "1918." The Red Sox and their fans will no longer be "long suffering."

It's a shame that Nomar Garciaparra is no longer on the team for this.

Unfortunately, Boston's domination may come at the expense of a friend of mine. Lured by free tickets behind the Cardinals' dugout, he booked a flight from LA to St. Louis for tomorrow, in time for Game 5.
posted on 10/27/2004

 
Bush vs. Kerry: Who's Better For Israel

I've never bought into the idea that George W. Bush is great for Israel and John Kerry would be terrible and find it frustrating when Jewish conservatives act as though Bush's record on Israel and its interests has been perfect, even while attacking Kerry for taking positions on the security fence or a final status agreement that are not really different from Bush's.

I also don't understand why Kerry's support for broad abortion rights is constantly mentioned by Orthodox Republicans as a reason to vote Bush, while Bush's rejection of gun control and funding for stem cell research are supposedly in the interests of Jews. Why any Orthodox Jew in New York would view gun control as adverse to his or her interests is beyond me.

Getting back to Israel, Bush pushed the road map on Israel, demanded a Palestinian state and forced Ariel Sharon to accept one, accepts no settlement growth, strongly criticized the security fence, and his vision of a final status agreement is one in which Israel will keep only a tiny portion (5 percent or less) of Judea and Samaria.

Early in his administration Bush sent Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni and others to meet with Arafat and criticized Israeli military actions. Over the last two years, however, Bush has largely supported Israel's war on terror. He has also vetoed a number of outrageously anti-Israel UN Resolutions, and prevented Israel from being internationally isolated.

In a second term, Bush would likely put more pressure on Israel. Based on that, I felt that while Kerry's positions are far from ideal, in a first term, Kerry's positions on Israel would likely not differ much from Bush's.

There's really no way to know for sure, but Richard Holbrooke has changed my mind. During the Clinton Administration, Holbrooke was US ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. He was considered to be relatively friendly to Israel. Holbrooke is a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry and a candidate to be Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration.

In a recent New York Times Magazine feature about Kerry, Holbrooke is quoted saying:

"We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor. What we're really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers."

Just a metaphor? Ideological struggle? Sounds like someone who would respond to a Hamas bombing by calling everyone together for a summit, something Clinton repeatedly did, and Bush at first emulated, before giving Israel some latitude to defend itself.

Worse, Friday night on The O'Reilly Factor, Holbrooke explained how Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East: Kerry, Holbrooke said, will "reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all."

I'm not naive. Bush has at times pressured Israel too and as stated above, in a second term he will apply at least as much pressure. But for Holbrooke to feature pressure on Israel as the way Kerry will improve the situation in the Middle East is quite disturbing. To Holbrooke and other senior members of the Clinton Administration, pressuring Israel "above all" is the knee jerk reaction and policy approach whenever things are messy in the Middle East. Whether or not Holbrooke is Secretary of State, this thinking must be rejected.

Holbrooke's inclusion of Israel with Syria and Saudi Arabia is also outrageous. Why is Israel being grouped with two dictatorships, one of which supports Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups, and the other which for years supported al Qaeda Wahabi extremists? Bush, of course, is for from perfect on this ground, insisting on treating Saudi Arabia as a close friend and ally, but at least he has ended the love affair between the White House and the Assad family.

I'm quite concerned about Bush in a second term, and find some of his positions to be far from ideal, but have concluded that based on the information available to the public, a Kerry Administration would more likely than not be worse for Israel.
posted on 10/26/2004

 
Questions about Unilateral Withdrawal

Tomorrow the Knesset will debate Ariel Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and part of Samaria. The Knesset vote is scheduled for Tuesday; Sharon will win that vote due to the support of Arab and leftist parties.

While I'm not sure it's appropriate for those of us outside Israel to take a strong position on either side of the issue, I think it is proper and worthwhile to ask questions challenging Sharon. Here are five such questions:

1. The settlement project was a major policy decision of all Israeli prime ministers from Eshkol through Barak. Admittedly the Labor prime ministers had more limited ambitions than the Likud leaders, but all were supporters of settlement in at least parts of the territories captured in 1967. Was this policy a mistake?

2. If the answer to the above question is (whether wholly or partially) yes, then Ariel Sharon has quite a bit of explaining to do. After all, as defense minister, housing minister and foreign minister, Sharon was the leading advocate of settlements, including, and even especially, those in Gaza.

Sharon has hinted that things look different from the perspective of prime minister. But he has never elaborated. What does he now know that he didn't know while in previous senior cabinet positions? He hasn't said, but after three decades of stridently calling for settlement throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza, doesn't he have a duty to explain his shift, to Israelis generally and to Yesha residents in particular?

3. In April, Sharon called a Likud referendum on just a couple of weeks notice. He insisted that the results be binding, with withdrawal opponents accepting the outcome if a majority voted in favor of his plan, and promised to do the same if a majority rejected the plan. Should Sharon's defeat in the Likud referendum and his refusal to accept the results be accepted as part of the political process, or should he be held to his promise to Likud members?

4. There are pros and cons to staying in Gaza and northern Samaria. The pros are mainly that the IDF will no longer have to defend the settlements and that Israel can relieve the demographic burden by disengaging from areas that are very densely populated with Arabs. On the con side, the missiles that now land in Gush Katif and Sderot will land in Ashkelon post-withdrawal, the IDF will have less freedom of action and fewer intelligence sources once it withdraws, unilateral withdrawal will embolden Palestinian terror groups, and thousands of Jews will be evicted from their homes even without a peace (or even a ceasefire) agreement.

Sharon has failed to emphasize either the pros or cons. Indeed, he has ignored substantive discussion of his plan. He announced his plans to withdraw in an interview with Yoel Marcus, a left-wing Haaretz columnist. Why have the substantive arguments been ignored by Sharon? Why hasn't he explained the basis for his plan to the people?

5. What will happen when, after withdrawal, Hamas and other terror groups attack Israel from Gaza? Will Israel reoccupy Gaza just like it reoccupied Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus and Hebron in 2002? Or will it refrain from major military action, as has been the case in southern Lebanon since the 2000 withdrawal?
posted on 10/24/2004

 
Willie Randolph

Reports that the Mets plan to hire Willie Randolph to be the new manager are disturbing. Apparently all he needs to do is not completely botch his interview tomorrow.

The main problem with this is that Randolph has not even interviewed for the job yet. How can the Mets decide that he will get the job before even speaking with him?

Originally I wanted Randolph, John Stearns or Bobby Valentine to be the manager. Last week I posted that Randolph appeared to be losing momentum; that post was immediately followed by all the rumors that Randolph was the clear frontrunner.

Now that the Mets front office wants to hire him before even speaking to him, I have a bad feeling about Randolph. He reminds me of Buddy Harrelson, who was a beloved Mets hero before succeeding Davey Johnson as manager. Harrelson was also a nice guy with no managerial experience. Hiring a Yankees favorite to be Mets manager is sort of like the Rangers hiring of Bryan Trottier as coach, something that failed miserably.

That said, if Randolph blows Mets GM Omar Minaya away in his interview tomorrow, then by all means he should be hired. The interview process is designed to give a number of candidates a shot to articulate how they would turn the Mets around. That process should have included Stearns and Valentine, but apparently won't, even though mediocre outcasts are being brought in for reasons nobody can figure out.

Giving Randolph the job just because the Mets think it would be a good PR move is eerily reminiscent of all of the Mets mistakes and calls into question the notion that Minaya really has "full autonomy."
posted on 10/24/2004

 
Jewish Clients on Shabbos

Today, a Jewish client in Israel has been calling me about a situation that must be taken care of immediately. In part, it involves an elderly relative in New York who passed away and had no children; her burial needs to be arranged.

It is already shabbos in Israel and while I'd prefer not to speak with someone when it is shabbos for him, I have a duty to assist the client and also to do what I can to respect the deceased relative.

My approach will probably be to take my client's calls but not to call him. I don't think there is any issue of lefnei iver in taking another person's calls.
posted on 10/22/2004

 
Roger Clemens

Lost in the excitement over the Yankees/Red Sox series is that if the Astros win today, Roger Clemens will start Game 1 of the World Series on Saturday night. Whether the game is at Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium, it would be quite memorable.
posted on 10/20/2004

 
Bobby Valentine

The murmurs about a potential return to the Mets by Bobby Valentine persist. Here's my take:

Bobby V really wants to come back. He could put a stop to all the rumors by saying he's happy managing in Japan, but he hasn't.

GM Omar Minaya is interested in interviewing Valentine. Technically, he has authority from owner Fred Wilpon and son Jeff to hire anybody he wants.

However, the Wilpons are doing everything they can to obstruct hiring Valentine by insisting that the new manager be paid a relatively low salary.

Valentine, however, may call their bluff. In other words, he may be willing to come back for a much lower salary than he was making in 2002, and for less than the $2.2 million he is being paid in Japan or the $2.3 million that Art Howe will be making in 2005 and 2006 for doing nothing (and he made in 2002 and 2003 for doing almost nothing).

Minaya, however, is not yet sure whether he wants to hire Valentine or Texas Rangers hitting coach Rudy Jaramillo (my gut feeling is that Willie Randolph's chances have diminished). And while he supposedly has full autonomy, he probably won't hire Valentine if the Wilpons express discomfort or opposition.

If Minaya decides on Valentine, he can then tell Valentine that money is an issue and let Bobby V decide then and there - on short notice - whether to take a pay cut or stay in Japan. Minaya knows that if it's leaked that he wants to hire Valentine but the Wilpons will only offer a low salary, the fans will demand that Valentine be compensated at a rate consistent with his experience and record. That's why a formal interview with Valentine will only happen at the end of the process, with last week's meeting between Valentine and Minaya spun as just a dinner among old buddies.
posted on 10/19/2004