Note to Readers:

The material on this blog is intended for general consumption, and in it, I am attempting to put out material which (I hope) will be of wide-ranging interest. I have a separate blogsite which focuses primarily on legal topics, which should be of interest to clients, potential clients, friends/colleagues in the legal field, and those who, generally, have no life. I will try to publish as regularly as I can, and the most recent additions will always indicate that they are new, and will follow right below this message.

I hope you enjoy the materials in either or both of these sites, and please contact me, even to tell me if you do not!

Regards,

Warren

******NEWEST POST******

Happy Holiday? Bah, Humbug!

It is a truism that Chanukah has become the Jewish equivalent of Christmas. This is most obviously demonstrated by the directive of the P.C. Police on high, that everybody wishes each other a Happy (generic) Holiday. I consider this to be insulting to everyone, and to the inherent (and Constitutional) right to celebrate his or her own applicable holiday. Chanukah is most definitely NOT equivalent to Christmas, either in its (proper and traditional) mode of celebration, or its importance to the religious calendar. Christmas is, to all outward appearance, the most important and widely celebrated holiday in the Christian calendar. By all rights, parenthetically, Easter should be much more important, as the celebration by believing Christians of Christ’s resurrection, while Christmas, as we know it today, is of surprisingly recent vintage, and of highly questionable dating on the calendar. But an examination of Christian dogma and practice is beyond the scope of this piece, and surely beyond the expertise of this author.

By contrast, Chanukah, a beautiful and joyous holiday, to be sure, is considered by observant Jews to be relatively minor in the Jewish calendar. By way of example, Jews are permitted to work on Chanukah, drive on Chanukah, write on Chanukah (as I am doing right now), etc. These activities are prohibited to Jews not only on the “major” holidays of the Jewish calendar, but every single week on the Sabbath. I concede, of course, that these rules are mostly honored in the breach by Jews worldwide.

Nevertheless, it bears pointing out that, while nearly every Jew in America can tell you when Chanukah is and, in greatly varying degrees, what the holiday commemorates, I wonder what percentage of them can tell you when and what, for example, Shavuot is, and what it commemorates. I daresay that it is a small minority, indeed. Notwithstanding that, Shavuot (which takes place approximately 7 weeks after Passover) is very much a major holiday to Jews. Its observance is mandated in the Torah, which is what makes it so important. In the days when the Temple in Jerusalem stood, it was one of only three annual holidays on which Jews made pilgrimage and sacrifice to God. In Jewish tradition, it also commemorates the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and represents, agriculturally, the festival of the first fruits of the season. The activities described above, while permitted on Chanukah, are proscribed on Shavuot. Chanukah, by contrast, is not commanded to Jews in the Torah; the reason for this is obvious: the events commemorated on that holiday took place at least 1,000 years after the revelation at Sinai. The victory of a small number of Jewish rebels over a exponentially larger force of Greco-Syrian forces and the miracle of a single day’s supply of oil burning for eight days is a wonderful reminder of our heritage, but falls somewhat within the rubric of the old joke about every Jewish holiday being based upon the principle: “they tried to kill us, we won, now let’s eat.”

That being said, there are many rules, regulations and special prayers said on Chanukah (after all, Judaism is a religion very much given to rules, regulations and special prayers). I certainly do not, therefore, mean to diminish Chanukah, but merely to put in into a proper Jewish perspective.

Needless to say, we all know that Chanukah has taken on a very outsize importance, particularly in America. Many or most Jewish children (and perhaps some adults), feeling left out of the beautiful Christmas celebrations, including, most particularly, the music, the decorations and of course, the gifts, have turned our lovely holiday into a Jewish Christmas, involving major gift giving (never a tradition amongst Jews in earlier times). I won’t even get into the question of so-called “Chanukah bushes,” as the very concept makes me gag, so I am unable to write about it.

In recent years, after decades of angst, handwringing and litigation over such issues (add these to the list of things I don’t care about) as Christmas trees and crèches on public property, political correctness seems to require that we take the word “Christmas” out of our vocabulary and replace it with the word “Holiday.” This, presumably, is intended to ensure that everyone, whether he or she celebrates Christmas, Chanukah or Kwanza, feels included in the good cheer. To my astonishment, I have actually heard the term “Holiday Tree” uttered over the last few years. Well, folks, it’s not a “Holiday Tree,” it’s a Christmas tree. I say that knowing that the Christmas tree in the home goes back only to Victorian times among Christians and most certainly is pagan in its origin. Again, 'nuff said about the history of Christian observance.

Many Christians are pushing back against this trend, and rightly so. It is my custom, as it should be everyone’s, I believe, to wish his or her non-Jewish friends and acquaintances a Merry Christmas. Once upon a time, Christian Holidays were frequently an occasion for pogroms against Jews, but that is not the case today, and certainly not in America. Christians are entitled to celebrate their holiday joyously and unashamedly, and to call it by its right name. We Jews, of course, are entitled to the same privilege.

Speaking for myself, I enjoy and appreciate the Christmas (yes, Christmas) season. The decorations are beautiful, as is the music (In addition to the well-known Christmas carols, I particularly enjoy Handel’s Messiah and Ave Maria, for example). It is a welcome relief from what would otherwise be a cold and dreary time of year, with short days and long nights. But I do not delude myself; it is emphatically NOT my holiday, and I appreciate it from a distance, and as an outsider. I see nothing whatever wrong in this, although perhaps, some Jews might differ with me. And I, for one, do not need Chanukah to compensate for the absence of Christmas in my life. Chanukah stands on its own merits, and I enjoy it and celebrate it for what it is: a lovely and meaningful Jewish holiday.

As for us in the Jewish Community, we would be infinitely better off directing our energies hitherto expended in neutering Christmas, to such issues as support for Israel, bringing unaffiliated Jews into “the fold,” and improving the lot of Americans and humankind in general.

Happy Holidays? No, sir! Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Joyous Kwanza, and Happy and Healthy New Year to all of us!

NEVER FEAR, PAULSON’S HERE!

By: Warren R. Graham


Imagine the following scenario: You’re in the “high limit” room of a Las Vegas casino, shooting craps. The table is hot, hot, hot! You’ve got a pile of black hundred dollar chips spread out over the pass line, and the numbers 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, all with full double odds. The point is 4. The numbers keep hitting, and the pile keeps growing. You continue pressing your bets. Now, you’ve got thousands of dollars riding on every roll of the dice. More numbers hit, more money piles up, and the bets increase. “Press the bets,” you tell the croupier. .“Yes, sir,” says he. “You’ve got a bet.”

“C’mon, little Joe from Kokamo,” you pray, to the gods of chance.

Then, OOPS, the inevitable happens: “Seven out!” says the boxman. “Take the line, pay the don’ts.” The croupier, reaching over the table with his dreaded rake, takes all your chips off the table. After a long hot run, suddenly you’ve given back all your winnings and lost your entire stake.

But, fear not: your luck hasn’t yet run out. You turn around, and there, standing right behind you is Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. He is beaming with a beatific smile. He reaches into his jacket pocket and pulls out a checkbook.

“How much have you lost, my friend, he asks?” When you tell him, he says: “No problem. Here’s a check, courtesy of the United States of America. If you are able, pay it back someday. If you can’t, no worries! Your losses are covered in any case. In fact, why don’t you go back to the table, and play some more? I’ll stick around, just in case you need me again.”

A full understanding of the intricacies of the dice table might make this a more vivid illustration, but I’m “betting” that you get the picture.

Let’s see: Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG and now, the ultimate: your benevolent Uncle Sam is about to backstop all those troubling, nasty, panic-inducing, balance sheet-wrecking, impossible-to-value, junk-rated, securitized pools of sewage, which have generally become known as “subprime mortgages.” At the same time, Sugar Daddy Hank issues orders from on high to those nasty, hateful short sellers: “OK, now there’ll be no more of that! After all, short selling might make the Stock Market go down, and worse, engender public pessimism about the economy. And on the eve of an election, no less.”

Isn’t this all wonderful news?

Remember those Gen-Y, 30 year old investment banking captains of industry who made tens of millions, plus or minus, in each of the last couple of years? They did so, in large measure by packaging as “securities,” pools of subprime mortgages, built on a house of easy money cards, sold by hucksters and bought by people gullible enough to believe that “[y]es, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause;” that they, too, could realize the American dream of owning a home without the pesky nuisance of having to accumulate savings for a downpayment, and earning an income sufficient to support their debt service when the sucker-teaser rates reset. Those same young’uns then sold those gift-wrapped-with-a-pretty-bow securities to financial institutions, who were, in turn, too greedy and stupid to do what financial institutions are expected to do: sell their most valueless assets out to an unsuspecting public.

How about those other barely-old-enough-to-shave hedge fund managers, raking 40% off the top, plus a very handsome management fee, in exchange for producing enormous profits in a spiraling bull market for their well-heeled clients, in the expectation of endlessly appreciating home values and stock prices? Remember how those guys ended up paying taxes on those towering stacks of money at the capital gains rate of 15%? Remember how, at the same time, the sanitation worker continued to pay his taxes at the fully indexed federal income tax level, got socked with a “marriage penalty,” and teetered on the yawning abyss generally known as “Alternate Minimum Tax,” so that his meager and pitiful itemized deductions might be disallowed by that same Sugar Daddy Hank?

Well, folks, the government would certainly love, on the eve of election, to return us to those halcyon days of yore, but it can’t. The housing values won’t support the subprime mortgages, those beautiful gift-wrapped pools of those same mortgages (belying the pieces of coal within) are depriving the financial institutions (who are largely responsible for this financial “Pearl Harbor”) of the capital requirements to allow them to continue in business, and the coupon clipping investors won’t stand for their fund managers taking those big chunks of their money in a foundering market.

So what is our gang of merry pranksters in Washington to do? The Wall Street “houses” are burning, threatening high six and seven figure bonuses, and in many instances, even jobs themselves, the quasi-governmental “corporations” who had backed up these garbage mortgages are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, insurance companies, ostensibly in the business of {gasp} selling insurance (a highly profitable business), are discovered to be, instead, in the business of making foolish investments, at the expense of trusting stockholders, not to mention policyholders. So Sugar Daddy Hank fires up the printing presses, opens up the public wallet and agrees to backstop the collapse of Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG. Somehow, poor old venerable Lehman Brothers fell between the cracks and, for some reason was, alas, not “too big to fail.”

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding Hank’s commitment of John Q. Taxpayer to untold billions (and maybe trillions) of dollars to rescue these mismanaged businesses, the infection simply could not, and would not be contained. The Stock Market appeared to be in free fall, and every investment house looked like easy pickings for other investment houses, corporate LBO raiders or vulture funds.

So Hank, hankering for more, has apparently agreed to put the national weal behind the entire subprime debacle, thus relieving investment bankers, brokerage houses, banks, insurance companies, and other houses of ill repute, of the inconvenience of having to explain their foolish decisions, or to suffer their punitive consequences. In most cases, it is the unwitting shareholder who will have his or her asset erased. But have no fear. The CEO of AIG is walking away with a $7 Million severance package.

And yet, it gets even better. Now, our kindly own uncle has decided to nip this virus right in the bud: It will shoulder the entire burden of all these reams of valueless paper. The cost of this, as of this writing, is estimated to be in the trillions. The Stock Market is euphoric with the news that its most illustrious (and negligent) denizens will be freed of the shackles of these problem assets.

Still better yet, the cast of characters who brought us this national debacle will be able to hide under Uncle Sam’s skirts, while Americans, already overburdened with soaring fuel and energy costs, will surely foot the bill. Of course, there is another alternative: the government can float more bonds (which might or might sell, given the unattractive interest coupon that all these machinations have engendered), or continue to sell off pieces of our national treasure to such “friends” as Dubai and China.

What a country, eh?

Well, friends, lest this all sound like the rantings of a socialist, don’t be misled; it is, in fact, exactly the opposite. I am a capitalist to the core, and a conservative. Where I come from, those values suggest that risk takers are sometimes rewarded, and sometimes punished. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward (or loss). Regrettably, our “Republican” administration has forgotten all about that and, instead, has abandoned its “shrink the government and keep its damned hands out of my pocket” mantra in favor of government-as-guarantor of all private losses. This government, which has steadfastly refused to intervene (via the SEC) in enforcing laws already on the books and neglected to seek some oversight over opaque hedge fund shenanigans (remember those capital gains rate tax loopholes?), has now decided to jump into the fray, by lending a parachute to the mismanagers and coddling the malfeasors. In addition, because “a rising tide lifts all boats,” Hank has, yet again, engaged in naked market manipulation by seeking to prohibit short selling (particularly in financial stocks), and releasing news at the end of nearly every trading day, designed to promote glee in the trading pits. Such activity, if engaged in by a private individual, would have the SEC seizing computers and pursuing federal investigations in a New York minute.

If all of these increasingly desperate efforts to prevent Darwinian inevitability in the financial world prove unavailing, as they likely will (after, in passing, tripling the national debt), the government might consider, for example, prohibiting ANY selling of stock, so as to ensure endless price rises. Perhaps, our government will, as the Democrats in Congress are urging, will place a moratorium on foreclosures. This will enable people to continue to live in their homes they cannot afford, and which have no equity without paying for them, while those with better credit ratings and “prime” mortgages continue to meet their obligations, month in and month out. While this moratorium is underway, of course, the government, which will have, one assumes, have bought this paper at a discount, will derive no income whatever from them, thus having laid out trillions for no return. It’s a good thing that Hank doesn’t have to answer to shareholders and a board of directors for his actions as CEO, for he’d surely be canned for that level of non-performance of his loan portfolio; rather, he reports only to the President (and he, in turn, is no longer running for anything).

We are surely on the path of virtual nationalization of each company that is about to fall in the row of dominoes that is our ill-used financial services industry. The solution lies elsewhere, and it’s not pretty and it will hurt. Sick companies must be allowed to sink or swim. Otherwise the concept of any vestige of a free economy is an illusion. It will be painful, indeed. People will lose jobs, the Stock Market will fall (quite a lot, perhaps), shareholders (many of them, sadly, relying on their holdings for retirement) will absorb serious losses and people will have to give up homes they can’t afford. But the government cannot and must not try to solve every problem, stem every loss and plug every hole in a leaky dike. We will pull out of this by mostly letting nature take its ugly course. The current policy of “shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic” will only prolong the agony.

Alas, that is not how Hank sees it. Remember the crap table metaphor? Hank will bankroll you endlessly, but you better not play the don’t pass line. “Wrong” bettors are not welcome here.

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2008

A Wall Street Christmas Fable

'Twas the month before Christmas, when all through “the Street”
Exub’rance was rampant, the bulls were in heat;

The Fed’s words were hung on by traders with care,
In hopes that St. Bernanke soon would be there;

By night they were sleeping all smug in their beds,
While visions of rate relief danced in their heads;

They left the TV on, tuned to CNBC,
In case overnight, a new write-down there’d be;

Next day out on Wall Street there arose such a clatter,
Traders ran from the floor and started to chatter;

Away to the window they flew like a flash,
And left their belongings, but never their cash;

The sun shining bright on the Street paved with gold
Gives the lustre of mid-day to what we behold;

When, what did we hear then, but reins being pulled
On a Mercedes Sleigh, hauled by seven tiny bulls;

With a beard bearing driver, that greatest of men,
We knew in a moment it must be St. Ben;

More rapid than Porsches his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;

"Now, Cashflow! Now, Hedge Fund! Financer and Friedman!
On, Rubin! On Paulson! On, BDO Seidman!

To a new record Dow! To manageable growth!
Now buy away! Buy away! I’ve given my oath!

Inflation be damned, I don't give a holler
What traders abroad do to our sinking dollar!"

As traders that before a Fed Meeting fly,
To take up the averages straight to the sky;

So up to new records St. Ben’s bulls they flew,
With rate cuts in hand, Dow 15,000 in view;

And then, in a twinkling, we heard at the door
Thund’rous bull hooves headed straight for the Floor;

As the trading did halt, we were turning around,
Into the Exchange came St. Ben with a bound;

His dress was quite staid, for he never was loud,
Yet his presence could not fail to gather a crowd;

A handful of tools would he now bring to bear,
So the rise could resume, but minus the scare;

Sartorial Splendor! But not a bit garish!
And woe to the few of those left who were bearish!

Low rates and free money would make buying manic,
And force all the bears into short cov’ring panic;

And the beard of his chin became white as the snow;
As he invited us all to his discount window;

The credit crunch ended as quick as a flash,
As once again everyone was swimming in cash;

New traunches of loans could now be financed,
Once more Private Equity could be romanced;

Securitization would regain its place,
The real estate bubble could resume apace;

A mere wink of Ben’s eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave us to know we had nothing to dread;

For it all was a dream, a nightmare in full
That had almost succeeded to waylay the bull;

Now could the Santa Claus rally return,
Short-sellers a very hard lesson would learn;

And in leaving the Floor, Gentle Ben gave a nod,
To tell us the bad times had been a façade;

And giving a smile, back to DC he rode;
Having all his largesse with benev'lence bestowed;

And I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night."



Epilogue:



Now we turn from our poem to consider the truth
That the Bull Market’s gotten quite long in the tooth;

While those who like fairy tales and believe in St. Ben,
May jump right back into the gambling den,

But Kudlow, be still! And Cramer…please chill!
The Market’s in trouble if we elect Hil

And the fable you’ve read is only as true,
As what flying bulls overhead will drop down on you!


Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2007

The Shaming of America

What I am about to consign to this page is nothing short of (civil) sacrilege. It has always been an article of faith in America, both on the right and the left that we are all “proud to be Americans.” Just as nobody wants to be seen as not “supporting the troops,” (there being an enormous range of opinion about precisely what that means), being “proud to be an American” is a phrase that has become universally adopted, because it can, in essence mean all things to all people. Sadly, it has thus become a hollow and meaningless truism.

Lately, I have more and more become ashamed of being an American. My family, on both sides arrived here in the early 20th Century, my grandparents having immigrated as young children from lands of oppression, anti-Semitism and very limited economic mobility. I was taught that this was the greatest country on earth, with incomparable freedoms and unlimited opportunities. This came down to me in all my “civics classes” (what a quaint notion, that!), and I swallowed that doctrine whole, just as if it had been given to Moses at Sinai. I yearn for such an America and although we have never been anywhere near the ideal society that our founding fathers aimed at (the horrendous blemish of slavery, being only the most obvious example of our imperfection), it is very apparent to me that there was a time in which we shared more common values than we do today.

Let me be specific:

I am ashamed to live in a Country which claims to stand for free speech, so long as the speech is “correct,” left-leaning and does not offend anyone (except, of course, politicians, White males and Christians, who are all fair game).

I am ashamed to live in a Country in which Al Sharpton, the “Godfather” of Tawana Brawley and the outrageous fraud that still bears her name, holds himself out (with our tacit consent) as our moral compass. This is a man, many may recall, who could not pay a defamation judgment against him (arising out of that same outrage) because, among other things, he did not “own his suits,” but borrowed them. By the way, have we ever learned from whom he borrowed them? And what the heck is THAT GUY wearing?

I am ashamed to live in a Country which holds itself out as a beacon of freedom and a promoter of worldwide democracy (such that the globe-trotting Jimmy Carter apparently needs to monitor every election held in any country with the most barely detectable nascent democratic movement), but whose leaders and statesmen (including, of course, that very same Jimmy Carter), in a effort to advance parochial political agendas, shamelessly argue for outright surrender to the purveyors of Extremist Muslim terror. There is a war underway, which, to be sure has been prosecuted, at times, with almost stupefying levels of incompetence, but the stakes are, quite simply, nothing less than the survival of Western Civilization. If there is a more important cause to fight for, I am sure that I do not know what it is. I am a Republican to my core, but give me F.D.R., John Kennedy or Harry Truman any day, over these feckless voices of cynical pacifism, such as Harry Reid, who could not wait to proclaim the Iraq war “lost” just today. How glad I am that Senator Reid was not among the British troops at Dunkirk, or all the allies should have sued for peace with Hitler right there and then!

I am ashamed to live in a Country in which our national icons, who once upon a time had names like Davy Crocket, Betsy Ross, Audie Murphy and Neil Armstrong have been supplanted by such luminaries and important contributors to civilization as Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and P. Diddy (or whatever his nom de jour is).

I am ashamed to live in a Country in which “talking heads” wonder how and when society failed poor Cho Seung-Hui, who expressed his rage by launching a hitherto unthinkable bloodbath on the flower of our youth at Virginia Tech. We will NEVER understand what motivates such an individual to such heinous acts. I am interested only in how and when society failed our children, and how we can prevent future carnage in a way that does not kill the ambiance of openness of the college campus by turning it into an armed camp.

I am ashamed, in short, of the fact that this Country does not really seem to stand for anything anymore; that our population seems to have lost interest in anything other than momentary satisfaction and entertainment. Almost 2000 years ago, in his Satire X, the Roman poet Juvenal lamented that the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which had given up its birthright of political freedom had been reduced to panem et circenses (bread and circuses). Apparently, not much has changed. But we know well what happened to the Roman Empire. Have we not learned anything?

There is still much about America which is worthy of our pride: Opportunity continues to abound despite economic globalization, and notwithstanding the non-stop bashing of our Country on the world stage, there continues to be a seemingly endless stampede of immigrants (both legal and illegal) to our borders and our shores. We still live in a relatively free society, though our freedoms have been largely tempered by the P.C. Police, the unfortunate need for heightened levels of intrusive security and the utter loss of privacy caused by the mixed blessing of technology and the advent of e-commerce.

In fact, let me say, in all candor, that I am ashamed to be ashamed. But every day that this nation progressively stands for less and less, and we share fewer and fewer values as a people, we risk becoming nothing more than a cacaphony of 300 Million dissonant and unhearable voices. Nothing could so ill-serve the visionaries that gave us this Country, or shame them, or ourselves, more.

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2007

ALL APOLOGIES, ALL THE TIME

It has often been said that the nearest thing that we have in 21st Century American Society to the gladiatorial contests of yore is professional sport. I disagree. Much more satisfying to the American bloodlust and craving for the suffering of others (perhaps as a salve for our own dissatisfying lives), is the prospect of public humiliation, soul-baring and desperate apologies. This phenomenon essentially falls into two categories:

The first is most obviously (though by no means solely) exemplified by the advent of what is generally (but inaccurately) referred to as “reality television.” In this milieu, people, either for money or fame, or both, subject themselves to abject embarrassment and abuse. Personally, I avoid this material like the Plague, because I find it both self-indulgent and masochistic at the same time. In the first place, I watch television generally as an antidote to reality and for the purpose of being entertained by comedy, drama, fantasy, etc. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing “real” about “reality TV.” It is every bit as elaborately staged as the public burnings, beheadings, crucifixions, feeding of people to lions, fights to the death, and all the spectacles of the ancient arenas it is intended to emulate, except that those unfortunate victims of long ago did not volunteer, but were pressed into “entertainment” service. So far as I know, not a one of them sought, nor was offered a record or book deal. If given a choice, I must confess and frankly acknowledge (with a very high degree of shame), that I would sooner have seen the real thing.

The second of America’s favorite blood sports, and the one that is truly the subject of this article, is the phenomena which begins at Stage One with people (usually public figures in either the political or entertainment fields) saying something (or being videotaped or overheard having said something) outright racist, antisemetic, otherwise bigoted or just plain “insensitive.” We then proceed to Stage Two, which begins with public excoriation on every talk show and in every publication, followed by a once uniquely American (but catching on elsewhere) purification rite: serial public apologies by the offender. This latter course is, we know, motivated not by true regret, for the most part, but by the recognition that repentance, or the appearance thereof, may (and I emphasize the word “may”) salvage the career of the improvident speaker.

Speaking for myself, I have had quite enough of this modern Passion Play. It is a sad fact, for example, that I myself am carefully choosing my own words in this piece because, as is the case with most of us, I feel myself intimidated by what I perceive to be the tyranny of political correctness. It occurs to me that we have become a society so sensitive such that we threaten to suck all the life out of our daily discourse, public dialogue and entertainment. I readily acknowledge that my own tribe, the American Jewish Community, is quite high up on the list of oversensitive groups, actively seeking to ferret out antisemites around every corner. With the so-called “President” of Iran publicly calling for nukes and the annihilation of the Jewish State, extreme Muslim diatribe rivaling and, in some instances exceeding Nazi hyperbole and a former American President using the loaded term apartheid to describe Israeli policy, one would think we could find more important uses for our time than obsessing over Mel Gibson’s interpretation of the Christian Gospels and drunken rants, and whether Steven Spielberg (whose contribution to the common weal of U.S. Jewry and International Holocaust consciousness is nothing short of heroic) portrayed Israel in a flattering enough light in his semi-fictionalized Munich film.

Some things, we know, are out of bounds: Michael Richards public use of the N-Word in an otherwise unfunny comedy routine, has properly earned him a shunning. That is as it should be. He will probably never be able to apologize enough to get past it, in the opinion of this writer. But we should leave it at that. The public spectacle of endless apologizing, groveling and appeals to the forgiving nature of the aggrieved community, coupled with promises of rehab and dialogue is, as it was in Mel Gibson’s case, nothing short, frankly, of sickening. I also believe, moreover, that the double standard which winks at the use of that awful and incendiary term in the Black Community is difficult to justify. Fortunately, more and more African American leaders are taking that precise position.

A number of years ago, Jimmy the Greek was drummed out of NFL broadcasting for his public ruminations about the source of athletic prowess among Blacks. Trent Lott, in a colossally stupid moment, waxed nostalgic about Strom Thurmond’s segregationist campaign of long ago, even going so far as to express regret for its failure, and, as a consequence, lost his position as Senate Majority Leader. This is the legitimate price tag, in public life, of thoughtless tongue-wagging which may be a symptom of real prejudice. Absurdly, however, a few years ago, a Federal Government official, in a budget-related memorandum used a perfectly legitimate English word, the definition of which is, in essence, miserly. But the facial similarity of that standard English word (which, yes, folks, I am actually afraid to use in this article) to the N-Word made this memo the subject of loud national debate, actually resulting in—you guessed it—an apology. That the offending word had nothing, whatsoever, in common with the N-Word etymologically was, of course, irrelevant.

On the other hand, Joe Biden’s recent remarks about Barack Obama will probably only wound his presidential aspirations (which were almost certainly non-existent in any event) and not be the death of his political career. I have heard African American spokespersons on television referring to these remarks as “insensitive,” and not “racist.” Rosie O’Donnell recently brought a few days (but no more) of wrath upon herself by an unflattering and clichéd imitation of Chinese dialogue on The View. Robert Byrd remains (to put it mildly) a force to be reckoned with and an elder statesman in the Senate, notwithstanding his one-time card-carrying membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Somehow, Paris Hilton’s liberal use (preserved for posterity on You Tube) of the N-Word at a New Year’s Eve party seems to have flown beneath the radar screen. The reactions to these episodes, statements and conduct may or may not have been proportional to the offense, but it occurs to me that there is a double standard and something of a free pass in this area given to the left. After all, is anyone still on Ted Danson’s case for his appearance in blackface some years ago? One can only imagine the firestorm that such associations remarks and conduct might have engendered had they come from a George Bush, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity.

The point, however, is the ridiculousness of the “apology tour.” If you do not like the remarks of a public figure, don’t patronize him or her. If he or she is in politics, don’t vote for that candidate. If in the entertainment industry, don’t patronize the TV shows, films or recordings. Encourage your friends and like-minded people to do the same. That is the deserved and proper response to outrageous and unacceptable remarks and conduct. We pride ourselves in being a society with freedom of speech. Yet that freedom seems to apply only with respect to criticizing the Government, racists (real and perceived), homophobes (real and perceived), Christians and promoters of so-called “family values.” Verbal attacks on the left and minority groups of any kind, which our Constitution supposedly protects every bit as vigorously, are subjected to retribution which, de facto, gives the lie to the theory of free speech. The new “F-word” does not have four letters; rather, it is a derogatory term for homosexuals. That does not mean that it is acceptable to use that word if it gives offense; it is, however, legally protected. It is, perhaps, worthy of note that in bygone days, the term was used by youngsters (perhaps unaware of its real meaning) to suggest nothing more than, say, lack of ability in baseball. Part of the problem, I think, is that the rules of political correctness present an ever-moving target. Once upon a time, Black people wanted to be called Negroes. Then, the consensus in that community was that “Black” was the preferred term. Then it was “Afro-Americans,” and then “Black” again, followed by “African Americans” and/or “people of color” (but NEVER the very similar sounding “colored people” which—unless one is explaining the acronym NAACP—is unacceptable because it has an old and derogatory connotation). While people, of course, have a right to ask to be called whatever they want, they should probably understand that not everyone is going to keep up with the term du jour.


Political correctness also carries with it other phenomena besides the “banning” of certain words, considered epithets. With them come other double standards. In the 1930’s and 1940’s, there existed a series of Hollywood mystery films featuring a Chinese detective named Charlie Chan. Aside from the (from today’s perspective) ridiculously stereotypical portrayal of this character in terms of dress, mannerisms, accent and speech, Chan was portrayed by a Caucasian actor. On radio, Amos & Andy (which would certainly be insulting not only to Blacks, but to any thinking person today, and rightly so), had the two title characters played by Caucasian actors, as well. A few years ago, I saw the musical version of Titanic on Broadway. One of the actresses playing a first class passenger in that show was Black. This seemed strange and inauthentic to me for a play set in 1912, until my daughter, who was with me, pointed out that acting is acting, and that, for example, many great black singers had been portraying Italians, Russians, and Germans in the Opera House for years. Many had played, with great distinction, in Shakespeare productions. She was, of course, absolutely correct and I felt foolish about my initial reaction. But would it now be acceptable for a Caucasian actor to play Othello the Moor? If so, should he be made up to look darker, or would that be as insulting as appearing in blackface on the stage? Wasn’t there a firestorm of controversy over whether only an Asian actress could play the lead in Miss Saigon on Broadway? Double standard? You bet! So what the heck are the rules? And who are the faceless, nameless arbiters of political correctness, anyway? I want to see a list!

We have groups of people who actually want to ban, from school curricula, Huckleberry Finn which, by any objective standard, is one of the pillars of American Fiction. The reason for removing this work from view is, of course, its frequent use of the N-Word. Never mind the time or place, or the historical context. Should the Merchant of Venice come off the shelves too, because of its stereotyping of Jews? What about Oliver Twist, which features a miser, thief and leader of a gang of youthful pickpockets named Fagin who is obviously a Jew. It goes without saying that Mein Kampf carries little currency (to understate the case grossly) with me, but I would never want to see it taken out of public circulation. If you want to have some understanding of the phenomenon that was Adolf Hitler, his appeal to the German volk and his twisted need to do what he did, read his book! Res ipsa locquatur. (The thing speaks for itself). Nor should anyone, in my opinion, think to take away the defamatory Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Jewish Community is, in large measure, defined by thousands of years of libels and persecution, culminating in the horror of the Holocaust, as the Irish-American weltanschauung is a product of centuries of oppression and a horrible potato famine, and as the Black experience in America is informed by the experience of slavery, Jim Crow, minstrel shows and a million other forms of racism. Take it off the shelves? Ban it from schools? Never! All of these things represent WHO WE ARE.

None of us, by the way, has a monopoly on suffering and injustice. Jews don’t own the word “holocaust,” for example. While Hitler’s genocidal war on the Jews has no historical parallel, in this writer’s view, it is eminently fair to use the word “holocaust” to describe the crimes perpetrated by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, and those taking place this very day in Darfur. It is undeniable that Stalin and Mao were each responsible for as many or more deaths than Hitler and in similarly gruesome and evil ways. Blacks have borne the entire yoke of slavery in America, but slavery has been widely practiced around the world since the dawn of human history, claiming victims of many races and nationalities and, unbelievably, it has still not been completely eradicated.

Ironically, many of the same proponents of these political correctness ideologies tell us that it is time to have an honest, open dialogue in this Country about race and prejudice. How, if I may dare ask, shall we do so in an environment in which we are afraid to look our ugly history in the face and are, each succeeding day, ever more terrified of using the words? Shall we, indeed, have a dialogue without words?

No, I think we really don’t want to have such a dialogue, because it is likely to be unpleasant and not pretty, to say the least. And we would all be constantly and alternately making and demanding apologies from one another. Many have called for “America” to apologize for slavery. But what is “America?” Most of today’s Americans did not have ancestors in this Country during the days of slavery. And of those who did, only a minority of those owned slaves, or supported the institution. As for my own forebears, who, at the outset of the American Civil War, were to be found in Lithuania and Russia, they were probably too busy dodging pogroms and marauding Cossacks to be deriving any sadistic pleasure from oppressing people 6000 miles to the west.

If we are going to pursue political correctness and the consequent public flogging for non-compliance, to its logical degree, we might consider adding a new Cable TV Channel called the All-Apology Channel. 24 hours a day of nothing but All Apologies, All the Time. What a magnificent public spectacle for those who would once have delighted at the prospect of public pillorying in the village square.

For the rest of us, however, let us consider the following: The chronically intolerant and the racists, sexists, homophobes and bigots in our midst would just as soon eviscerate their targets in any manner possible, including, perhaps, by doing them real harm as has, God knows, happened often enough in history. The response, I believe, to these individuals should be to shun, boycott and expose them and where necessary, to find means to destroy them.

On the other hand, for those whose slip of the tongue or youthful indiscretion indicates bad judgment or momentary stupidity and not real bigotry…and let’s face it, folks, in our hearts we really do know the difference, let’s just get on with our lives and focus on the real bad guys. There is certainly no shortage of them.

If we really want to speak seriously about race and prejudice in America, we need to stop hiding behind this phenomenon of disinfecting and deodorizing the language and whitewashing (strange, how that term is still “allowed”) the past. And, in the meantime, for the sake of our own sanity and the freedoms we cherish, let’s ALL try to lighten up a bit!

Reprinted From http://ezinearticles.com/?All-Apologies,-All-The-Time&id=472960

Warren R. Graham

Copyright 2007

IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED….SURRENDER!


Let me start, lest I be accused of being utterly out of touch with reality, by acknowledging that the Bush Administration has made mistakes, many and grievous, in its prosecution of the Iraq War. Chief among these—and this is, by no means, intended as an exhaustive list—is the intelligence failure concerning WMD, the elimination, top to bottom, of Ba’ath Party functionaries (the only people who knew how to do ANYTHING in Iraq), the total misunderstanding (or non-understanding) of the ancient hatred between Sunni and Shiite factions and Kurds, the unwillingness of rank and file Iraqis to embrace Western-style secular democratic values, the lack of preparedness of our military to serve as a police force, as opposed to a fighting force, and generally inadequate military planning, in trying to fight what has proven to be a difficult war “on the cheap.”

Having said all that, and further conceding that reasonable minds may differ (and do) about the wisdom and efficacy of having placed our armed forces in Iraq in the first instance, the nauseating spectacle of a rush by denizens of both political parties to surrender is a national disgrace, not to mention horrendous and disastrous policy.

Generally speaking, the arguments against having made the choice to invade Iraq (as it was articulated at the time of the national debate, NOT with the convenience and benefit of hindsight), is that there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S., and that the war against terror was properly venued in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq. Fair enough. It should be pointed out, though, that the intelligence failure was shared by the intelligence services of our European Allies and Israel, and that the canard that the President lied about WMD, knowing all the while that Saddam did not possess them, is simply unsupported by any credible evidence (save the rantings of the far left, for those true believers who find rantings to be sufficient to the task).

It has been argued, with some merit, I think, that the real reason we went into Iraq (NOT the other lefty mantras about controlling the oil supply or avenging Bush Sr.’s brush with death at the hands of Saddam hirelings), was at the instance of the so-called “neocons” who had the President’s ear, and who proposed, by instilling a democracy in Iraq, to reinvent the reality that is the Middle East. The counter argument to that neocon mindset, I believe, is that Western-style secular democracy is not a value which can or ever will be embraced in a part of the World which has always been defined either by tribal warfare, strong-man dictatorship or rule of the mullahs. It is, say the critics of the “neocons” no accident that no democracy has ever taken root on its own in that region, except in the case of Israel which is, of course, sui generis, for a variety of reasons. The WMD argument, they go on to say, was a smokescreen to launch an invasion proving the old adage that “war is just politics by another means,” i.e., that it was motivated entirely by a policy of realpolitik. As viscerally satisfying as it was to this author to have removed Saddam and his subordinate thugs from power, I cannot, in fairness, belittle this argument, because I believe it to be largely credible or, at a very minimum, plausible. And while some Americans might well have, nevertheless, supported this military adventure on the basis of the “redrawing of the map” theory, most would probably have not. So WMD, while not a lie, was, perhaps, an excuse.

So much for history. But what now? Even if one concedes that the commencement of this War was misguided and mismanaged, in many and varied respects, ever since, we must consider the tragic, yet painfully obvious consequences of capitulation.

Democrats, having trounced the Republicans in the recent election, widely billed as a referendum on Iraq, are praying that the collective amnesia of the public will cause it to forget that many Democrats voted with Bush and continued to side with him until the War became difficult and less popular. Worse still is the disgusting “rats fleeing from a sinking ship” conduct of many Republicans, who have not only distanced themselves from the Administration, but try to avoid calling themselves Republicans and now, with the benefit of several years experience, are recommending either prompt, or specifically timed withdrawal from Iraq.

These, my friends, are the politics of surrender. On the Democratic side, the motivation is obvious and transparent: that party has won, in spades, a recent election, and its leadership feels itself empowered. Some, especially those on the left, are so driven by blind fury at previous Republican successes (especially in 2000 and 2004) and poisonous hatred for George Bush, that consideration of U.S. national interests are but a secondary consideration to the sweet music of his vilification. Many of those who urge either immediate withdrawal or a date certain for bringing the troops home cannot possibly be so blind or stupid as to think that such action will not have far-reaching horrific implications for American prestige in the World and our ability to influence international affairs; the only rational conclusion, therefore, is that they must surely be indifferent. Their avowed argument that Iraq has become “another Vietnam”-- surely the tiredest of tired clichés-- is simply unsupportable. That was a different war, fought for different reasons and motivated by highly attenuated foreign policy considerations. There is no doubt (or should be none) among sentient human beings, with any understanding of what has been happening for the past decade, what conclusion our Islamic fascist enemies and the forces of international terrorism will draw from such an ignominious conclusion to this affair.

Amongst Republicans, the impetus by some of them to flee from an Administration on the ropes is not only reprehensible as a matter of principle and loyalty; it will avail them nothing. Indeed, history has shown us time and again that there is nobody so unelectable as a Republican posing as a Democrat. Ronald Reagan, love him or hate him, owed his success to the fact that he never stopped being…well, Ronald Reagan, and unabashedly so. Trying to escape from the current unpopularity of the President’s policies will show them up to the public as nothing more than the hypocrites they are. The consequence of this, of course, is that the election debacle of 2006 will prove a harbinger of worse times yet to come for the GOP.

It may be that, in time, it becomes evident that Iraq neither wants, nor can achieve any kind of democracy. I do not believe that we can, as yet, draw that final conclusion, though the time for Iraqis to “step up to the plate” and prove otherwise is growing short.

The polls and recent election results seem to show that the American Public is, understandably, weary of this War and wishes to have it over. But does that mean that a majority of Americans support an action that amounts, in essence to surrender? I surely hope not. What is needed at this crucial moment in history is leadership. If the public cannot find it in our President, I, for one, hope that someone else with credibility (hopefully not someone from “talk-radio”) stands up and argues articulately for putting our national interest and security above facile isolationist rhetoric and the short term comfort of bringing our beloved young men and women home with the job half-done.

Those who hold World War II up as the only “justified war,” fought by the U.S. in the past century, and beset by no dissension or moral ambiguity, have conveniently forgotten that many voices, some quite prominent, including Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy, were lifted in opposition to any intervention on behalf of the foes of Hitler, until those voices were drowned out in the national bloodlust prompted by Pearl Harbor. We have also forgotten that a mere four months before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, there were calls on Lincoln from the North (especially the “antiwar” factions in New York—how very little has changed!) to stop the bloodletting and sue for peace with the Confederacy. Now, in an age of instant television news and internet access (George Will once pointed out that, had the TV cameras been rolling at the Battle of Antietam, the Civil War would have ended in 1862, in a draw, in the face of public outrage at the carnage), we live in a society with an extremely short attention span, and no tolerance for pain whatsoever; especially disheartening in the face of a War in which very few, indeed, have been called upon to share in the sacrifice. Maybe, in fact, it is precisely this sense that the War is someone else’s problem and merely a pesky annoyance to most Americans, that explains our apparent national willingness to “pick up our marbles and go home.” This is a short-sighted and dangerous proposition. Our enemies are nothing, if not patient, and even worse, they are true believers in their cause. They know, or think they know, that the West has no stomach for sacrifice and no will to do what is necessary to prevail. It is my fervent hope that they mistake healthy, open democratic debate for weakness. But alas, sadly, they may ultimately prove to be right.

I think the time has come for us to ask ourselves a difficult and introspective question: What do WE believe in?

Reprint of Article in www.ezinearticle.com

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2007