Jason Maoz, Editor of The Jewish Press, writes:
I was recently asked to become a regular contributor to Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog (go to www.commentarymagazine.com and click on the word “Contentions” in the blog section of the home page).
The blog’s list of past and present contributors includes, among others too numerous to mention, John Podhoretz and Norman Podhoretz, Edward Alexander, Hillel Halkin, Victor Davis Hanson, Joshua Muravchik, Peter Wehner and Ruth R. Wisse; needless to say, it’s an honor to be in such heady intellectual company.
The following was my maiden post for Contentions:
The amazing implosion of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign will be analyzed and argued about for years to come. The Monitor’s own take, hardly original and admittedly based on nothing more than informed speculation, is that he simply was ambivalent about the whole enterprise to begin with.
Anyone who witnessed Rudy’s unforgettable eight-year turn as mayor of New York knows that when Rudy really wants something, he’s tenacious and single-minded about getting it. He’ll fight anyone and anything standing in his way, conventional wisdom and political nicety be damned.
And that’s exactly the Rudy we didn’t see in this campaign, from his surprisingly languid acknowledgment to Larry King in Feb. 2007 that yes, he was in the race, to his strangely subdued performance in what turned out to have been his last presidential debate in Florida last week.
It’s been suggested, by some who harbored a certain level of skepticism about the depth of Rudy’s commitment to a presidential run, that perhaps Rudy thought a tentative campaign, particularly in a year that looked, at least early on, like a washout for the GOP, would raise his profile to an even higher degree and be beneficial for business – i.e., for Giuliani Partners and his already astronomical speaking fees.
Perhaps there’s some truth to that, but lacking access to the inner workings of his psyche, the Monitor can only go back to that earlier suggestion about ambivalence. Part of him liked the idea of being president, of attempting to replicate his success in New York on a national level, but another part of him wasn’t so sure. If the presidency were handed to him, yes – but the gritty day-to-day work of campaigning for office had never been his strong suit.
That much was obvious from his first, mistake-prone and unsuccessful run for mayor in 1989 as well as his victorious second effort in 1993. Andrew Kirtzman, in his highly readable and balanced book Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, described candidate Giuliani on the campaign trail in 1993:
“Other politicians could lose themselves in the moment when working a crowd, but Giuliani never lost the look in his eye that said all this was a just a means to an end…. When he spoke before a crowd he didn’t romance them or flatter them or try to seduce them. Rather, he argued his case; a lawyer making his final summation. He was all prose and no poetry.”
In 1997, Rudy could have shut himself up inside Gracie Mansion and still won reelection, such was his record of accomplishment in his first term of office and the mediocre opposition he faced in Manhattan borough president Ruth Messinger. So 1997 offered no real test of his campaigning skills.
But, certainly in retrospect, his short-lived run for U.S. Senate in 2000 was in many ways a precursor to his near-somnolent presidential bid seven years later. Kirtzman titles the chapter in his book about that campaign “The Reluctant Candidate” and describes the tenor of the campaign in the late winter and early spring of 2000 – before Rudy’s health and marital issues took him out of the running:
“…Giuliani had barely deigned to mount a campaign. While [Hillary] Clinton was well on her way to visiting all sixty-two of New York State’s counties, he’d hardly traveled outside the city. While she was honing her message, he’d barely issued a position paper. Inside his camp, meetings weren’t being held, polls weren’t being taken…. The mayor acted as though he were entitled to the Senate seat, and he didn’t seem to want it all that much.”
In The Prince of the City, his fine study of the Giuliani mayoralty, unabashed Rudy admirer Fred Siegel wrote of the widespread surprise at “Giuliani’s lukewarm approach to a Senate race that had much of the country abuzz.”
Giuliani, wrote Siegel, “seemed to want the job but only if it meant he didn’t have to miss too many Yankee games or campaign too often in the frigid areas of upstate.”
Sound familiar?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Isareli TV Dinosaur Retires
Steve Walz writes for The Jewish Press blog:
Heinz Kluger a.ka. Chaim Yavin, the "Walter Cronkite" of Israel's Channel One "Mabat" TV news program anchored his last broadcast earlier this week, a position he held for 40 years. Though he was considered the model for today's Israeli prime-time anchorman, Mr. Yavin was far from a "pareve" personality.
He held onto the position way too long, becoming a prime-time fossil in the process. As Channels 2 and 10 launched their American-style news broadcasts with two anchors (one man, one woman) and high-tech studios, Mr. Yavin's broadcasts dropped like a rock in the ratings, losing nearly 50% of viewers during the past 5 years.
At a time when Channel One, a quasi-government entity like the BBC and PBS, was losing tens of millions of dollars a year, Mr. Yavin continued to earn a hefty six-figure annual income (dollar wise). He never asked for a pay cut in order to preserve jobs at Channel One.
Mr. Yavin admitted earlier this week that he was proud of politicizing his broadcasts especially thosed that bashed the settlers and their settlement movement. He claims that this was the policy of Israel Radio as well. Which means, that Israel Radio, also owned by the Israeli government, encouraged the brainwashing of its listening audience.
Though Mr. Yavin was renowned for his feisty on-camera battles with former PM Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Likud apparatchik Ehud Olmert, Yavin reveled in his own self-importance rather than presenting journalistic facts. If Yavin was the model for Israeli journalism, then he bears some responsibility for the low-level of Israeli journalism that exists in both the print and electronic media.
Respect for longevity is one thing. But warping the truth in order to stigmatize a group of pioneering Jews who only wish to live in peace and harmony within the borders of Eretz Yisroel is self-hating political advocacy, not journalism.
Shalom and good riddance, Chaim.
Heinz Kluger a.ka. Chaim Yavin, the "Walter Cronkite" of Israel's Channel One "Mabat" TV news program anchored his last broadcast earlier this week, a position he held for 40 years. Though he was considered the model for today's Israeli prime-time anchorman, Mr. Yavin was far from a "pareve" personality.
He held onto the position way too long, becoming a prime-time fossil in the process. As Channels 2 and 10 launched their American-style news broadcasts with two anchors (one man, one woman) and high-tech studios, Mr. Yavin's broadcasts dropped like a rock in the ratings, losing nearly 50% of viewers during the past 5 years.
At a time when Channel One, a quasi-government entity like the BBC and PBS, was losing tens of millions of dollars a year, Mr. Yavin continued to earn a hefty six-figure annual income (dollar wise). He never asked for a pay cut in order to preserve jobs at Channel One.
Mr. Yavin admitted earlier this week that he was proud of politicizing his broadcasts especially thosed that bashed the settlers and their settlement movement. He claims that this was the policy of Israel Radio as well. Which means, that Israel Radio, also owned by the Israeli government, encouraged the brainwashing of its listening audience.
Though Mr. Yavin was renowned for his feisty on-camera battles with former PM Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Likud apparatchik Ehud Olmert, Yavin reveled in his own self-importance rather than presenting journalistic facts. If Yavin was the model for Israeli journalism, then he bears some responsibility for the low-level of Israeli journalism that exists in both the print and electronic media.
Respect for longevity is one thing. But warping the truth in order to stigmatize a group of pioneering Jews who only wish to live in peace and harmony within the borders of Eretz Yisroel is self-hating political advocacy, not journalism.
Shalom and good riddance, Chaim.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Jack Lawrence Interview, April 5, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Before the XRCO Awards, Jack Lawrence talks about breaking up a fight and saving a man's life.
Kristal Summers Interview, April 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Kristal Summers outside the XRCO Awards at Forbidden City (Vine/Hollywood Blvds).
Sunny Lane On Set June 12, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Sunny Lane has appeared a ton in the media, including ABC's show Primetime.
Bree Olson On Set June 12, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Adam & Eve contract girl Bree Olson (not Olsen) talks about her life and work.
Jamie Lynn, Heather Vandeven Interview June 28, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net At the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Luke Ford talks to the last two Penthouse Pets of the Year.
Michelle McKenzie Interview, April 10, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Michelle McKenzie outside Sardo's Bar in Burbank, CA.
Cleopatra Nile II, April 10, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews fellow Aussie Cleopatra Nile outside Sardo's Bar in Burbank, CA. Cleopatra has a degree in Economics.
Cleopatra Nile, April 10, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews fellow Aussie Cleopatra Nile outside Sardo's Bar in Burbank, CA.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Nick Zedd and the Cinema of Transgression
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to Nick Zedd and a French documentary filmmaker about the cinema of transgression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Zedd
Holly Randall Dunks Me Sept. 30, 2007
http://www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/holly_randall.htm Holly Randall has inspired my writing for years. She's a spunky blonde, a photographer and a good writer. I adore her.
Humberto Fontova On Che Guevara II
Humbero was born 1954 in Havana, Cuba. He is a Cuban American author of biographies, memoirs, and political non-fiction. Here he talks about Che Guevara, his latest book.
Humberto Fontova On Che Guevara
Humbero was born 1954 in Havana, Cuba. He is a Cuban American author of biographies, memoirs, and political non-fiction. Here he talks about Che, his latest book.
Julie Simone Interview IV, Aug. 15, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to actress/model
Julie Simone in a Beverly Hills park about her life and work and childhood and views on America.
Julie Simone Interview V, Aug. 15, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to actress/model
Julie Simone in a Beverly Hills park about her life and work.
Julie Simone Interview III, Aug. 15, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Julie Simone about her life and work.
Julie Simone Interview II, Aug. 15, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to actress/model
Julie Simone in a Beverly Hills park.
John O'Sullivan VI Aug. 21, 2007 On Three Who Changed The World
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/john_osullivan.htm
The National Review editor talks about his new book: The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World
John O'Sullivan V Aug. 21, 2007 On Three Who Changed The World
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/john_osullivan.htm
Sullivan is an editor at National Review. His new book: The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World
John O'Sullivan IV Aug. 21, 2007 On Three Who Changed The World
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/john_osullivan.htm
Sullivan's new book is "The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World."
John O'Sullivan III Aug. 21, 2007 On Three Who Changed The World
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/john_osullivan.htm
He talks to David Horowitz's Freedom Center on his new book: The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World
John O'Sullivan Aug. 21, 2007 On Three Who Changed The World
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/john_osullivan.htm
Emma Cummings Interview, Sept. 2, 2007
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Darryl Hanah Interview II, Sept. 2, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Darryl Hanah talks about her life. She's tall and slim and blonde and beautiful like her namesake. Her childhood was horrific.
Darryl Hanah Interview, Sept. 2, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Darryl Hanah talks about her life. She's tall and slim and blonde and beautiful like her namesake. Her childhood was horrific however.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Obama Should Be Treated Like Any Other Candidate
Jonathan S. Tobin writes:
Thus, when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote last week about the troubling facts about Obama’s membership in a Chicago church whose pastor was a friend and supporter of Louis Farrakhan, the racist and anti-Semitic head of the Nation of Islam, he raised a question that some people didn’t want to hear.
In response to queries about his closeness with Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose Trumpet magazine once lauded Farrakhan as a man who “truly epitomized greatness,” Obama subsequently made it clear that he didn’t agree with his church and strongly condemned Farrakhan. The candidate repeated his disgust with anti-Semitism in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech in King’s own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
That was more than enough for the ADL. And though some might still ask why he belonged to such a church (would any candidate get away with belonging to, say, a country club that practiced or advocated discrimination?), the case seemed closed.
However, what was equally interesting was the response to Cohen, a liberal anchor of the Post’s Op-Ed page, from some on the left.
Novelist Michael Chabon wrote on HuffingtonPost.com that merely raising any questions about Obama and Farrakhan was itself illegitimate, even if the facts of this case were not Internet rumors. For Chabon, simply putting the words Obama and Farrakhan in the same article was “fear-mongering” and using the tactics of “propagandists of hatred.” Chabon seemed to feel that anything written about a black that might alienate him from Jews was part of a racist mindset.
So for all the distance we have traveled toward King’s vision of a colorblind society, it appears that some view any questions about a black as inherently tainted by prejudice. This is the same sort of false sensitivity that turned an otherwise unexceptionable statement from Hillary Clinton about the roles played by King and President Lyndon Johnson in passing civil-rights legislation into a controversy.
But if Obama is to be elected president, he can’t be treated as a racial icon who must be treated with kid gloves and spared the examination to which other contenders must submit.
Jews and anyone else who oppose him simply because his father was a Muslim from Kenya offend the spirit of American democracy. But Jews like Chabon, who insist that not even reasonable questions about his associations should be raised, are just as wrong. There are good reasons for Democrats to like Obama, but there are also serious worries about him.
Sports and the Orthodox Jewish Fan
Joseph Schick writes for The Jewish Press:
On Sunday night, many observant Jews will be among the hundreds of millions of people watching the Jets fan’s nightmare as the Giants play the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.
Many Orthodox Jews are sports fans, as is evident by the number of us at sporting events and the prevalence of kosher food stands and even minyanim (prayer groups) at numerous stadiums and arenas. Tamir Goodman’s high school basketball feats were closely watched by Orthodox Jews, who continued to follow him in college and in his professional play in Israel and now with the Maryland Nighthawks. Last season, one of the Internet’s most respected analysts of the New York Rangers was The Hockey Rabbi, a self-identified "Chassidic Jew who loves my family, G-d and the Rangers."
Clearly, sports, probably more than any other leisure activity (if watching the Mets collapse and decades of Jets futility can be called "leisure") is something that many observant Jews take an interest in. This includes many people who take halacha and Judaism very seriously.
Of course, we who are religiously observant believe – or should believe – that Judaism is the essential aspect of our lives. Is following sports an acceptable form of recreation? Are there positive aspects to being a sports fan? Is it bitul Torah (wasting time on a mundane matter), albeit perhaps in a benign form? Is it avodah zarah (idolatry)?
Rabbi Gil Student of Yashar Books and the Hirhurim blog once said that "movies are often halachically objectionable but at times they can have artistic value. Football is simply a bunch of men pummeling each other." Those of us who appreciate a perfectly executed slant pattern feel differently. Community leader Azriel Ganz wrote about baseball, "There is nothing like a beautiful night at the ball park, especially when you are with your kids." For those of us who are sports fans, that rings true. In light of that, how does sports fit into our lives as religious Jews?
As Dr. Jeffrey Gurock detailed in his book Judaism’s Encounter with American Sports, nearly all of the Orthodox Jewish world has come to the recognition that playing sports is beneficial, though there has been controversy about yeshivas and day schools fielding competitive sports teams.
If my own experience is any indication, however, the frum world is ambivalent about the idea of being a sports fan. When I was in third grade, my yeshiva suddenly banned the possession of baseball cards – a prohibition that I was soon surprised to learn was intended to also cover hockey, basketball and football cards. A year or two later, that same school took my class to a Harlem Globetrotters game at Madison Square Garden.
'Mazel Tov On Your Date'
Cheryl Kupfer writes:
I am coming to the conclusion that that if a bocher and a girl actually go on a date – a mazel tov to both sides is warranted. It means that each had successfully passed an intense, all encompassing inspection and scrutiny that would be the envy of any secret government agency. Getting “approved”, and considered worthy to go out with someone, is getting to be a cause for celebration!
It seems that more than ever friends who have kids in the “parshah” have been complaining about how hard it is to get a “yes” –for a first date – even for their sons. It’s not so much that they aren’t getting names or suggestions, it’s just that by the time people “check” – more often than not they are told that the shidduch isn’t “shayach – it’s not appropriate.”
It’s a puzzlement for many and they scratch their heads in wonder because, on the surface, the “couple” is compatible in so many ways. So why the rejection?
After hearing a comment this past Shabbat, while enjoyinglunch with several friends and new acquaintances, I’ve begun to understand how this sad state of affairs has come to pass.
What I heard is that some people, when redd a shidduch with a family they are not familiar with– hire a private detective to get “information.” I’m glad I didn’t have food in my mouth at the time, because I know that my jaw dropped considerably at this news.
Immediately, the image of a bespectacled, heimeshe couple talking to a beefy, hard-nosed detective popped into my mind. I imagined a tichel and robe wearing woman shouting, as the detective walked away with a list of what to check out, “ Make sure you note what brand of gefilte fish she serves, and if she uses silverware or plastic.”
I would have laughed - except I felt too sad. Interestingly, the last time I had simultaneous conflicting feelings was when I had the flu many years ago, and I was hot and chilled at the same time.
Obama Policy Adviser Raises Israeli Concerns
Aaron Klein writes for The Jewish Press:
JERUSALEM – While officials here largely maintain a policy against interfering in U.S. presidential politics, some Israeli security officials quietly expressed "concern" about an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
JERUSALEM – While officials here largely maintain a policy against interfering in U.S. presidential politics, some Israeli security officials quietly expressed "concern" about an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
The officials noted that Robert Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority president Yasir Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.
Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.
Malley’s contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat’s refusal to make peace for the talks’ failure.
"We are noting with concern some of Obama’s picks as advisers, particularly Robert Malley who has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hizbullah and offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the
facts," said one security official, speaking on condition of anonymity.The official stated he was not authorized to talk to the media about U.S. politics, noting Israeli officials are instructed to "stay out" of American political affairs.
In February 2006, after Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and amid a U.S. and Israeli attempt to isolate the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority, Malley wrote an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun advocating international aid to the terror group’s newly formed government.
"The Islamists (Hamas) ran on a campaign of effective government and promised to improve Palestinians’ lives; they cannot do that if the international community turns its back," wrote Malley in a piece entitled, "Making the Best of Hamas’ Victory."
Malley contended the election of Hamas expressed Palestinian "anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cut off in the event of an Islamist success."
Malley said the U.S. should not "discourage third-party unofficial contacts with [Hamas] in an attempt to moderate it."
Hamas is responsible for scores of deadly shootings, suicide bombings and rocket attacks aimed at Jewish civilian population centers. Hamas’s official charter calls for the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel.
This Week In 'The Jewish Press'
Chumi Friedman writes:
"Rabbi Bechhofer’s concerns are certainly well placed. But as Rabbi Rakeffet recently said, "over the years my knowledge of baseball made hundreds of kids into bnei Torah ... you have no idea the effect it has on younger students when the rebbe knows baseball… In the kid’s mind, who can be like the rebbe? He’s from a different generation. Suddenly the rebbe opens his mouth to talk baseball and he’s one of the kids. Now he can teach Torah." " - From Sports and the Orthodox Jewish Fan
"Rabbi Bechhofer’s concerns are certainly well placed. But as Rabbi Rakeffet recently said, "over the years my knowledge of baseball made hundreds of kids into bnei Torah ... you have no idea the effect it has on younger students when the rebbe knows baseball… In the kid’s mind, who can be like the rebbe? He’s from a different generation. Suddenly the rebbe opens his mouth to talk baseball and he’s one of the kids. Now he can teach Torah." " - From Sports and the Orthodox Jewish Fan
**************************************************
"While America’s economy and financial position in the world are extremely important concerns, we also subscribe to the Bush belief that these depend on how the war on terror fares. Failure to deal with the Islamist threat will result in a reevaluation by a number of countries concerning future alliances. Russia and China are military and economic powers waiting in the wings as replacements, and looming on the horizon is a resurgent – and potentially nuclear – nuclear Iran. " - From The Jewish Press lead editorial
****************************************************************
"Lacking is the valuable interchange of people-to-people encounters, so vital to creating reconciliation and overcoming hatred. As more casual tourists include the Holocaust sites as part of their overall tour of Poland, it is critical that their experiences reflect the truth of the past, as well as present-day efforts to come to terms with it." - A New Approach to visiting Auschwitz
****************************************************************
"For most of us, “we support the troops” does not constitute a preamble to antiwar statements. Rather, we support the troops because we know how important it is for good people to stand firm against evil. It seems a significant number of our children and grandchildren understand that as well." - Do you know where all the Flower Children went?
***************************************************************
"Dr. Norman Hollenberg, a Harvard professor, found that some of the Kuna Indians, who live in Panama, had lower blood pressure, less hypertension and suffered from less cardiovascular disease than their relatives. The difference between the two groups was that the Indians who still lived on the chain of islands consumed three to four cups of cocoa a day, while their relatives who had moved to the mainland, stopped drinking cocoa." - Chocolate and blood pressure reduction - who knew!
************************************************************
Finally, exclusively in our print edition (available at newsstands or by calling 800-992-1600 ext. 344: Chaos over Jerusalem, Personal Perspectives, and a Starfish.
Who Is Ron Paul?
Elliot Resnick writes for The Jewish Press:
Largely unmentioned in much of the presidential election discourse is Texas Representative Ron Paul. This despite the fact that he apparently is the most searched candidate on the Internet and that he recently set a fundraising record by raising six million dollars in a single day.
Who is Ron Paul?
On foreign affairs, he is a non-interventionist, believing that America should trade with everybody and have entangling alliances with none. He wants to shut down dozens of American bases around the world, which, he says, drain America's economy and does nothing to endear itself to the world.
Some have criticized his desire to cut off aid from Israel. But as Paul says, he plans on cutting off all aid to that region and, currently, the Arab states and entities receive three times what Israel gets.
Besides, Paul argues, Israel would be better off not being dependent on American aid. He believes, as I do, that Israel is too subservient to America and runs to seek America's permission for every war it fight and every peace deal it signs.
On the domestic front, Paul is a libertarian, which means that he maintains that aside from assuring the security of its citizenry and establishing courts of law, government should stay out of people's businesses.
He wants to abolish the IRS (the income tax only dates from the 1910's) and replace it with nothing. As a congressman he has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget.
He also wants to let the young generation opt out of social security. To me, there is no greater insult than the government taking your own money away from you "for your own good." Paul doesn't discuss social security much nor does he discuss whether he favors eliminating the welfare state entirely or just vastly reducing it. (Perhaps this is because, as Paul has said, the president, as opposed to Congress, has little direct authority over these matters.) But as someone who formerly ran on the Libertarian ticket, his leanings should be clear.
What Paul is most famous for (among those people who have heard about him altogether, as the media have done a good job at giving him minimal coverage) is his opposition to the war in Iraq and his contention that America's presence in the Middle East fuels Al Qaeda's hatred of this country.
A long story needs to be told here, but for the present, voters should consider whether the Arab terrorists, however crazy they are, would have attacked America if we had stayed out of their affairs these past 50 years.
Some would argue that America needs to be involved in the Middle East to protect its interests. But was America's intervention in Iran in decades past to its benefit? Was its support of Saddam Hussein in his earlier years to its benefit? Is stationing American troops in Saudi Arabia to its benefit?
(Nonetheless, a decent counter argument can be made and that's why Paul's position on this subject is not one of my favorite.)
Concerning the Iraq War, voters should consider whether they really want American troops to continue to die for the next 100 years as McCain said may be possible.
And this leads me to a final aspect of Paul's philosophy which is of great appeal among supporters: his respect for the Constitution. If, he asks, the Iraq War was so important, why didn't Congress declare war as the Constitution instructs it to? Good question. On this issue at least, I think we can all say, "Amen."
Largely unmentioned in much of the presidential election discourse is Texas Representative Ron Paul. This despite the fact that he apparently is the most searched candidate on the Internet and that he recently set a fundraising record by raising six million dollars in a single day.
Who is Ron Paul?
On foreign affairs, he is a non-interventionist, believing that America should trade with everybody and have entangling alliances with none. He wants to shut down dozens of American bases around the world, which, he says, drain America's economy and does nothing to endear itself to the world.
Some have criticized his desire to cut off aid from Israel. But as Paul says, he plans on cutting off all aid to that region and, currently, the Arab states and entities receive three times what Israel gets.
Besides, Paul argues, Israel would be better off not being dependent on American aid. He believes, as I do, that Israel is too subservient to America and runs to seek America's permission for every war it fight and every peace deal it signs.
On the domestic front, Paul is a libertarian, which means that he maintains that aside from assuring the security of its citizenry and establishing courts of law, government should stay out of people's businesses.
He wants to abolish the IRS (the income tax only dates from the 1910's) and replace it with nothing. As a congressman he has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget.
He also wants to let the young generation opt out of social security. To me, there is no greater insult than the government taking your own money away from you "for your own good." Paul doesn't discuss social security much nor does he discuss whether he favors eliminating the welfare state entirely or just vastly reducing it. (Perhaps this is because, as Paul has said, the president, as opposed to Congress, has little direct authority over these matters.) But as someone who formerly ran on the Libertarian ticket, his leanings should be clear.
What Paul is most famous for (among those people who have heard about him altogether, as the media have done a good job at giving him minimal coverage) is his opposition to the war in Iraq and his contention that America's presence in the Middle East fuels Al Qaeda's hatred of this country.
A long story needs to be told here, but for the present, voters should consider whether the Arab terrorists, however crazy they are, would have attacked America if we had stayed out of their affairs these past 50 years.
Some would argue that America needs to be involved in the Middle East to protect its interests. But was America's intervention in Iran in decades past to its benefit? Was its support of Saddam Hussein in his earlier years to its benefit? Is stationing American troops in Saudi Arabia to its benefit?
(Nonetheless, a decent counter argument can be made and that's why Paul's position on this subject is not one of my favorite.)
Concerning the Iraq War, voters should consider whether they really want American troops to continue to die for the next 100 years as McCain said may be possible.
And this leads me to a final aspect of Paul's philosophy which is of great appeal among supporters: his respect for the Constitution. If, he asks, the Iraq War was so important, why didn't Congress declare war as the Constitution instructs it to? Good question. On this issue at least, I think we can all say, "Amen."
I've Launched Lukeford.tv!
G-day mate,
Here's my guide to the best videos on Youtube in the following categories:
Academy AwardsAcne
Adsense
Air Supply
Alizee
Amanda Bynes
American Idol
Amy Winehouse
Angelina Jolie
Ann Coulter
Antonio Villaraigosa
Apple
Atkins Diet
Australia
Bad Credit
Badoo
Barak Obama
Baseball
Ben Affleck
Beyonce
Bikinis
Bikram Yoga
Borat
Brad Pitt
Britney Spears
Brooklyn Storage
Car Insurance
Cheap Airfare
Chicago Houses
Chris Benoit
Christ
Christianity
Christina DeRosa
Clay Aiken
Clint Eastwood
Computers
Condominiums
Condos
Credit Cards
Credit Relief
Credit Reports
Credit Score
Cruises
Dailymotion
Dallas Condominiums
Dallas Cowboys
Dana Jacobson
David Carradine
Debbie Gibson
Debt Consolidation
Debt Refinance
Dennis Prager
Diets
Disney
Disney World
eBay
Eddie Izzard
Elijah Kelley
Elton John
England
Ethics
Evan Sayet
Fashion
Fergie
Fidel Castro
Film Editing
Galilea Montijo
Global Warming
Golf
Hannah Montana
Hawaii
Heath Ledger
Heather Mac Donald
Heidi Klum
Hillary Clinton
Home Loans
Hotels
Hymn
Insurance
Investment Property
Iphone
Ipod
Iran
Jack Nicholson
Jamie Gold
Jay Leno
Jay Z
Jennifer Garner
Jerusalem
Jessica Alba
Jews
Judaism
Julia Allison
Katherine Heigl
Katie Holmes
Kelly Clarkson
Kerry Howley
Kevin Blatt
Kim Kardashian
Kiss
Laptop
Las Vegas Condominiums
Leggings
Limewire
Lindsay Lohan
London
Lost
Love
Luke Ford
Mac Air
Mac Book
Maria Sharapova
Marla Maples
Mary Hart
Matisyahu
Matt Damon
Michael Jackson
Michelle Williams
Mickey Mouse
Mike Huckabee
Mischa Barton
Mitt Romney
Monty Python
Morals
Mortgage
Myspace
Naruto
Neil Strauss
New York Giants
Nikki Blonsky
NFL
Ninjas
New Zealand
Oprah
Orlando Condominiums
Orlando Vacations
Oscars
Pamela Anderson
Paris
Paris Hilton
Perez Hilton
Pilates
Plastic Surgery
Pokemon
Poker
Rachael Ray
Reason
Reason Magazine
Refinance
Ringtones
Ron Paul
Sacha Baron Cohen
San Jose Condos
Sarah Silverman
Scorpions
Seal
Shmuley Boteach
Skateboard
Skip Bayless
South Beach Diet
Spyware
Subprime
Super Bowl
Taylor Swift
Tel Aviv
Texas Hold 'Em
The Carpenters
Tmz
Tom Brady
Tom Cruise
Torah
Travis Barker
Uwe Boll
Vacations
Valentine
Valentine's Day
Vanessa Hudgens
Vince McMahon
Viral Marketing
Warren Beatty
Webkinz
WGA
Wii
WWE
Xbox
Yoga
Yosemite
Zac Efron
Zuda
Christina DeRosa Interview IX, Feb. 1, 2008
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/christina_derosa.htm Luke Ford interviews Christina DeRosa at her apartment about her life and acting (Entourage, Marco Polo). The final segment.
Christina DeRosa Interview VIII, Feb. 1, 2008
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/christina_derosa.htm Luke Ford interviews Christina DeRosa at her apartment about her life and acting (Entourage, Marco Polo, The Metrosexual).
Monday, January 28, 2008
Your Moral Leader's Lurid Midnight Confessions
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks about turning friends into enemies and enemies into friends.
Your Moral Leader Reviews "Married Life"
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford reviews the new film starring Chris Cooper, Pierce Brosnan, Rachel McAdams. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804505/
Rob Spallone, Nic Cramer June 4, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford follows Rob and Nic around Chatsworth.
Jim South, Rob Spallone June 4, 2007 II
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to Rob Spallone, Jim South at Star World Modeling about AIDS, scandals reported in the LA Daily News.
Jim South, Rob Spallone June 4, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to Rob Spallone, Jim South at Star World Modeling.
Your Moral Leader Gets In Shape For The Super Bowl
http://www.lukeford.net Moral Leader Luke Ford puts aside the sacred texts to whip himself into shape as America's Next Great Love Machine.
Rob Spallone, Jade Devin Go For A Ride, June 4, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford takes a ride on the wild side.
Kacey Villainess Interview, June 3, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Kacey at the "Search 4 A Cause" event in Santa Monica, CA.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Jewish Identity: Still Under Construction
Rabbi Irwin Kula writes:
This month the most ambitious documentary on the American Jewish experience, a six-hour series called “The Jewish Americans,” aired on PBS stations around the country. The program, whose third and final segment was on Wednesday, is the most nuanced and sophisticated telling of the Jewish American story to date. The documentary invites us to reflect about what Jewish identity has meant in the past, what it will mean in the future, and how a minority group retains its identity.
Historically, there was never a single Jewish identity, there were many Jewish identities. As with any religious culture, there were different expressions of Jewishness that were products of interactions between people, their times, their inherited traditions, the larger cultures in which they were embedded, and their personal biographies.
Jewish identity in the first century in Palestine was very different than Jewish identity in Poland in the 17th century, which was very different than Jewish identity in Spain in the 12th century, which was different than Jewish identity in New Mexico at the end of the nineteenth century, which is different from the many kinds of Jewish identities in Jerusalem and Manhattan in the 21st century. In fact, when one studies the Jewish past, one discovers that identity is really a verb and not a noun — it is something that is continuously being constructed and not something that is static that one possesses.
This month the most ambitious documentary on the American Jewish experience, a six-hour series called “The Jewish Americans,” aired on PBS stations around the country. The program, whose third and final segment was on Wednesday, is the most nuanced and sophisticated telling of the Jewish American story to date. The documentary invites us to reflect about what Jewish identity has meant in the past, what it will mean in the future, and how a minority group retains its identity.
Historically, there was never a single Jewish identity, there were many Jewish identities. As with any religious culture, there were different expressions of Jewishness that were products of interactions between people, their times, their inherited traditions, the larger cultures in which they were embedded, and their personal biographies.
Jewish identity in the first century in Palestine was very different than Jewish identity in Poland in the 17th century, which was very different than Jewish identity in Spain in the 12th century, which was different than Jewish identity in New Mexico at the end of the nineteenth century, which is different from the many kinds of Jewish identities in Jerusalem and Manhattan in the 21st century. In fact, when one studies the Jewish past, one discovers that identity is really a verb and not a noun — it is something that is continuously being constructed and not something that is static that one possesses.
Will Ohlmert Fall?
Gary Rosenblatt writes:
If, as Israeli President Shimon Peres told the program participants, Israelis are always “divided between fear and hope,” this year’s conference opened at a moment when fear is ascendant, as reflected in three of the key issues discussed: Iran and its potential nuclear threat after the release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report in Washington that appears to undermine efforts to halt Tehran; a post-Annapolis assessment of the prospects for Mideast peace when little progress has been made; and the volatile domestic political situation in Israel on the eve of the final Winograd Commission report assessing the role and responsibility of the Olmert government during the Lebanon war.
Due out Jan. 30, the report is expected to deal harshly with the government and could lead to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s political downfall, though he has stated publicly that no matter what the report says, he will not resign.
Will Olmert Fall?
At one of the most highly charged sessions, on the Winograd report, Olmert’s attitude was sharply criticized as arrogant, undemocratic and a sign of “a loss of moral authority” on the prime minister’s part by Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, a former national security adviser and founding chair of the Tafnit political party. He and another panelist, Gideon Sa’ar, a member of Knesset from Likud, insisted that none of the military objectives of the war were achieved — defeating Hezbollah, stopping the missile attacks on Israel, and rescuing the kidnapped soldiers — and that Olmert must bear the blame and step down.
If, as Israeli President Shimon Peres told the program participants, Israelis are always “divided between fear and hope,” this year’s conference opened at a moment when fear is ascendant, as reflected in three of the key issues discussed: Iran and its potential nuclear threat after the release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report in Washington that appears to undermine efforts to halt Tehran; a post-Annapolis assessment of the prospects for Mideast peace when little progress has been made; and the volatile domestic political situation in Israel on the eve of the final Winograd Commission report assessing the role and responsibility of the Olmert government during the Lebanon war.
Due out Jan. 30, the report is expected to deal harshly with the government and could lead to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s political downfall, though he has stated publicly that no matter what the report says, he will not resign.
Will Olmert Fall?
At one of the most highly charged sessions, on the Winograd report, Olmert’s attitude was sharply criticized as arrogant, undemocratic and a sign of “a loss of moral authority” on the prime minister’s part by Maj. Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan, a former national security adviser and founding chair of the Tafnit political party. He and another panelist, Gideon Sa’ar, a member of Knesset from Likud, insisted that none of the military objectives of the war were achieved — defeating Hezbollah, stopping the missile attacks on Israel, and rescuing the kidnapped soldiers — and that Olmert must bear the blame and step down.
Luke Ford On the Set Of Barely Legal 75, May 18, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford hangs out on set in Sunland with Jenny Hendrix, Evelyn Lin, Alexis Love, Faye Runaway, Alexandra
Donny Long's Girls
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Donny Long and a couple of his girls May 26, 2007.
On Set Of Barely Legal 75, May 18, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford on set in Sunland with Jenny Hendrix, Evelyn Lin, Alexis Love, Faye Runaway, Alexandra.
Aria (Keri Doudna) Interview II, March 20, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Aria about her past in the Adult industry and her new beginning: http://www.myspace.com/humblebodyworks
Aria (Keri Doudna) Interview, March 20, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Aria aka Keri Doudna, a massage therapist in Woodland Hills. Her site: http://www.myspace.com/humblebodyworks
Evelyn Lin Interview II May 18, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews the UCSD student on the set of Barely Legal 75 in Sunland, CA.
Evelyn Lin Interview May 18, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Evelyn Lin on the set of Barely Legal 75.
Michelle Avanti Interview II, May 27, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Michelle Avanti poolside in the Valley.
Melody Gore Interview, May 27, 2007
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Summer Storm Interview, May 27, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Summer Storm at the FOXE Awards.
Aline Interview May 26, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Aline at a Studio City club.
Your Moral Leader Exposes LimmudLA!
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford exposes the dark shadowy world of LimmudLA and its ilk of shadowy conferences around the world. What really goes on there? Is it truly about Torah or is there something more sinister?
On Set Of Barely Legal 75
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford reports from Sunland, CA on Jenny Hendrix, Evelyn Lin, Alexis Love, Faye Runaway, Alexandra
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wicked Pictures Party Sept. 30, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford circulates and interviews at the Wicked Pictures party.
Julie Simone Aug. 15, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Julie Simone in a Beverly Hills park.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
This Week In 'The Jewish Press'
From the Jewish Press blog:
"Shabbos Sheva Berachos: This meal should ideally be eaten at the home of the kallah’s parents. Alternatively, the meal should be eaten in a small catering facility. Only grandparents, the kallah’s siblings, and – only if they reside out-of-town – the chassan’s siblings are to be invited. In smaller families, the chassan’s siblings may be invited. Other close relatives, such as those of the kallah’s parents, should eat at other relatives and join the sheva berachos only for bentching." - The Satmar chasunah guidelines
"Shabbos Sheva Berachos: This meal should ideally be eaten at the home of the kallah’s parents. Alternatively, the meal should be eaten in a small catering facility. Only grandparents, the kallah’s siblings, and – only if they reside out-of-town – the chassan’s siblings are to be invited. In smaller families, the chassan’s siblings may be invited. Other close relatives, such as those of the kallah’s parents, should eat at other relatives and join the sheva berachos only for bentching." - The Satmar chasunah guidelines
****************************************************
"It was during our first briefing that I learned things were not as peaceful as they had initially seemed. We had received intelligence reports that Hizbullah was about to launch a wide-ranging offensive in our area, and it was anticipated that this attack would take place that very week. Suddenly, we were all brought back to the reality of our situation. Previous visions of us all sitting atop our tank and enjoying the view quickly faded as the specter of battle loomed." - Simcha Goitein with Avi's story.
*****************************************************************
"For single women age 20, the modeled ratio is approximately 90%, which means that for every 100 single women at age 20, there are only about 90 single men who are 1 to 5 years older in the pool of potential marriage candidates. For single women age 25, the modeled ratio is only around 80%, and for single women age 30, the modeled ratio drops to around 60%." - Ariel Halpert gives a Mathematical explanation for the shidduch crisis.
*******************************************************************
"The Torah is not a mere set of cold laws. It includes events and stories, with lessons about the spirit of its laws and how we should live our lives. The settings in Bereishit – such as Gan Eden, the generation of the Flood, even Creation itself – also represent such theoretical states of nature. Locke himself referred to Adam in his Second Treatise. Indeed, everything that occurs in the Torah is a presentation of Judaism’s primary contribution to the theory of civilization: the idea that there is one God in heaven and on earth. " - Daniel Tauber with a theory regarding the Ten commandments.
*****************************************************************
"If Jordan were to return the Jordanian citizenship it illegally revoked in 1988 from the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians would finally have a citizenship that means something. They would be represented by a government capable of advancing their interests instead of one that forces them to live in constant terror of PA security forces and assorted terror cells. " Caroline Glick on Palestinian Statehood."Shabbos Sheva Berachos: This meal should ideally be eaten at the home of the kallah’s parents. Alternatively, the meal should be eaten in a small catering facility. Only grandparents, the kallah’s siblings, and – only if they reside out-of-town – the chassan’s siblings are to be invited. In smaller families, the chassan’s siblings may be invited. Other close relatives, such as those of the kallah’s parents, should eat at other relatives and join the sheva berachos only for bentching." - The Satmar chasunah guidelines
****************************************************
"It was during our first briefing that I learned things were not as peaceful as they had initially seemed. We had received intelligence reports that Hizbullah was about to launch a wide-ranging offensive in our area, and it was anticipated that this attack would take place that very week. Suddenly, we were all brought back to the reality of our situation. Previous visions of us all sitting atop our tank and enjoying the view quickly faded as the specter of battle loomed." - Simcha Goitein with Avi's story.
*****************************************************************
"For single women age 20, the modeled ratio is approximately 90%, which means that for every 100 single women at age 20, there are only about 90 single men who are 1 to 5 years older in the pool of potential marriage candidates. For single women age 25, the modeled ratio is only around 80%, and for single women age 30, the modeled ratio drops to around 60%." - Ariel Halpert gives a Mathematical explanation for the shidduch crisis.
*******************************************************************
"The Torah is not a mere set of cold laws. It includes events and stories, with lessons about the spirit of its laws and how we should live our lives. The settings in Bereishit – such as Gan Eden, the generation of the Flood, even Creation itself – also represent such theoretical states of nature. Locke himself referred to Adam in his Second Treatise. Indeed, everything that occurs in the Torah is a presentation of Judaism’s primary contribution to the theory of civilization: the idea that there is one God in heaven and on earth. " - Daniel Tauber with a theory regarding the Ten commandments.
*****************************************************************
"If Jordan were to return the Jordanian citizenship it illegally revoked in 1988 from the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians would finally have a citizenship that means something. They would be represented by a government capable of advancing their interests instead of one that forces them to live in constant terror of PA security forces and assorted terror cells. " Caroline Glick on Palestinian Statehood.
Shay Laren, Martina Warren June 28, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Penthouse Pets Shay Laren, Martina Warren
Seymore Butts, Maripossa Interview Feb. 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Sunny Lane, Seymore Butts and Maripossa outside Sardo's Bar in Burbank, CA.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Should Anyone Care?
Elliot Resnick writes for The Jewish Press blog:
Does anyone think that Israel's situation will actually be better rather than worse ten years from now? Twenty years from now?
Does anyone believe that Israel won't cede more land to its mortal enemy?
Does anyone believe that Israel will ever protect its citizens from kassam rockets?
Does anyone doubt that the Arabs will be launching more, not fewer, rockets in the ensuing decade?
Does any of this matter?
Perhaps Judaism only requires one to study Torah and perform mitzvos.
Perhaps controlling the land of Israel is a nice amenity but certainly not a necessity.
Or perhaps living as a sovereign people in one's own land is of supreme religious and historical value if one can do so in a peaceful manner. Shedding blood, however, for such a venture is simply not worth it.
Or rather, bleeding for the land is fine. Making others bleed is the problem. And if we Jews bleed to death.... well, so is the price of living in the Holy Land.
Perhaps some Jews would run the country differently if they were in charge, but since they're not in charge, bleeding on the cross of national suicide would then constitute morality of the highest order.
But why am I going on? Does any of this really matter? Does it? Isn't Hashem truly in charge, and isn't whatever He wills going to happen anyways? So why bother getting angry, depressed, excited, active, revolutionary? Why?
Glory is for previous ages. An age like that of the Maccabees. An age of the "give me liberty or give me death" American revolutionaries.
Our age is one in which we wait for the hand of God. When He decides to redeem us, then we will be redeemed and sing His holy praises. And until then, we will cry, we will pray, we will perform mitzvos.
God wants nothing from us except to bleed on the altar of passivity. Proud, jingoistic patriotism is for non-Jews. Especially non-Jewish is patriotism translated into action.
Jews are international and spiritual. We don't need a land. We certainly don't need to fight for it. And certainly not when fighting for it requires sacrifices of a degree that many of us have not even begun to conceive of.
Does anyone think that Israel's situation will actually be better rather than worse ten years from now? Twenty years from now?
Does anyone believe that Israel won't cede more land to its mortal enemy?
Does anyone believe that Israel will ever protect its citizens from kassam rockets?
Does anyone doubt that the Arabs will be launching more, not fewer, rockets in the ensuing decade?
Does any of this matter?
Perhaps Judaism only requires one to study Torah and perform mitzvos.
Perhaps controlling the land of Israel is a nice amenity but certainly not a necessity.
Or perhaps living as a sovereign people in one's own land is of supreme religious and historical value if one can do so in a peaceful manner. Shedding blood, however, for such a venture is simply not worth it.
Or rather, bleeding for the land is fine. Making others bleed is the problem. And if we Jews bleed to death.... well, so is the price of living in the Holy Land.
Perhaps some Jews would run the country differently if they were in charge, but since they're not in charge, bleeding on the cross of national suicide would then constitute morality of the highest order.
But why am I going on? Does any of this really matter? Does it? Isn't Hashem truly in charge, and isn't whatever He wills going to happen anyways? So why bother getting angry, depressed, excited, active, revolutionary? Why?
Glory is for previous ages. An age like that of the Maccabees. An age of the "give me liberty or give me death" American revolutionaries.
Our age is one in which we wait for the hand of God. When He decides to redeem us, then we will be redeemed and sing His holy praises. And until then, we will cry, we will pray, we will perform mitzvos.
God wants nothing from us except to bleed on the altar of passivity. Proud, jingoistic patriotism is for non-Jews. Especially non-Jewish is patriotism translated into action.
Jews are international and spiritual. We don't need a land. We certainly don't need to fight for it. And certainly not when fighting for it requires sacrifices of a degree that many of us have not even begun to conceive of.
Israeli "Survivors" vs. U.S. Primaries
Steve Walz writes for The Jewish Press:
In order to distract themselves from the daily trials and tribulations of "surviving" Hamas & Hizbollah rocket threats, a vindictive Prime Minister, $6 a gallon gasoline, high taxes and a stifling bureaucracy, Israelis amuse themselves with various forms of prime-time entertainment, ranging from a local version of "Survivor" to the "Hillary vs. Obama" gladiator battles.
The local version of "Survivor" underscores the brutal reality of what it means to be a Jew and and an Israeli. Stubborness, rebellion and a stiff-necked disposition are on display as Israelis from all walks of life including several immigrants from the FSU (former Soviet Union) play out physical and spiritual mind games on an island chain within the territorial waters of the Dominican Republic. The Israeli version goes one step further in toying with the suffering of those who've been eliminated. Instead of sending them straight home, the "eliminated" are sent to an "island of death" where they must battle each other once more in order to stave off permanent elimination.
This is a painful exercise to watch... but if one compares the contestants reactions to what Jews have endured over the millenium, from brutal slavery in Egypt, medieval Crusades, Inquisitions, the Holocaust and enduring wars in contemporary Israel, "Survivor" becomes a metaphor for "am k'shei oref" (a stiff-necked people). For good and bad...
Which is why, so many Israelis tune into their prime-time evening news to watch in-depth coverage of the "Hillary vs. Obama" episodes. It's one long episode of "American Survivor" which is colored by race, money and vicious politics - something that Israelis actually hunger for when it comes to local politics. Israeli politicians, especially the "front-runners" (i.e. Olmert & Netanyahu) would never debate each other face-to-face in front of a national audience over a period of months. Their egos just wouldn't fit into the same room. And, their personal foibles would be exposed, which would be too much for their spinmeisters.
Israeli politics are most certainly colored by ethnicity, money and a viciousness that rivals Hillary vs. Obama. But most Israeli politicians are cowardly survivors who will manipulate in order to administrate. Most Israelis would pay to see Olmert and Netanyahu marooned on an island, just to see who could survive the longest without the trappings of physical prestige.
In order to distract themselves from the daily trials and tribulations of "surviving" Hamas & Hizbollah rocket threats, a vindictive Prime Minister, $6 a gallon gasoline, high taxes and a stifling bureaucracy, Israelis amuse themselves with various forms of prime-time entertainment, ranging from a local version of "Survivor" to the "Hillary vs. Obama" gladiator battles.
The local version of "Survivor" underscores the brutal reality of what it means to be a Jew and and an Israeli. Stubborness, rebellion and a stiff-necked disposition are on display as Israelis from all walks of life including several immigrants from the FSU (former Soviet Union) play out physical and spiritual mind games on an island chain within the territorial waters of the Dominican Republic. The Israeli version goes one step further in toying with the suffering of those who've been eliminated. Instead of sending them straight home, the "eliminated" are sent to an "island of death" where they must battle each other once more in order to stave off permanent elimination.
This is a painful exercise to watch... but if one compares the contestants reactions to what Jews have endured over the millenium, from brutal slavery in Egypt, medieval Crusades, Inquisitions, the Holocaust and enduring wars in contemporary Israel, "Survivor" becomes a metaphor for "am k'shei oref" (a stiff-necked people). For good and bad...
Which is why, so many Israelis tune into their prime-time evening news to watch in-depth coverage of the "Hillary vs. Obama" episodes. It's one long episode of "American Survivor" which is colored by race, money and vicious politics - something that Israelis actually hunger for when it comes to local politics. Israeli politicians, especially the "front-runners" (i.e. Olmert & Netanyahu) would never debate each other face-to-face in front of a national audience over a period of months. Their egos just wouldn't fit into the same room. And, their personal foibles would be exposed, which would be too much for their spinmeisters.
Israeli politics are most certainly colored by ethnicity, money and a viciousness that rivals Hillary vs. Obama. But most Israeli politicians are cowardly survivors who will manipulate in order to administrate. Most Israelis would pay to see Olmert and Netanyahu marooned on an island, just to see who could survive the longest without the trappings of physical prestige.
Marty Romano, Allie Ray June 6, 2007 II
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford talks to Marty Romano and Allie Ray
Gianna Lynn Interview, Sept. 11, 2007 II
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Gianna Lynn on set.
Marty Romano, Allie Ray June 6, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Marty Romano and Allie Ray at Rob Spallone's Star World Modeling.
Your Moral Leader Ponders His Place In the Orthodox Jewish Community
http://www.lukeford.net/archives/updates/080123.htm Luke Ford muses about the conflict between freedom and community.
Marcus London, Tommy Gunn Feb. 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Tommy Gunn, Marcus London outside Sardo's Bar in Burbank, CA.
Alexandra Interview May 18, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Alexandra on set of Barely Legal 75.
Pelanie Interview, June 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford interviews Pelanie at Bill Margold's fundraiser.
Jennifer Patton-Favos Interview Oct 24, 2007
http://www.lukeford.net Luke Ford at the Spice Studios party in Hollywood.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Sderot As Sport
Steve Walz writes:
It's hard for the average Jew in North America to have a proper understanding of what is taking place in Sderot. There are those who believe that Sderot (which Secretary of State Rice called SDAY-ROT) is located either somewhere in the "territories" or in the middle of the Negev desert.
In reality, Sderot is located less than an hour by car from metro Tel Aviv, adjacent to Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, one of Israel's most productive agricultural farms. In fact, the gas station/restaurant at Kibbutz Yad Mordechai bears a striking resemblance to a Route 17/Quickway "pit stop" one would pass on the way up to the Catskills.
Sderot also borders one of the country's main roadways heading south towards Beersheba, the capital of the Negev. Sderot looks like any other mid-size Israeli town, except for the fact that the red-tile roofs on the villas are becoming craters in the aftermath of incessant Kassam rocket attacks from nearby Gaza.
Sderot is NOT a settlement. It is working-class town that has become cannon fodder for Hamas and political fodder for PM Ehud Olmert's peace games. Sderot is INSIDE the so-called pre-1967 ceasefire lines and yet its citizens are paying a heavy toll for being near the bottom of the country's economic and social scales. The throngs of mostly Ashkenazic Israeli reporters who descend upon Sderot each time there's a massive barrage, have yet to challenge the secular elite businessmen and politicians who reside in chic Tel Aviv to trade places with their Sderot brethren in order to understand their anger and frustrations.
If Hamas or Hizbullah successfully fired a rocket at central Tel Aviv, there can be no doubt that the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would be turned into an "urban renewal" project in a matter of hours. Yes, a form of social racism actually determines military and political policy in Jerusalem.
Think about it. What would you do if you lived in Brooklyn and missiles were falling on friends and family on Long Island? Would you allow the president to actually negotiate with the enemy at the gates?
It's hard for the average Jew in North America to have a proper understanding of what is taking place in Sderot. There are those who believe that Sderot (which Secretary of State Rice called SDAY-ROT) is located either somewhere in the "territories" or in the middle of the Negev desert.
In reality, Sderot is located less than an hour by car from metro Tel Aviv, adjacent to Kibbutz Yad Mordechai, one of Israel's most productive agricultural farms. In fact, the gas station/restaurant at Kibbutz Yad Mordechai bears a striking resemblance to a Route 17/Quickway "pit stop" one would pass on the way up to the Catskills.
Sderot also borders one of the country's main roadways heading south towards Beersheba, the capital of the Negev. Sderot looks like any other mid-size Israeli town, except for the fact that the red-tile roofs on the villas are becoming craters in the aftermath of incessant Kassam rocket attacks from nearby Gaza.
Sderot is NOT a settlement. It is working-class town that has become cannon fodder for Hamas and political fodder for PM Ehud Olmert's peace games. Sderot is INSIDE the so-called pre-1967 ceasefire lines and yet its citizens are paying a heavy toll for being near the bottom of the country's economic and social scales. The throngs of mostly Ashkenazic Israeli reporters who descend upon Sderot each time there's a massive barrage, have yet to challenge the secular elite businessmen and politicians who reside in chic Tel Aviv to trade places with their Sderot brethren in order to understand their anger and frustrations.
If Hamas or Hizbullah successfully fired a rocket at central Tel Aviv, there can be no doubt that the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would be turned into an "urban renewal" project in a matter of hours. Yes, a form of social racism actually determines military and political policy in Jerusalem.
Think about it. What would you do if you lived in Brooklyn and missiles were falling on friends and family on Long Island? Would you allow the president to actually negotiate with the enemy at the gates?
Jews From Arab Countries
Elliot Resnick writes for The Jewish Press blog:
Below are excerpts from an interview I conducted several months ago with Dr. Heskel Haddad of WOJAC (World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries), which did not appear in the paper edition of The Jewish Press.
Are Iranian Jews safe? Are they allowed to leave?
They are not persecuting them now. They are as safe as second-class citizens can be. Many of them want to leave but they can’t because the Iranian government knows they will go to Israel and they don’t want them to go to Israel.
How about Syrian Jewry? How many of them are left?
About 100. I don’t think these 100 Jews want to leave. They are not mistreated; they are okay. They have money, they have homes, and they don’t want to leave them.
Some people claim that the Israeli governments of the 1940's and 1950's were responsible for many Jews from Arab countries becoming irreligious. Can you comment?
When the Jews from Arab countries came to Israel, they were told “If you want to work, the pinkas adom, [the red membership book of the socialist Mapai party] should be your Bible” – because Mapai controlled the Histadrut labor union. And for the jobs they were given, they had to get up very early in the morning, with no time to go to the synagogue. So a lot of Jews lost interest in the religion “mikotzer ruach u'meavodah kasha – from shortness of breath and hard work” (Exodus 6:9). But gradually these Jews came back to religion.
Did the Jews from Arab countries flee or leave willingly?
Those who left out of Zionism, I would say, are less than two percent. The majority were forced to leave their homes by persecution. For example, in Iraq all the workers in the government were fired. So there was 90% unemployment among the Jews of Iraq.
In talking about the founding and purpose of WOJAC, Dr. Haddad said...
Between 1948 and 1951, almost one million Jewish refugees came to Israel penniless because all their property and assets were confiscated by the Arab governments. And nobody talks or says anything about them. Only 600,000 Palestinian Arabs left Israel. So we're talking about a de facto population exchange.
We want to negate the right of return and we want to have mutual compensation.
Below are excerpts from an interview I conducted several months ago with Dr. Heskel Haddad of WOJAC (World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries), which did not appear in the paper edition of The Jewish Press.
Are Iranian Jews safe? Are they allowed to leave?
They are not persecuting them now. They are as safe as second-class citizens can be. Many of them want to leave but they can’t because the Iranian government knows they will go to Israel and they don’t want them to go to Israel.
How about Syrian Jewry? How many of them are left?
About 100. I don’t think these 100 Jews want to leave. They are not mistreated; they are okay. They have money, they have homes, and they don’t want to leave them.
Some people claim that the Israeli governments of the 1940's and 1950's were responsible for many Jews from Arab countries becoming irreligious. Can you comment?
When the Jews from Arab countries came to Israel, they were told “If you want to work, the pinkas adom, [the red membership book of the socialist Mapai party] should be your Bible” – because Mapai controlled the Histadrut labor union. And for the jobs they were given, they had to get up very early in the morning, with no time to go to the synagogue. So a lot of Jews lost interest in the religion “mikotzer ruach u'meavodah kasha – from shortness of breath and hard work” (Exodus 6:9). But gradually these Jews came back to religion.
Did the Jews from Arab countries flee or leave willingly?
Those who left out of Zionism, I would say, are less than two percent. The majority were forced to leave their homes by persecution. For example, in Iraq all the workers in the government were fired. So there was 90% unemployment among the Jews of Iraq.
In talking about the founding and purpose of WOJAC, Dr. Haddad said...
Between 1948 and 1951, almost one million Jewish refugees came to Israel penniless because all their property and assets were confiscated by the Arab governments. And nobody talks or says anything about them. Only 600,000 Palestinian Arabs left Israel. So we're talking about a de facto population exchange.
We want to negate the right of return and we want to have mutual compensation.
Clintonian Deja Vu
Jason Maoz writes:
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is getting louder and uglier by the minute as racial and gender politics threaten to fracture the Democratic base, and even those media outlets that in the past had defended or at the very least tolerated the Clintons give every indication of having finally lost patience with the shopworn act.
But did anyone expect anything other than a three-ring circus, particularly with a publicity-seeking missile like Bill Clinton launching himself at any available microphone or television camera?
Really, was there ever a president quite like Bill Clinton? The Oval Office has seen more than its share of questionable characters, but rarely had one embodied so many of the traits we normally abhor in a low-level political hack, let alone a president of the United States.
There is no need to recite here the dreary and extensive litany of Clinton’s flip-flops on both domestic and foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the man is a political chameleon who, as the editors of National Review once put it so memorably, “has been ruled ineligible for Mt. Rushmore because there isn’t room for so many more faces.”
Nor is it necessary to revisit the sordid details of all the controversies and scandals that came to attach themselves to a man for whom the word “shameless” always seemed the mildest of sobriquets.
The wonder of it all is not that Clinton twice managed to get elected president – he failed, after all, to garner a majority of the vote in both 1992 and 1996, and his victories owed much to the ineptness of his Republican opposition and the unbridled ego of Ross Perot.
No, the remarkable thing about the Clinton years is the narcotic effect they seemed to have on Americans, large numbers of whom were content to sleepwalk their way through the accumulating detritus of White House sleaze.
Jews in particular were enamored of Bill Clinton, and his approval ratings in Jewish strongholds from Great Neck to Beverly Hills were positively Rooseveltian. It was said in the 1940’s that for American Jews there was di velt (this world), yene velt (the next world) and Roosevelt; in that sense Clinton was FDR revisited, a man who could do no wrong in Jewish eyes, facts – and Israel – be damned.
The fact is, Clinton left office with Israel’s situation considerably more precarious than it had been at the end of the first President Bush’s lone term. And while Israeli leaders bore a considerable portion of the blame, it was Clinton who pulled, prodded and pressured Israel – and directly intervened in the Israeli political process – whenever he felt it necessary to sustain the mirage of Oslo.
And Hillary of course always was the perfect sideshow to Bill’s Main Event, someone who simply by opening her mouth in public during the Clintons’ White House years made the pundits cringe, her poll numbers plunge, and general chaos ensue.
It was Hillary, as author Sally Bedell Smith reminds us in For Love of Politics, her recently published account of the Clinton presidency, who almost single-handedly ran national health care into the ground. It was also Hillary whose behind-the-scenes machinations resulted in Travelgate and Filegate, among many other such Clintonian hijinks.
And, as Smith convincingly relates, it was Hillary’s insistence that her husband ignore the advice of his attorneys that necessitated the court depositions which eventually led to Bill’s impeachment.
By the time Hillary gave an excruciatingly embarrassing 1999 interview to Talk magazine (since defunct), once-sympathetic observers like the liberal columnist Richard Cohen were beginning to see the unflattering truth behind the first lady’s carefully cultivated veneer.
Describing Hillary as a “bit of a ditz,” Cohen asked, “What can we make of a woman who talks the language of afternoon television – an amalgam of psychobabble and fortune-cookie wisdom, with a dollop of religion here and there?”
The Talk article, Cohen conceded, “raises real questions about her sagacity, her knowledge of how she sounds to others and – not least – her political wisdom.”
Later in 1999, the Suha Arafat imbroglio (Hillary had embraced Mrs. Yasir Arafat moments after the latter accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children – and then offered up a series of excuses and explanations for her behavior) threw into sharp relief all the weaknesses exhibited by Hillary throughout her career as a public figure.
Those weaknesses were overlooked or forgotten as Hillary rather deftly settled into her role as U.S. senator from New York. But apparently they were always under the surface and have now reemerged: the transparent posturing, the dissembling and denial whenever her actions or statements blow up in her face, and the political spinning – always the political spinning.
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign is getting louder and uglier by the minute as racial and gender politics threaten to fracture the Democratic base, and even those media outlets that in the past had defended or at the very least tolerated the Clintons give every indication of having finally lost patience with the shopworn act.
But did anyone expect anything other than a three-ring circus, particularly with a publicity-seeking missile like Bill Clinton launching himself at any available microphone or television camera?
Really, was there ever a president quite like Bill Clinton? The Oval Office has seen more than its share of questionable characters, but rarely had one embodied so many of the traits we normally abhor in a low-level political hack, let alone a president of the United States.
There is no need to recite here the dreary and extensive litany of Clinton’s flip-flops on both domestic and foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the man is a political chameleon who, as the editors of National Review once put it so memorably, “has been ruled ineligible for Mt. Rushmore because there isn’t room for so many more faces.”
Nor is it necessary to revisit the sordid details of all the controversies and scandals that came to attach themselves to a man for whom the word “shameless” always seemed the mildest of sobriquets.
The wonder of it all is not that Clinton twice managed to get elected president – he failed, after all, to garner a majority of the vote in both 1992 and 1996, and his victories owed much to the ineptness of his Republican opposition and the unbridled ego of Ross Perot.
No, the remarkable thing about the Clinton years is the narcotic effect they seemed to have on Americans, large numbers of whom were content to sleepwalk their way through the accumulating detritus of White House sleaze.
Jews in particular were enamored of Bill Clinton, and his approval ratings in Jewish strongholds from Great Neck to Beverly Hills were positively Rooseveltian. It was said in the 1940’s that for American Jews there was di velt (this world), yene velt (the next world) and Roosevelt; in that sense Clinton was FDR revisited, a man who could do no wrong in Jewish eyes, facts – and Israel – be damned.
The fact is, Clinton left office with Israel’s situation considerably more precarious than it had been at the end of the first President Bush’s lone term. And while Israeli leaders bore a considerable portion of the blame, it was Clinton who pulled, prodded and pressured Israel – and directly intervened in the Israeli political process – whenever he felt it necessary to sustain the mirage of Oslo.
And Hillary of course always was the perfect sideshow to Bill’s Main Event, someone who simply by opening her mouth in public during the Clintons’ White House years made the pundits cringe, her poll numbers plunge, and general chaos ensue.
It was Hillary, as author Sally Bedell Smith reminds us in For Love of Politics, her recently published account of the Clinton presidency, who almost single-handedly ran national health care into the ground. It was also Hillary whose behind-the-scenes machinations resulted in Travelgate and Filegate, among many other such Clintonian hijinks.
And, as Smith convincingly relates, it was Hillary’s insistence that her husband ignore the advice of his attorneys that necessitated the court depositions which eventually led to Bill’s impeachment.
By the time Hillary gave an excruciatingly embarrassing 1999 interview to Talk magazine (since defunct), once-sympathetic observers like the liberal columnist Richard Cohen were beginning to see the unflattering truth behind the first lady’s carefully cultivated veneer.
Describing Hillary as a “bit of a ditz,” Cohen asked, “What can we make of a woman who talks the language of afternoon television – an amalgam of psychobabble and fortune-cookie wisdom, with a dollop of religion here and there?”
The Talk article, Cohen conceded, “raises real questions about her sagacity, her knowledge of how she sounds to others and – not least – her political wisdom.”
Later in 1999, the Suha Arafat imbroglio (Hillary had embraced Mrs. Yasir Arafat moments after the latter accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children – and then offered up a series of excuses and explanations for her behavior) threw into sharp relief all the weaknesses exhibited by Hillary throughout her career as a public figure.
Those weaknesses were overlooked or forgotten as Hillary rather deftly settled into her role as U.S. senator from New York. But apparently they were always under the surface and have now reemerged: the transparent posturing, the dissembling and denial whenever her actions or statements blow up in her face, and the political spinning – always the political spinning.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I've Launched Some New Blogs
- Cheap Airfare News
Cheap Cruise Vacations
Cheap Hotels News
Cheap Tickets Now
Cheap Tickets News
Computer Monitors
Dallas Condominiums
Denver Condominiums
Disney Vacations
Flat Screen TVs
Hawaii Vacations
Home Insurance
Las Vegas Condominiums
Mel Needs Help
Orlando Condominiums
Orlando Florida Vacations
Refinance Mortage Now
Your Moral Leader
I don’t have an entrepreneurial bone in my body. This is all very awkward for me. I want to just write and to know I’ve got at least $500 a week coming in.
I feel like I am running in a circle.
In 1995, I realized that my odds of making it as a working actor were tiny. I subscribed to all these make-money-through-mail-order programs and gorged on the self-help teachings of such gurus as Tony Robbins.
Jay Abraham seemed like the best of the mail-order teachers but I never made any money. I only lost money. I spent my last remaining dollars and then realized I needed to write a book and I should support myself through temp work until my ship came in.
Twelve years later, I’m reading endless reports on how to make money online. I’m studying Jay Abraham again.
I am so desperate that I listened for 75 minutes this afternoon to a "webinar" on "How to Make 2008 Great with Real-World Action Steps and Techniques."
Most of it was a critique of "The Secret." We were given these visualization exercises for picturing the type of life we want.
I hate that stuff. That’s not me. I’m a hardbitten cynical reporter. The only things I visualize are things that are against the Torah.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Well, at least I built ten websites on blogger today and stuck three Google Adsense templates on each of them.
I hate this! This is not the life I envisioned for myself. I should be able to write about my feelings and have the money flow in. I should simply paint my exquisite soul and have women swoon over my blog. I should send in RSVPs for film premieres and get back grateful replies. Instead I get silence.
I scream into the void. I stop. I listen. I hear nothing.
Helllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooo!
Wait, I hear you. I hear voices in my head. I see dead people…
I am getting some feedback. Thank you for the tips on making money online and letting me know what I’m doing right and wrong.
I’m not the type of chap who has good judgment. I suspect I’m doing things right and wrong but I only truly know this when I receive feedback from people I respect and that feedback pings with a tiny chord of common sense buried deep beneath my narcissism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)