Warren Graham's Blog

2012-01-06T10:33:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-06T10:07:00.003-05:00

NEWEST POSTING

ANOTHER PITCH FOR NEWT

So we’ve gotten pastthe silliness (treated with utmost gravity by the Media) that is the IowaCaucus. Now we get to the business of trying to find, among the remaining field, the candidate most likely to take the fight to Obama. It is a virtual certainty that, notwithstanding the abject failure of his presidency, neither he, nor his cadre of believers is going down without a VERY well-funded and vicious fight.

The problem is: who is equipped to withstand the onslaught? More to the point, the question is: who is best suited to make the campaign about Obama and HIS record? Any campaign that can succeed in the latter is destined for success. Thus far, the remaining GOP class seems wanting, to say the least.

Governor Romney, in my opinion, is emphatically NOT the guy. No matter how much money he has thrown into two presidential campaigns, he cannotseem to generate any excitement within the Party. He has shown himself to be a reasonbly worthy debater, but he gives off a certain plasticity and absence of passion. I believe that such a flaw will put him at a distinct disadvantage against a politician who is a master of feigned oratory commitment. Although “Yes We Can” has plainly become “No We Didn’t,” we may be sure that Obama will come up with some new rhetorical flourish designed to pump up the Democratic Party faithful and obfuscate, to the American Public, the utter vacuousness of his 2008 message of hope and change.

Mitt Romney has another problem as well. He cannot hope to defeat an incumbent president without attracting large numbers of independents and so-called “Reagan Democrats.” Before doing that, however, he needs to have an energized and passionate base. And while there is energy and passion to spare within the GOP precincts for the proposition that Mr. Obama has to go, there is, certainly in the more conservative elements in the party, a certain suspicion that Mitt’s newly found conservative values are as fickle as his previously held more moderate and liberal ones were. His explanation for all the successes of a liberal agenda in Massachusetts under his stewardship reduce to the lame excuse that he was hostage to a liberal legislative majority. While that argument may be factually accurate, it does not bode well for the kind of leadership a president should exhibit against an unruly, and sometimes hostile congress. There is no evidence, in fact, that Mr. Romney ever went down fighting against his legislature.

What about the rest of the field? Rick Santorum, the flavor of the week, seems to be a “true” conservative, with not much personal baggage, but he is clearly “not ready for prime time.” He would be a poor match for Obama in a debate. Moreover, his campaign, to date, has largely been about a conservative social agenda, i.e., abortion, gay marriage, etc. While this may energize devoted cadre of evangelicals and other social conservatives, it will not win an election. Indeed, it may be a turnoff to the centrists and independents that are needed by the GOP to assure victory. This coming election is about two things, and two things only: the first is the economy, and the second is….the economy (stupid)! Now, of course, the economy discussion incorporates the question of jobs, and how to create them, and the question of how to revive a private sector economy in which governmenttakes an ever increasing share of GDP and tax burden. Just by virtue of the unbelievable interest obligation, government debt is simply eating this nation alive. And there is no sign among the pols in Washington (yes, this is a bipartisan failing) of any willingness to engage in a fundamental change of direction. For my part, I don’t really believe that Mitt Romney is the man to effectuate sucha change, and Rick Santorum, a one term senator who was voted out of office in a landslide is not that man either. Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman, regardless of their respective qualities, are not worth commenting on, as they will almost surely be nothing more than memories after New Hampshire.

Notwithstanding my previous statement that this election is almost exclusively economy-driven, it is not sufficiently so to enable the Republicans to nominate Ron Paul. Senator Paul who is, in essence, a libertarian, puts forth many very appealing positions on domestic policy, and has a most devoted following. But his whacko isolationist positions on foreign policy really make his campaign a non-starter.

So, we come to Newt. Newt has personal and political baggage to spare. It is already well-known to everyone, thanks, in large measure, to the barrage launched
against him by Romney and his minions in Iowa. He needs to put together a strong defense to these attacks, so as to “Newtralize” them. After all, if Romney can evade the sting of “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, and Obama can dissociate himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it should be possible for Newt and his sophisticated political advisors to put together a narrative to explain his personal foibles and his having consulting with Freddie Mac. Once that is accomplished, I would contend, Newt is in the best position to take on Obama on the latter’s record. It is ONLY by
making this campaign about Barack Obama’s dismal record that the GOP can hope
to wrest the White House from him. Sideshows about abortion, gay marriage,school prayer and the like (however sincerely felt) are a godsend for the Democrats, as they pose a distraction from the disaster of Obamacare, the obscene national debt and the gross overregulation of private enterprise that is rendering the U.S. unable to compete in a world economy. Newt has an encyclopedic understanding of these issues, as well as considerable oratorical skills to match (or exceed) those of Obama and, I would argue, is by far in the best position to take on the richly funded Obama machine in substantive debate, if he is able to overcome the inevitable blitzkrieg of character assassination that the Dems will launch. Whether he can do that will be tested in the next few weeks as the remaining GOP candidates slug it out.

Concededly, Newt cannot reasonably hope to prevail in New Hampshire. After all,
that State is in Romney’s backyard and, absent some sort of collapse, the millions
he has spent there should guarantee him a victory. But South Carolina is another matter. It is a conservative State, and its Republicans are rightly suspicious of Romney for the reasons I’ve put forth. And it should be obvious that, among the GOP conservatives, an endorsement by John McCain is probably the kiss of death. The Republican regulars are not content to have Romney shoved down their throats by the party elites, especially by the party’s losing standard bearer from 2008, who was shoved down their throats back then.

Next comes Florida, a HUGE prize for any aspiring candidate. This nomination is far from a done deal. Stay tuned, friends!

2011-12-23T06:50:00.000-05:00

THE GOP NOMINATION: DO THE VOTERS GET A SAY?

It becomes more apparent each day that the “Republican Establishment” is determined to ram Mitt Romney down our throats, despite the inconvenient fact that a single vote has yet to be cast. Remember, friends, that these are the political geniuses who brought us Bob Dole and John McCain, both first-rate in their delivery of concession speeches.

It is profoundly troubling that, at a time in which Barack Obama is so vulnerable, that the GOP seems determined to self-destruct. On the one hand, the “tea party” freshmen in the House, so convinced that they were brought to Washington to effect “change” have, perhaps, succeeded, in that the Republican majority in that body is at risk. This is exacerbated by a Speaker who seems to have no ability to mobilize his troops, and who thus has been outmaneuvered by a President who, by all rights should be on the ropes.

Meanwhile, on the election front, there is no clear nominee emerging. This, Thank God, is true despite the iron determination by what was once referred to as the “smoke filled room” leaders, that it should be Mitt Romney. Romney, they all tell us, is the only one who has a realistic shot at defeating Obama in the general election. Frankly, it is hard to see that, given that he can’t even muster any excitement within the rank and file Republican voters. I believe this is true because he has a “plastic” demeanor about him, and although he answers questions well, he lacks evident passion. He’s sort of like the GOP version of Michael Dukakis, the Dems 1988 candidate, who couldn’t even muster any real (or even contrived) feeling when asked how he might react to a physical assault on his wife. Aside from this, of course, many Republicans are distrustful of Mitt’s rather recent conversion to the conservative cause.

Here, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I am unabashedly a Newt Gingrich supporter. Clearly Newt comes with a great deal of baggage, both personal and political, but, by any metric, he is head and shoulders the smartest of all the GOP candidates. I concede that being the smartest is not enough, or perhaps not even so important, as any president worth his or her salt is going to surround himself or herself with smart people (Barack Obama being one notable exception). But I believe that a profound understanding of the nature of the United States (at least as it used to be), and a deep comprehension of world affairs makes Gingrich the logical choice.

All that politicking aside, I rather resent the fervor with which Romney’s inevitability as our nominee is being sold by the “fat cats.” I hope that such resentment is being felt in the GOP ranks as well. Regrettably, Romney has enough money to sell Iowans a bill of goods about Gingrich over the airways, and Newt lacks the funds to respond adequately. Normally, I would not be concerned about Iowa (recall that in 2008, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus). But if Romney wins there, and wins (as he is likely to, having spent megabucks) in New Hampshire, the aroma of inevitability may infect such early primary states as South Carolina and Florida, very rich sources of delegates.

All of this is further complicated by the change in primary rules, in that delegates are awarded proportionately, rather than in the old “winner take all” method. The result of this is that candidates like Rick Perry, who has lots of money to spend, and Ron Paul, whose base is small, but rabid, may be able to stay in the race for quite some time. It is hard to see who, in the party, benefits by this prospect, but it is an absolute certainty that Barack Obama wins just a bit more for every day that the Republican wannabes are slinging it at each other.

There are two conditions, in my opinion that the GOP needs in order to recapture the presidency, hold the House, and perhaps achieve a majority in the Senate. The first is that its nominee must be one who can “take the fight” to Obama. The Marquis of Queensbury rules simply won’t cut it, and we may be certain that the Dems will fight will a no-holds barred strategy (after all, Obama will find it hard to run on the merits of his record). The second is that all Republican regulars need to line up wholeheartedly behind that nominee, as then, the battle for the presidency will be entirely about gathering the independent vote.

Alas, neither of these conditions is anywhere even remotely in evidence. The starker the choice in 2012, the more likely, I believe, Barack Obama will be a one-term president.Personally, I would spring for a pay-per-view airing of a Gingrich/Obama debate. Obama, I concede is a wonderful orator and a pretty good debater. But this time, the debate (if the Republicans play it right) will not be about George W. Bush; rather it will be about the abject failure of the Obama Administration to bring any relief to a nation beset by serious financial woes, and its relentless sacrifice of the futures of our children and grandchildren on the altar of misguided giveaways. Aside from the obvious fact that these schemes will bankrupt a country already in peril, they do something even worse: they threaten the basis tenet of a nation, the success of which has always been built upon individual achievement and self-reliance. Where's the answer to that Mr. Obama, without a teleprompter?

The Republican Party needs, unabashedly, to stand for its principles, so as to present a real and visible choice to the American People. As for myself, I am not the least bit interested in listening to another concession speech, unless it is delivered by Barack Obama.

2008-12-25T14:52:00.008-05:00

******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!

2008-09-19T10:47:00.005-04:00

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

2007-12-10T15:28:00.001-05:00

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

2007-04-19T16:02:00.000-04:00

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

2007-03-01T17:07:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-29T12:11:00.000-05:00

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

2006-09-20T11:19:00.000-04:00

Taking It Personally

I don’t know about anyone else, but recent events in the world, and the stunningly stupid reactions to them by many of our so-called world leaders are making me wonder whether it is possible to continue living among our species, or whether we are simply so determined to self-destruct that the continued existence on this planet is pointless.

This visceral response is, I know, at odds with everything I have been taught since childhood. God, we are told, has a plan, and in the end, all will work out right for humankind. It goes without saying that I, like any right-thinking, peace-loving person hope that this is so. I want, badly, to believe that the current spate of international difficulty and stress is, consistent with Biblical prophecy, a mere prelude to a perfect Messianic paradise on Earth.

But candidly, retaining this as an article of faith is proving increasingly challenging, to say the least. On the (almost) Eve of the Jewish New Year, we face the prospect of war with worldwide Islamic Fascism, which unapologetically aims for the reinstatement of a Caliphate and the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it. The insipid responses of the world’s leaders, in a near-perfect echo of Neville Chamberlain, is that we need dialogue with the likes of Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. These “governments” and terror cells have made perfectly plain their intentions for us, and so far as I am aware, have never wavered from them.

Even Hitler had the good manners to lie to Chamberlain’s face and tell him that, in exchange for Britain turning a blind eye to his annexation of the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, he would have no further territorial designs in Europe.

But these guys? Why are our leaders so determined to deny the truth which is staring them in the face—that the implacable foes of the West mean for us, and our way of life, to disappear from the planet.

Of course, we’ve come to expect this kind of response from Jacques Chirac and the French, who suffer from national amnesia, seeming perennially unable (or unwilling) to learn ANY lessons from their own history. In 1914, they fought the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. In preparation for Hitler’s invasion, they ignored the German war strategy of World War I, and hid behind a Maginot Line, which the Germans simply circumvented. Now, France’s enemy is behind the lines; an indigenous, hostile, unassimilated population consisting of a Muslim underclass which the French “natives” despise, but which they invited in, as a menial labor force. To a lesser extent, other European countries face the same problem. We also expect similar reactions from Kofi Annan and his Turtle Bay cohorts, who cannot seem to grasp that there is a not-so-subtle distinction between peacemaking and appeasement.

Unfortunately, the worst part of all this, is that people who do (or at least should) understand the very real threat to the future of this planet, and who say that we MUST prevent rogue countries and terror organizations from developing nuclear capability, also tell us that we must strive for a diplomatic solution, that we need to achieve an international consensus, backed up by sanctions, “if necessary,” and that the U.S. cannot “go it alone,” as we are already overtaxed and overextended militarily. Or, we have the Pat Buchanan isolationists, who tell us—astonishingly—that these matters are, in essence, none of our business.

We, as a nation, need to face certain painful realities:

--We will NEVER achieve an international consensus for action against rogue states. So long as France, Russia and China whose principles and material wealth are openly for sale to the highest bidder, sit as permanent members of the Security Council, and with veto powers, for that matter, this is an immutable law of international politics.

--Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas are not interested in diplomatic solutions, nor will they ever be. They are interested in victory. And they are, alas, well on their way to achieving it, for one simple reason. They BELIEVE in their cause, however horribly misguided. We, on the other hand, look to cynicism, apathy and the politics of “surrender-ism” as our guideposts. This weakness of ours is well-understood and skillfully exploited by our enemies.

--While we may be challenged militarily, we are a long way from being unable to respond to additional world problems. And more to the point, if the imminent destruction of humanity is not enough of an incentive to get past our reticence, I’m sure I don’t know what might do the job. As it stands, Iran and North Korea stand at the brink of being nuclear powers. North Korea may already be one. But it appears that they lack a reliable delivery system. How is our situation going to get better? In five years, and perhaps less, we will be unable to take military action for fear of triggering a thermonuclear holocaust. Can anyone really articulate a cogent case for delay, aside from the failure of will?

--It is unfair, and outrageous that the U.S. has to carry the ball alone (or perhaps with the help of a very small circle of REAL allies). But that is our reality. The cynicism, cowardice and fecklessness which infect Europe, Russia and China will not disappear anytime soon. And if the threat were only to them, I would gladly argue that they should be allowed to fall, as the dead, useless weights that they are. But our country, and our way of life is at risk, and there is nothing on earth more worth the fight. Certainly, nobody wants to take casualties. But there will be casualties in any case. Better to take them sooner and win the war than to take them in a fruitless endeavor.

So far, there is no indication that anyone, even in this Country, is ready to do what is necessary. And the clock is ticking. Delay works only to the advantage of the enemy.

So I despair. I get angry. And I take it personally. And while I pray with all my heart that we all be inscribed in the Book of Life for a Happy and Healthy New Year, I know that even God Almighty has got his work cut out for Him in the face of the enormity of the task. I pray that he does have a Plan and that it will soon, and in our time, become apparent to all of us.

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2006

(Reprinted from Ezinearticles.com)

2006-08-31T15:08:00.000-04:00

Nostalgia for Vietnam

In the increasingly hard-to-remember days of my youth, the 1960’s and 1970’s (they say that “if you can remember it, you didn’t live it), there were a number of seminal events for those of us who share the sobriquet of the “Baby Boom Generation”: the Kennedy Assassination(s), the murder of Martin Luther King, the Woodstock Music Festival and Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk (worth at least 100 of Michael Jackson’s, I daresay). But the defining, and continuing backdrop for the whole era, that which caused a profound schism in American society and its body politic, and led to noisy and sometimes violent college campus unrest and the so-called “generation gap” (but, on the other hand, gave us fodder for some excellent music), was the Vietnam War.

So divisive was that War, that nearly 40 years after the fact, we are unable, as a Nation, to achieve any real consensus on what the object lesson of this failure of U.S. foreign policy really was. Many argue that it was the absence of a plan for an endgame and exit strategy which kept us mired in Southeast Asia. Others maintain vociferously that we should never have been there in the first place; that we were propping up a corrupt regime as part of a misguided and doomed cold war strategy designed to fend off complete Communist domination in that region. Even today, people continue to argue whether the debacle of Vietnam proves that the “domino theory” was proven to be fact, or utter nonsense. I remember participating in the very same arguments, in haec verba, in 1969. And this, mind you, is with the benefit of decades of hindsight!

So traumatic was that War, that since that time, every time this Country and its leaders have contemplated military action of any kind, someone, either in political opposition or in the news media inevitably and predictably raises the hackneyed cliché of a question: “but will this become another Vietnam?”

Yet now, as the events of the present day unfold, I find myself wistfully nostalgic for the halcyon days of the Tet Offensive, Viet Cong guerrillas, Da Nang, Hue, the DMZ and Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh. I long for the comfort of the Cold War’s “balance of terror” and reliable (if nasty) enemies like Brezhnev and his merry pranksters in the Soviet Politburo and Mao Tze Tung (before I woke up one morning and discovered that we had all been spelling his name wrong, and that it was really Mao Zedong, and that Peking was really Beijing, by instant international media consensus). Yes, these guys were as evil as they come, but somewhere in their warped sensibilities, they understood that a modus vivendi with the West was necessary, if only to ensure their own survival.

All of that pales with the state of affairs we face now. The international situation is, today, ever so much more grave. During Vietnam, it is true, the Russians and Chinese lurked in the background, as they had during the Korean War, and there was a sense that our efforts were somewhat hamstrung by the notion of triggering a “Hot War” between the two (or among the three) Superpowers, but we were not, on a daily basis, at least after the Cuban Missile Crisis, really in fear of an Armageddon scenario in this Country,

Now, we are. And if we are not, we certainly should be. Aside from the Osamas and Nisrallahs of the World, the international community contains at least two absolute rogue nations (and a pretty good argument could be made that there are others, as well). They are each within a hair’s breadth of achieving full nuclear weapon capability, and are ruled by apparently unbalanced individuals, who, I would submit, cannot be reasonably relied upon to eschew the use of such weaponry on a mere whim.

We are, in short, a hiccup away from a Third World War. For now, I believe, that War is still winnable by civilized humanity, but that will not necessarily be so once Iran and North Korea possess the means to detonate AND deliver nuclear devices to international targets, in a reliable way. Once that happens, and the nuclear threat is present from all sides, we are no longer assured of survival. The bad guys (and they are bad guys, to be sure) have an abiding commitment to their cause, however degenerate that cause may be. We, in the meantime, cannot even get out of our SUV’s. They are willing, indeed, seemingly happily so, to die for their misguided and perverted cause. We, by contrast, are obsessed with the daily doings of Jessica Simpson and Lindsay Lohan and the present-day Golden Calf that is American Idol.

In our political discourse, we have never been more divided; not even during Vietnam. Except now, the stakes are so much higher. While the nut jobs in Tehran and Pyongyang prepare themselves for thermonuclear war, our isolationist wing, now apparently in charge of the Democratic Party, argues for withdrawal from Iraq by a date certain. Hey, guys, why not just surrender, and save both time and lives?

I recognize, as, I think, do many or most Americans, that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the wisdom of having chosen Iraq as the principal site of our War on Terror. We should (and no doubt will) be arguing about that for many years to come. But there is one thing about which there should be no real debate: we absolutely, positively cannot afford to lose this War. We must see it through, because the consequence of an ignominious departure has to be crystal clear to all: an understanding in the Islamic Fascist World that the West has no staying power, no conviction, and no commitment, and that we can and will be beaten. These principles are already an article of faith on the so-called “Arab Street,” and much of the blame for that may be laid at the feet of our feckless “allies” in Europe and elsewhere and the dithering do-nothings at the United Nations, who pass resolutions they have neither the will, nor even the slightest intention of enforcing.

Regrettably, it falls, once again, to the United States, and a VERY small select group of its allies, to stand up against the forces which would destroy Western Civilization. We have the strength, yes. But do we have the will? Are we about to turn over both Houses of Congress to the Howard Deans and Ned Lamonts of the not-so-loyal opposition who will, I believe, promote a policy either of appeasement or unilateral withdrawal? We need to pray—and pray hard, and in equal measures, for the wisdom of both our electorate and elected officials, and of course, for our men and women in uniform. All these are necessary ingredients to achieve success in the treacherous days ahead.

Divisiveness is, to an extent, an inevitable by-product of democracy. But the question is not whether we have the right to disagree. Of course we do. The real question is whether, given a grave international crisis, which presents a clear and present danger to the future of humankind, it is responsible to pursue a cynical opposition for partisan political gain. With all my heart, I hope that, as Americans, we prove capable of rising above our petty differences, and subordinate them to the good of the civilized world, the survival of which we can (I dare presume) we can all agree is worthy of our support.

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2006

2006-08-08T11:39:00.000-04:00

Nachamu, Nachamu, Ami

This past Shabbat, just two days after the conclusion of Tisha B’av, and the season of mourning for the loss of our glories of ancient Jerusalem, we read the promise of Isaiah for our redemption and his exhortation to be comforted. These words, in my opinion, could not be more timely.

It is easy to be demoralized now by the daily news from Israel and the usual claque of international hypocrites who demand a restraint and tolerance from Israel that they would not afford to their own perceived enemies for even a nanosecond. It is hard to watch when the Islamo-fascists, who sense victory in the fact that the civilian body count on both sides is piling up and the propaganda war always favors the insurgents (the dead civilians in Lebanon being only cannon fodder for them, while the Israeli dead satisfy their bloodlust). Israel, alas, (and to its eternal credit) has not used the weapons in her arsenal which could, in all likelihood, dispose of Hizbollah (among many others) in short order, because Israel, unlike its adversary, is guided by a sense of morality, even in such trying circumstances.

The Israeli public is, understandably, somewhat demoralized by the difficulty of fighting an invisible enemy, which is content to hide itself among women and children, having bought those lives (and the loyalty of their Arab victims) cheaply: for the cost of some electric bills, schooling and food. The morale problem in Israel (and among its friends and supporters worldwide) exists despite the near universal understanding in those quarters that this is a war which MUST be fought to its conclusion, for anything else will be deemed victory by the forces of evil—and make no mistake, these ARE the forces of evil.

To an extent, Israel is a victim of its own prior successes, most notably, in the 1967 Six-Day War, and the world has come to expect easy and quick victory by Israel against all its adversaries. Indeed, Israel’s advantage (other than military efficacy) is one of necessity. Israel cannot afford to lose even once. By contrast, its enemies can bring on the fight again and again, in the hope that one day, they can reverse their string of failures. On the other hand, this is a different kind of fight. It is the kind of fight that presented such frustration and yes, defeatism for the U.S. in Vietnam and now, in Iraq. The enemy is everywhere, yet nowhere, and it is hard to know where the front lies and how and where the battle should be joined. It has often been said that military leaders are always fighting the last war, instead of the current one. It may be that this is the wave of the future and the kind of war that will hereinafter forever be faced. If that is so, the military strategists will need to formulate new plans to engage an enemy who melts into the civilian population. If anyone at all can succeed in this difficult task, I trust that it will be the Israeli Defense Forces.

Such strategies will, of necessity, result in tragic loss of civilian life, but make no mistake about it: that blood is on the hands of the cowards who would hide amongst women and children, not on those who must oppose them. It goes without saying that, on our side, the loss of each petal of the flower of Israeli youth is nearly unbearable to all of us, but tragically, it represents the continuing price that must be paid by a Nation with its back perpetually to the wall (or, more accurately, to the sea).

I am neither a military strategist nor a policy-maker (except, like everyone else, as an amateur). But I do know that what is at stake today is very stark and apparent: Good vs. Evil, Right vs. Wrong, Gog vs. Magog (to use biblical imagery). We stand on the precipice of a war for civilization and the future of mankind. At some point, we will all have to step into the fray. Delay, alas, works for the benefit of the adversary. We have the tools, but the question continues to be: do we, the reluctant would-be defenders of Western Civilization have the will? The jury is very much out on this question.

But back to Israel, and its role in this world struggle. I, for one, have nearly boundless faith in two things: the Almighty and the IDF. Neither will let us down. Neither ever has. So, my brothers and sisters, believe and pray.

And in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, Nachamu, Nachamu, Ami. Be comforted, be comforted, my People. Good will prevail. Good MUST prevail!

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2006

(Reprinted from Ezinearticles.com)

2006-07-24T15:37:00.000-04:00

MEMORANDUM

TO: Patrick J. Buchanan
FROM: The “Amen Corner”

Pat,

I have had a chance to peruse your most recent diatribe, entitled: No, This is Not 'Our War', published on July 24 in the WorldNet Daily, and I must say that it represents yet another impressive push of the envelope on your part.

Your conclusion, as I understand it, is that, as Americans, the epic worldwide struggle between the forces of good and evil, of light and darkness, of civilization and anarchy is, in essence, none of our business.

My first question to you is this: Where were you during Sunday School Bible classes, back in the day? Were there no references to apocalyptic prophesy? To Gog and Magog? Or can it be that you were paying attention only during the discussions of Jews as Christ Killers (by the way, Pat, that canard as an article of doctrine has been gone from Catholic teachings since Vatican II, leaving, apparently, only you and Mel Gibson as its ongoing adherents). In addition, your isolationist theology is, of course, a matter of public record over a long career. It has, of course, no legitimate place in a world in which substantial numbers of very bad people, who stand on the precipice of nuclear capability, are quite prepared to do whatever is necessary to return us to the Seventh Century. Perhaps you wax nostalgic for such a time. Most of us, alas, do not.

So your affinity for discredited ideologies is well-known. What should we expect next? Your thoughts on phrenology? A paid-up membership in the “Flat Earth Society”?

Is it possible that a seemingly intelligent being, a citizen of the world, is so suffused with loathing for Israel and anything Jewish that he is blinded to the plain threat facing Western Civilization?

Your customary accusation of the American Jewish Community and the--I LOVE THIS ONE—“Hairy Chested Warriors at the Weekly Standard” (Note to newcomers to Buchananspeak: that’s code for JEWS) of putting their loyalties to Israel above those to America is wearing a tad thin. It happens that the interest of the perpetuation of civilization is common to all people of good will…even (gasp) Israelis!

Your reference to Ken Mehlman as “braying” his support for Israel represents Jew-baiting at its finest, but I’m afraid it is a bit too unsubtle for you. It might, however, be a good phrase for you to keep on file for your planned sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You point out, in your piece, that Iran, but not Israel, has signed on to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Should we infer from this that you are satisfied that Iran has no designs on nuclear weaponry? If so, I beg you to say so publicly, so that you can be revealed as the apologist for radical Islam that you are. If not, please tell us that, so we can see that your statement is motivated by nothing other than plain hatred of Israel and its “Amen Corner.”

And while we’re on the subject of “Amen Corners,” Pat, you should be aware that Jews, just like everyone else in this nation, have the right to advocate any position that they please in international affairs, including support for the State of Israel. As you know, most non-Jews in America also value the “special relationship” between these two nations. Although you regularly suggest with the subtlety of an onrushing subway train that this represents disloyalty to America, it happens that American and Israeli interests have virtually always been aligned, as Israel is the SOLE consistent and reliable democratic state in the Mid-East. I suggest that the question of our ongoing loyalty to the House of Saud (which I’m sure distresses you not one whit) is a somewhat tougher case to make.

Just as your forebears came to this land to escape the potato blight, colonial oppression and the confiscation of their land, so mine fled from the Pale of Settlement in Russia and either escaped or survived the Fires of Auschwitz. You and yours have no greater claim on the bounties and freedoms America offers than we do, and all your thinly-veiled suggestions to the contrary will not wash. I don’t love America any less than you do, even as I love and support the State of Israel against its enemies. Its enemies, as it happens, are the enemies of civilized humankind as we know it.

Wake up, Pat, and lose the attitude. Remember those pale timid Jewish boys that you and your coterie of Irish toughs used to intimidate when you were a kid? They are an anachronism. A new Jew is abroad in the world, of which the Israeli soldier is merely emblematic: A Jew who proudly wears the mantle of King David, Bar Kochba and Mordecai Anilevitch (if you don’t know who some of those people are, look them up…you probably have internet access by now). We are a people who will survive, no matter what. And the same goes for the State of Israel. We are all threatened by what President Bush has prophetically named “the axis of evil.” And by “all,” I mean to include even you. I would have thought you would understand that. But it’s not too late to see the truth. Come on, Pat. Despite everything, you are a smart guy. It’s time to choose sides. Which one are you really on?

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2006

2006-07-05T12:04:00.000-04:00

Link to the Article: Where Have They All Gone Wrong: A Layman's Perspective on the Failings of All Three Mainstream Jewish Movements

2006-06-07T12:59:00.000-04:00

Just So We Have Our Priorities Straight!

Well, let’s see: we’re still at war in Iraq, we are (rightly) worrying about a nuclear capability in Iran, we’re unable to compete in the international labor market, we are facing unprecedented trade and budget deficits as well as federal entitlement programs certain to run out of money in the next few decades, and we are experiencing unprecedented crude oil prices.
Our response? Our duly elected officials in Washington are debating gay marriage and flag-burning.

I cannot imagine that any responsible citizen, either on the right or the left (there no longer appears to be much of a center) does not find this disgraceful. And yet, somehow, we demand nothing more of those who, ostensibly, depend upon our votes, in order to take their seats in the Congress and the Oval Office.

It frankly does not matter, at least to me, whether one supports or opposes gay marriage. Firstly, it is not, in the judgment of this writer, a federal issue. Secondly, and more fundamentally, this boat has sailed. Whichever side of the question upon which any of us finds himself or herself, the societal legitimation of homosexual marriage is inevitable, and its opponents ought to stop “shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic.” One who is opposed to gay marriage always retains the option to subscribe to a religious group (Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism, for example, spring to mind), in which gay marriage is not on the radar screen and the religious representatives of those movements will not, anytime soon, likely be called upon to sanctify such a union. As citizens of a secular state, however, we ought to find it easy to see which way the wind is blowing. The extent to which our secular society is bound up with the Judeo-Christian ethic has not been a constant, and has waxed and waned over time, for better, or worse.

Flag burning?! Is this really even an issue? Is there much of it going on? Come now, fellow citizens, we’ve got real problems in this country!

Is it possible that these two “huge” national questions have been entirely manufactured for the benefit of the public and to divert our attention away from a more substantive national agenda? Or is that just cynicism?

We have already lost our preeminence in manufacturing and are well on our way to losing our last remaining economic clout on the international stage: as the world’s largest consumer market. China is destined, in the not-too-distant future, to overtake us, by virtue of its sheer numbers, coupled with an ever-expanding economy. We no longer make anything of consequence here, mostly because of prohibitively high labor costs. So we are, at this stage, largely running on a service economy. But an international financial engine built entirely upon lawyers, accountants, real estate brokers and even investment bankers, is not what built the American Empire, and it will certainly not sustain it. We need, more than anything else, to figure out how to get back in the game, assuming that it is still possible for us to do so.
On the international political front, we need to focus on resolving things in the Middle East, both in Iraq and Iran and with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It goes without saying that this is linked to the question of oil prices, and our national irresponsibility in forgetting the lessons we should have learned in the 1970’s is inexcusable. Only now, in the last few months, have we been hearing, for the first time in many years, about alternative energy sources, hybrid automobile engines, smaller cars, carpooling, etc. The rest of the world has been dealing with these kinds of oil prices for many years. Yet we seem to think we have a God-given right to cheap oil. Shame on us! We need to formulate solutions for Africa, and to address the horrors which would keep us awake nightly, if only we and our national media would pay attention. These are only examples of a laundry list of world problems that ought to be vying for our increasingly short attention span.

None of these issues is susceptible to an easy fix. They will, alas, require bipartisan effort and good will—a daunting challenge in an era of mutual recrimination and, frankly, inter-Party loathing in Washington. I stated earlier that it appears that there is no “center” left in this country. I think that is true among our representatives, but I pray it is not true of our electorate.

Absolutely nothing is going to change unless the American People demand it. So let’s demand it. Otherwise, we face the prospect of living in a country torn apart by pseudo-social issues and the question of protecting a flag which will decline in direct proportion to that for which the flag stands.

Copyright 2006
Warren R. Graham

2006-05-23T17:02:00.000-04:00

A Back Channel to Nowhere

In May, 1978, one of the Major American Television Networks put on a broadcast in celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the Founding of the State of Israel. The show was hosted by Barbra Streisand who, at the time, I guess, was deemed to be a well-known enough entertainer and “Jewish” enough to carry off the show credibly.

The finale of the show consisted of a live (via satellite) interview between Streisand and Prime Minister Golda Meir, everyone’s favorite chicken-soup with matzo balls Jewish grandmotherly type. (She was, in reality, to those who know her, ANYTHING but that person). After the interview, Streisand sang Hatikvah, and brushed a tear from her eye.

Oy!

There was, of course, only one flaw in the idea behind the show, and its ultimate execution: Golda Meir was not the Prime Minister of Israel; in fact, some months before, she and the Labor Party had been unceremoniously booted out of office, for the first time in Israel’s history, having finally paid the price for Israel’s complete military unpreparedness for the Yom Kippur War back in October, 1973. A disillusioned Israeli public had put the ultimate Opposition-party outsider, Menachem Begin, into power.

Unfortunately for Network executives, who had probably been planning the show for many months, nobody outside Israel, except, perhaps for students of Zionist and Israeli history, knew who Begin was (though the world would certainly come to know him quite well). The radio broadcasters had not yet learned how to pronounce his name, and their mangled attempts verged on hilarity. Begin…as in Begin the Beguine. I don’t know whether Streisand knew anything about Begin, but if she did, it’s probably a safe bet she wouldn’t have liked his politics.

Why is any of this relevant now? Because, in an act of misguided utter desperation, the Bush Administration is pushing the newly elected Israeli Government to begin peace negotiations with an individual who is NOT the democratically-elected Prime Minister of the Palestinians. You see, in a Democracy, you have to take the leaders you are given, and play the cards you are dealt. The Israelis (and President Bush, for that matter), were dealt Hamas. We don’t negotiate with Hamas, since it is a terrorist organization, which calls for suicide bombings and the destruction of the State of Israel. But because it seems somehow unacceptable either to allow Israel to make unilateral decisions affecting Palestinians, or not to move the (Middle East Peace Process) ball forward at all, the clueless foreign policy mavens have decided on a middle course: let’s negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas. After all, goes the rationale, he’s “moderate.” While Abbas may (certainly by contrast to Hamas) be considered a “moderate,” he does suffer from one considerable deficiency: a complete and utter lack of authority to speak for the Palestinians. That prerogative, alas, is given to the sponsors of suicide bombs and Jihad.

The policy is doomed to failure, for a very simple reason. Any agreement reached with Abbas is subject to total deniability and undermining by the real powers in the Palestinian territories: Hamas. Today’s New York Times reported a statement by the State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack, as follows:

"While not suggesting Israel could work out a peace agreement at this point with Abbas, McCormack, in promoting “back channel” negotiations with Abbas said, 'He is a political leader within the Palestinian political context.'" [NY Times, May 23, 2006]

What, on earth does that mean? Even by the standards of State Department Foggy Bottom doublespeak, that’s a real doozie!

It all seems like utter nonsense, doesn’t it? But just a minute. There may, in fact, be method in the apparent madness.

According to the same report, Ehud Olmert’s primary purpose in visiting President Bush is to test the waters on the President’s willingness to allow Israel to continue to pursue Ariel Sharon’s previous policy of unilateral disengagement. In other words, will Olmert have Bush’s tacit agreement to allow Israel to create borders and retreat behind them, without the consent of a political entity that will not negotiate? Sharon’s experience was, as we now know, that the Bush Administration was (pretty overtly) on board with that policy. But that was Gaza. Now, we are talking about the West Bank--Judea, Samaria and yes, Jerusalem--an infinitely more complicated and emotional issue for both sides to this endless dispute.

In the meantime, as Olmert is just beginning his tenure, Bush, by virtue of his increasing unpopularity occasioned by the War in Iraq, his indecisiveness on immigration policy and $3-plus per gallon gasoline prices, not to mention the mere passage of time leading to inevitable lame duck impotence, is rendered less and less relevant to the process. Not completely, of course. After all, Bill Clinton participated in negotiations at Sharm-el-Sheikh until virtually hours before George W. Bush’s inauguration. But before we know it, the American Presidential sweepstakes will be beginning in earnest (right after this fall’s midterm elections, we can assume), while Israel will have to make life and death decisions. Does having Bush largely on the sidelines help or hurt Israel’s cause in this respect? It’s hard to say, because American “prestige” or status as an “honest broker” in peacemaking can hardly be of any real value when the U.S. is also boycotting Hamas (as well it should). Can Israel, therefore, conduct some sort of unilateral disengagement “under the radar screen?” Doubtful. Nothing Israel does is EVER allowed to remain under the radar screen.

But European dithering and Arab impotent rage notwithstanding, the only opinion valued by the Israelis comes from inside the Beltway. And the real reason Olmert needs Bush’s support is to give him cover in the treacherous waters of Israeli politics, where the U.S. President’s imprimatur still matters. Let’s see whether he gets it. And if the price for it is that Olmert has to negotiate with a powerless Palestinian figurehead, so that bilateral discussion can fail and Israel and the U.S. can fall back on the tried and true “Well, we tried, but there was nobody to talk to,” I, for one, am satisfied to have Olmert meet with Abbas, sing a chorus of Hatikvah and brush away a tear.

Warren R Graham
Copyright 2006

2006-05-18T09:51:00.000-04:00

Dr. Gilbert Kahn is a wonderful man and a scholar. I am proud to consider him a friend; however, it is rare, indeed, that we are able to find issues upon which we agree. The tragedy of Darfur is, I am glad to say, one of those exceptions. Recently, Gil wrote a superb piece for the April 27 Issue of the New Jersey Jewish News, and I followed up with a letter in support. Below is a reprint of Gil's Article. My letter, published in the May 4 Issue, is reprinted below that.

Warren

The world’s missing conscience

Many in the Jewish community throughout the area are readying to attend the rally this Sunday against the genocide being perpetrated and/or tolerated by the Sudanese government. In the course of this preparation, one is immediately struck by the deafening quiet within various elements of American society — as well as throughout the world — to the horrors transpiring in Sudan. As happened in Somalia and then in Rwanda, blacks in Africa — Muslims and some Christians — are slaughtering men, women, and children for no intelligible reason and the world is standing idly by.
A major national rally on the National Mall was projected to bring several hundred thousands to Washington to protest the world’s passivity to the tragedy. It has now been downsized to a rally where 50,000 attendees will be considered an achievement, of whom as many as 20 percent may well be Jews. While black churches have been raising funds for Africans in need, it is unclear what percentage of the attendees Sunday will be from the African-American community.
It seems that issues far less consequential than the genocide being perpetrated in the Sudan are seriously distracting religious and political leaders in the United States and around the world. Many African-American political and church leaders, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, are rallying behind a black stripper in Durham, NC, who was allegedly raped by white members of the Duke University lacrosse team, yet they are not galvanizing their followers to protest the slaughter of blacks in Africa. While something ugly certainly happened on the Duke campus, no one died in Durham.
American mainline church leaders are wringing their hands about what to do about the Palestinian people. Hamas won a democratic election. The Palestinian people voted for terrorists to lead them. The churches and humanitarian groups are struggling to find ways to feed and clothe the Palestinian people who, thanks to a Hamas leadership that does not even condemn a suicide bombing of a falafel stand in Tel Aviv, have had international funding cut off. Meanwhile, where are the outcries of world church leaders protesting the slaughter in Darfur, some of whose victims are Christian?
For months at the United Nations and in the African Union, there have been interminable debates and discussions concerning the plight of the victims in Darfur. These organizations recognize the tragic slaughter going on in the Sudan but still cannot agree on the makeup of a peacekeeping force to send into the country. White soldiers will not be accepted, but they cannot seem to decide if the black soldiers must come from Muslim countries or not. The UN debates, like the bloodbath, continue.
Many of the world’s leading Muslim countries have grown extraordinarily rich over the past year as world oil prices have skyrocketed. They have the funds, the resources, and the manpower — to say nothing of the power of persuasion — to prevail upon the Sudanese government to bring its oppression of Darfurians to an end. Does the peace-loving voice of the Koran justify this brutality and nonstop killing that includes Muslim against Muslim? Are there no serious religious leaders in the Muslim world who view the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children as an outrage? Where are the busloads of Muslims driving to Washington to petition the U.S. government to intercede on behalf of the victims of the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur?
Finally, the spokespersons for the Bush White House as well as the State Department express indignation at the suggestion that the president and his administration are not doing everything in their power to stop the killing in Darfur. At the moment, there are only two members of Congress on the speakers list for the Washington rally, but not one member of the administration.
Current plans suggest that there will be some church representatives and some African-American leaders, but very few, if any, of the heavyweights. The Jewish community will be well represented. Scheduled Jewish speakers include three rabbis, a Holocaust survivor, representatives from two additional Jewish organizations, and the world’s conscience on genocide, Elie Wiesel.
So why does memory not lead the world to action? Is it only for Jews that the concept of “never again” truly resonates into action? The Holocaust ended 61 years ago. Yom Hashoa was commemorated only this Tuesday. How quickly the world forgets despite the fact that the rally is taking place virtually in the shadow of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is there that an exhibition is being mounted on the genocide being perpetrated in Darfur.
What will it take for the world to do more than just remember? What will it take for religious and public leaders to act to protect innocent human beings?
The world forgets. Jews remember too well. Hopefully, God is not laughing.

©2006 New Jersey Jewish News All rights reserved

To the Editors:

Bravo to Gilbert Kahn for his insightful piece, "The World's Missing Conscience" (April 27). He astutely observes the the so-called (and self-appointed) moral leadership in America and elswhere is obsessed with the sufferings of the media darlings of the world stage, the Palestinians, whose most recent humanitarian debacle, precipitated by their democratic election of Hamas is almost entirely self-imposed.
What have the victims of Sudanese rape and slaughter done to deserve their obscenely cruel fate? It is enough, apparently, that they live and breathe. Jews, of all people, seem, thank God, to relate to being in that quandry.
And where are the voices and expressions of outrage from African-American and Christian leadership? Where, indeed?

Warren R. Graham
New York City

2006-05-16T10:27:00.000-04:00

America’s Schizophrenia:
Why Immigration is Besides the Point

It is certainly no wonder that there is sharp division and controversy in this Country on the subject of immigration. After all, the American attitude on the subject is conducive to mixed emotions which, in this writer’s opinion, rise to the level of schizophrenia. This phenomenon is hardly new, although a superficial survey of current punditry would have us believe that this whole subject has risen to public consciousness only in the past few months.

In the middle of the 19th Century, a huge wave of Irish immigration, fleeing the potato famine, arrived at our shores. Americans of Anglo-Saxon origins were very resentful, and frightened about the prospect of lost jobs. Sound familiar? Those of Anglo-Saxon origin had, of course, themselves been immigrants not so very long before. The Irish immigrants, quickly found a niche for themselves, and acquired political clout. So when Eastern European Jews, Italians and Slavs arrived in the late 19th and Early 20th Centuries, the Irish were in a position to resent those new arrivals, and did so quite vociferously.

“Give us your tired, your poor…?” Nice words, to be sure, but rarely meant by the entrenched American populace.

Then, as now, it was the immigration of people seeking opportunity which, in large measure, gave our country the energy and vibrancy which built it into a mammoth industrial and economic machine. Now, we are hotly debating the issue of immigration once again, with both sides of the question asserting valid points in support of their respective positions. I would argue that, at the end of the day, a compromise somewhat in the nature of that proposed by the President is inevitable, but hardly sufficient to address the real and much more fundamental problem that we face. It is, rather, roughly analogous to “shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic"

It is certainly true, as argued by the “seal the borders” constituency, that, while we want to encourage immigration, it should be legal immigration. People have been following the rules, and waiting their turn, pursuing the right to enter into and work in this Country and to become citizens, according to the laws enacted for that purpose. Why, the argument goes, should people who snuck over the border and who have not been paying taxes, and have been receiving public benefits, schooling, etc., be permitted to “jump the line.” A very valid point, to be sure. This Country has a strong interest in enforcement of its laws and, equally importantly, an interest in being seen to enforce its laws.

It is also true, however, that as a result of the confluence of intermittent enforcement of immigration policy coupled with labor policy, our American Economy is now based on a system which not only tolerates, but requires illegal immigrants. We have a minimum wage system, a labor union structure and laws which, while certainly desirable in many respects to American Labor, has made us, in large measure, unable to compete in a global economy. Hence, the ever-increasing export of jobs overseas. This is why, when one calls Microsoft Tech Support, he or she is connected to someone in India. The cost of employment in the U.S. mandates, in practice, though technically contrary to law, that a cheap labor pool be available for low-end, unskilled work. Although it is often said that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that Americans won’t do, I do not really thing that that is necessarily true; rather, the cost of having American citizens do those jobs would drive up prices in certain areas, such as manufactured goods and agricultural products, to a level which Americans would find intolerable.

Thus, even if it were practical to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, I believe that such a move would seriously threaten the viability of the real economy (i.e., the one we don’t admit to) of the United States. The proposed alternative is to find a way to bring these immigrants into the mainstream, and to give them, ultimately, the opportunity to become legal, taxpaying citizens. The flaw in this, of course, is obvious. Once these illegal immigrants become legal, they will, among other things, have to be paid the minimum wage, and the entire benefit that we surreptitiously and hypocritically derive from our underground, illegal workforce will be lost to us.

Ultimately, therefore, the problem is not immigration. It is, regrettably, a much larger and more difficult one. How do we compete? We cannot produce goods as cheaply as India or China. We cannot impose punishing trade tariffs, because that just invites reciprocation, and black marketeering. America, I believe, is in serious danger of losing its preeminent position on the world’s economic stage. As it stands today, our only remaining and potent weapon is our seemingly insatiable consumer market. We need our economic gurus to figure out ways to leverage that into rewarding our friends and penalizing those who would bury us as an international economic power. There is no time to lose. And while sealing borders on the one hand, or creating the illusion of a country dedicated, on a renewed basis, to opportunity for the dispossessed may make us feel good for awhile, neither of these paths will solve the real problem. We are victims of our own success and prosperity, and the rest of the world wants what we have. If we don’t protect it, it will surely be taken from us, and soon.

Warren R. Graham
Copyright 2006

2006-05-05T09:51:00.000-04:00

Cinco de Mayo: Is it Good for the Jews?

by: Warren R. Graham

Today is the fifth of May: Cinco de Mayo. What, if anything, does that mean to us? We just two days ago celebrated Yom Ha’atzma’ut, the 58th Anniversary of Israel’s Independence, and I was wondering what, if anything, these two holidays, coming, as they do, so close on the calendar, might have in common. Huh?

First of all, do we even know what Cinco de Mayo is all about? Well, in the U.S.A., it has become yet another excuse for a party (as they say in Hebrew, siba le’mesiba). The makers of Corona Beer and all things guacamole-related see this as an annual bonanza. Amazingly, it is more widely celebrated here than in Mexico, where the official celebration is generally limited to the town of Pueblo (more about that later). Undoubtedly, Hallmark now has cards for it, and it will eventually become (if it has not already), a reason for a sale at the large department stores: Bloomingdales ‘Cinco de Mayo White Sale Event.’

But what is this holiday, really? I imagine that those who don’t know but give it some thought, expect that it is Mexico’s Independence Day. It is not. In some respects, though, it might well be seen as such.

Now, for a bit of history. In fact, Mexico had long been independent when the 5th of May, 1862 rolled around. At that time, Mexico, having lost about ½ of its territory to the U.S., including Texas and California, was nearly bankrupt and deeply in debt to several of the European Powers. In desperation, its president, Benito Juarez, suspended debt payments, hoping the country could get back on its feet. The European Powers, specifically Britain, France and Spain sent “representatives,” backed up by troops, to collect. Meanwhile, Juarez, a “liberal,” was busy fending off opposition in Mexico to the “conservative” forces of the aristocracy and the Catholic Church. The European armies arrived in Mexico at Vera Cruz. The Mexicans managed to settle their differences with Spain and England, and their troops made for home. The French, however, under Napoleon III were determined to foreclose on what they perceived to be collateral for their loan: Mexico. They believed (erroneously, as it turned out), that the California gold vein extended into Mexico, and that riches were to be had. Besides, reasoned the French, a restored colonial presence in the Americas was very desirable.

The French lost about half their troops to yellow fever at Vera Cruz, and those who continued had to pass through what was then the sleepy town of Pueblo, on their way to the Capital. Battle was joined in Pueblo on the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), 1862, and in a stunning upset, the French military was routed by the native population. France had not, at that time, lost a battle since Waterloo. In a different environment, the U.S. would likely have been involved, as French intentions in the Americas ran directly afoul of the Monroe Doctrine. But in 1862, Abe Lincoln’s attentions were somewhat diverted, and Benito Juarez could expect no support from his neighbors to the north.

After the Battle of Pueblo, the French withdrew but regrouped, and within about a year, had prevailed in Mexico. They installed the Emperor Maximillian, an Austrian Hapsburg “also-ran” on the throne. The Emperor was backed by Napoleon III, as well as the Conservative forces in Mexico. He proved to be a disappointment to them, as he was not their puppet, and had some rather progressive ideas. In any case, his reign was to be short-lived. After the U.S. Civil War, Ulysses Grant awakened to the threat of a French presence in Mexico and menacingly massed troops on the Mexican border. Napoleon III, unwilling to take on the U.S., withdrew his troops, who ran back to France with their tails between their legs, leaving poor old Maximillian hanging out to dry. Hapsburg nobleman that he was, however, he stuck it out until he was captured and ultimately (and over the objections of nearly everyone), executed by Benito Juarez.

Back to Cinco de Mayo, though. It represents the opening salvo in Mexico’s battle of outright refusal to submit to foreign domination.

This is precisely why Yom Ha’atzma’ut is such a big deal for Israel and the Jewish People. It is not just about Statehood. Rather, it represents the first time in over 2000 years that the land has been governed, truly, by its inhabitants, and not by a foreign power. The First Temple was sacked in 586 B.C.E. Babylonian hegemony gave way to Persian Rule (benevolent thought it might have been). This was followed by Alexander the Great, the Greco-Syrian Empire, the Romans, various Muslim Empires, the Crusaders from Europe, Mamalukes, Ottoman Turks and finally, the British, as representative of the League of Nations Mandate. Did I leave anyone out? Probably.

Only on Yom Ha’atzma’ut did the Jewish People, once again, become masters of their own fate and have been able to say, since that time: we will no longer be under anyone’s boot heel. Those Jews, myself included, who live in the Diaspora, do so by choice. There is, however, a place in this world where the Jewish People are “in charge,” and not under the rule of a foreign power. This is the legacy, also, of Cinco de Mayo. It is worh celebrating.

Coronas for Everyone!

2006-05-02T13:31:00.000-04:00

Jews and Darfur: An Open Letter
to the Jewish Community (Part 2)

Dear Friends:

Many of us were in Washington on April 30 for the rally for the victims of genocide in Darfur. I saw many kippot, and representatives of many Jewish organizations mixed in the crowd. The relatively scant news coverage of the event suggests, I think, that the overall turnout was disappointing. How tragic! In our celebrity-obsessed society, the newsworthiness of the rally seemed bolstered only by the appearance of George Clooney. Those who did attend, however, should feel good about their efforts.

Alas, feeling good and patting ourselves on the back will not solve the problem; it represents merely the very beginning of the effort. And if we go on feeling content, satisfied that we have done what we can, and that the rest is up to the Bush Administration, we will have, in my opinion, let down the very people whose horrific plight moved us to spend countless hours on buses and trains for this event in the first place.

Just as pressure must be brought on the Sudanese Government to stop this outrageous slaughter, so must we, as Americans, bring pressure to bear on our own representatives. After all, we are a nation at war, with numerous problems, both internationally as well as on the homefront. Our elected officials are presented, on a daily basis, with a cacophony of voices, urging action upon them for one cause or another, many of them quite legitimate. All of these issues vie for the limited attention span and energy of our Senators, Congresspersons and the President. We cannot realistically expect action on behalf of the innocent victims of Darfur unless we loudly and repeatedly demand it. One sunny day on the Mall, filled with music, good cheer and platitudes, however sincere, simply will not cut it. We owe it to the innocents to follow up with letters, e-mails, telegrams and phone calls to our elected representatives insisting that the United States get involved immediately and forcefully to stop the slaughter. We must demand the same efforts of our friends, family members and colleagues.

Nobody of good will can possibly question us for making a public nuisance of ourselves on this issue. But we will surely all have to answer to our God and to posterity for our inaction. We’ve made a good beginning. We cannot afford to drop the ball.

Write or call your representatives. Do it today. Use your own words, or e-mail me, if you like, for suggested language. A miniscule effort by millions will surely be heard. Let us all be heard!

Sincerely,

Warren R. Graham

2006-04-26T16:55:00.000-04:00

Microhistory: B.C. to A.D.

Inordinately fond of history as I am, I’ve decided to write about it. Not about my first love--from an historical perspective, I mean--Medieval European History, or my second love, Russian History. Not even about the bloodiest day in American History, the Civil War Battle of Antietam, which should have brought the Union cause close to victory, but, due to incomprehensible blundering, ended in a strategic draw, breathing two more years of life, at least, into Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. No, the history I want to write about is microhistory, i.e., MY history. Specifically, I wish to analyze, evaluate and discuss my recent struggle with cancer, and its meaning and consequences, if such may be found in that experience.

The B.C. to which the title refers is Before Cancer (or Before Chemo, if you like) and the A.D. stands for After Deconstruction. Those concepts and their respective meanings will take up the bulk of this essay.

But first, the salient facts: on February 28, 2005, just after my family’s return from a ski trip in Lake Tahoe, I woke up at about 2:00 a.m. with an unstoppable case of the hiccups, followed by an attack of almost unbearable abdominal pain. An ambulance took me to the emergency room at Lenox Hill Hospital, where the doctors diagnosed a “perforation or hole in my stomach,” perhaps caused by an ulcer. They needed to operate immediately in order to save my life, but hoped that the surgery could be done laproscopically, so as to be minimally invasive. As the anesthesia was administered (for which I was deeply grateful), I could not have known that everything up to that point was, for me, B.C.

A day or two later (my memory is still somewhat hazy on the chronology of this period), when I was still heavily drugged, but able to speak and concentrate, I was told what the rest of my family already knew: that I had a poorly differentiated stomach cancer, known as linitus plastica, a cancer which, oddly enough, is more common in the young, and most prevalent in Japan. The cancer had been removed, as had my lymph nodes, and the lab testing was underway, with the results to be forthcoming in a few days. Just a few years earlier, my beloved father-in-law had died of stomach cancer, so I suppose I could be forgiven for some lack of optimism at that moment.

My recovery from the surgery (which was not only non-laproscopic, but required, in fact, the removal of every millimeter of my stomach, and the attachment of my esophagus directly to my intestines) was surprisingly quick and quite satisfactory, but as I was about to be discharged from the Hospital, my surgeon informed me that the lab work had confirmed his worst fears: that the cancer had infiltrated my lymph nodes and that, although he had removed all of them, the chances of metasticization were great. He informed me that my life expectancy without treatment was about three months, and that, with aggressive treatment, I might make it for as much as two years (although he had rarely seen that). In so many words, he suggested that I put my affairs in order and prepare myself emotionally for the journey from which there is no return (with all due respect to my believing Christian brethren, even He whom they believe DID return, stayed only for a short visit).

This conversation with my surgeon marked the beginning of my A.D. experience. It is an experience, I expect, more or less common to anyone who has been told that he or she has a fatal disease, and it forces one to contemplate not only death (indeed, for me, that was the easy part), but more importantly, a world and a future, in which he or she will have no part. Suddenly, and without warning, I found myself crying. Not about dying. Not about suffering. Somehow, those things did not seem real, or tangible, or even important to me. But rather, what I found devastating was the prospect of not being able to visit colleges with my younger daughter, as I had done with my older one; of not being able to dance (and, as importantly for me, to pontificate) at my daughters’ weddings; of not being able to attend my nephew’s Bar Mitzvah in Israel (then ten months in the future). And finally, of not being able to visit all those places all over the world which my wife and I had promised one another we would get to someday.

All of these considerations are deconstructing, to be sure. The prospects I mentioned were daunting to face, but, oddly enough, strangely liberating at the same time. Everyone…my friends, family, colleagues and law partners told me not to worry about anything, other than getting well. I seized onto that and instantly felt freed from the shackles of my career, the need to pursue professional success and earn money (I was, later on, to pay dearly for this extended holiday from reality). My wife and I, together with my brother-in-law, who had (God bless him) flown in from Israel at the drop of a hat and a few close friends, had begun some surreal discussions of emergency estate planning, including the desirability of an immediate sale of our home, the creation of various insurance trusts, and the like. My older daughter had been asked to fly home from college without being told why. My younger daughter, not generally being given to displays of emotion had, I was told, been crying into her pillow for several nights straight. My wife put up a brave front—she is, after all, an Israeli—but was plainly devastated. The rest of my family members, my mother, brother, sister, aunt, cousins, together with my family, by marriage, in Israel and their respective families, reacted as one would expect: with varying degrees of worry, disbelief and fear.

In the meantime, I was, mercifully, functioning on a copious supply of opiates, to deaden the post-surgical pain. It worked some benefit on my psychic pain, as well, and I was able, through the haze, to become inured to the idea that I was about to embark upon a fight for my life in which, it seemed at the time, I was unlikely to prevail.

People visited me both at the hospital, and later, during my convalescence at home, in droves. I simply do not know how I could have coped without the support of my family and friends, both here and in Israel, and in particular, the support of friends and people whom I took to be mere acquaintances from my synagogue, Kehilath Jeshurun, in New York, together with its professional staff of Rabbis and others who visited, called, wrote and prayed for me. Cousins in Chicago sent out e-mails to their yeshiva friends to put my Hebrew name on their mi-shebeirach (prayer for the sick) list, and my daughter’s Chabad Rabbi in Buffalo, together with my own Rabbi in New York, Haskel Lookstein, still pray for me regularly. I cannot even imagine how anyone gets through an experience like this alone, yet I know that people do. Part of the deconstructing experience was the realization, not only of how much I meant to people, in a way of which I was completely unaware, but of how much they meant, and still mean, to me. The support of this myriad of people has had a salutary effect on me, in that I try to take friends and family less for granted.

After much research, both by me, and by friends and family members, I began to interview oncologists, and narrowed the field down to two. Both reviewed my files and ran tests on me and, to my surprise, and immeasurable relief, advised me of their strong disagreement with my surgeon’s prognosis. They agreed that, although my type of cancer was serious and, indeed, life-threatening, the surgery, coupled with an aggressive treatment of chemotherapy and radiation gave me good reason to hope for a complete recovery. After deconstruction comes reconstruction. I underwent the recommended treatments, and, 14 months A.D., am, as far as my tests can determine, cancer-free. I attended my nephew’s Bar Mitzvah in Israel this past January, and have taken my daughter to various college visits. As to whether I will dance at my daughters’ weddings, or take the “Grand Tour” of the World with my wife, well, that’s very much in God’s hands, on a great many levels. I do not, and cannot know whether I have beaten this thing, but I do know that if there is more adversity to come from this disease, that I mean to go down fighting.

The difficulty now, lies not only in being vigilant about a return of my disease. That is, of course, self-evident. The trick is to take from this experience the lessons it has afforded me about priorities, and to live those lessons. Easier said than done. The path of least resistance, of course, now that the immediate threat has receded, is to go back to old patterns of B.C. thinking, which focused on making money and engaging in material pursuits: A nice house, nice car, nice clothes, expensive vacations, etc. My personal relationships, B.C. were certainly important to me, but as much (I am somewhat embarrassed to say) out of a chronic and childish need to be loved, admired and approved of, as out of more altruistic motivations. A.D., I still like nice material things. If anything, I am now more interested in nice clothing as, at 165 lbs., (80 lbs. less than my all-time high) I have the physical attributes to look much better than before in off-the-rack outfits. But I would like to think that my love of things material is somewhat more in perspective now. I approach those desires more in a carpe diem sort of way, than as goals in and of themselves. As for my personal relationships, I try to appreciate my family and friends more. I do not always succeed, as my wife, above all, will attest to. Reconstruction, after all, (particularly MY reconstruction) is very much a “work in progress.” But I keep in touch (e-mail makes that extremely easy), and have grown much closer to some people whom I have known for most of my life. I find myself in the synagogue on a daily basis. Many around me don’t understand what they see as something of an obsession, but for me, it suffices that I understand; I NEED to have a daily conversation with the Almighty, both to thank him for my recovery to date, and to ask for its continuation. Moreover, it is a mechanism for seeking the well-being of my family, my friends, the Jewish People, my Country, the State of Israel and humankind, all of which have now seemingly become infinitely more important to me. I don’t know of anywhere else where one can hope (or dare) to place so tall an order.

I am working hard to rebuild my professional life. My illness and resultant inability (or unwillingness) to focus much on being a lawyer for the better part of Year 1, A.D., cost me, and I need to redouble my efforts just to get back to where I was. I mean to do that, and quite a bit more. Luckily, I have recently joined a firm, in which a number of the partners are old friends, supportive, professional, and understanding. I have no doubt that I will land on my feet. Also, luckily, I am very good (I apologize for the immodesty, but this is truth time) at what I do. My clients, and potential clients will be well-served by me, and will be lucky to have me representing them.

So, can cancer actually be good for you? It seems a flippant, and ultimately, perhaps, a stupid question. But the answer, I think, is that it can be, provided, of course, that it’s the kind you can recover from. That’s obvious. What is less obvious is the beneficial qualities of the lesson or lessons one can take from such an experience. I can attest, of course, only to my own experiences. I now celebrate a second “birthday” on February 28, the dividing line between B.C. and A.D.

Even the most fleeting glimpse of the Angel of Death can teach us something about priorities, if we are observant enough to learn the lesson, and are wise enough to “walk the walk” on an ongoing basis. May God grant me both the strength and the perspective.

Warren R. Graham

Copyright 2006

2006-04-23T16:11:00.000-04:00

With Liberty and Justice for All—Even Republicans

The purpose of this piece is to reassure its readers (and perhaps, its author), that civil liberties are not a concern relegated solely to the opponents of the Bush White House. Let me start off this essay by incurring much wrath in clearly identifying myself as a lifelong Republican, and a supporter of this Administration’s policies in the Middle East and in Iraq, in particular. Those whose judgment is so driven by obsessive hatred of George W. Bush that they prefer to see the failure of American interest in the international arena, than to endure a scintilla of success for Team Bush should, in any rational world, be ashamed of themselves for their lack of patriotism, to say the least. In addition, the readiness of some to declare his policies a failure smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Any student of history worth his or her salt knows that the success or failure of a policy—ANY policy—is not evident for at least fifty years, or more. Alas, however, we do not live in a rational, or an intellectually honest, world.

In spite of my political leanings, it is an unfortunate reality that our President is a divisive figure. Part of this is a function of his inability to project intelligence, and the resultant, and mistaken public impression (reinforced relentlessly and cynically by his detractors) of him as shallow and, indeed, stupid. I am naive enough to believe that idiots don’t make it to the White House, and that this President suffers merely from an enhanced form of his father’s estrangement from, and lack of fluency in, the English Language. That, coupled with a Texas drawl, a goofy grin and an inability to put forth bon mots in a spontaneous way, leaves the American public with a perception of him as something of a dimwit. Those who know the President personally (I am not among them) know this to be false. I agree wholeheartedly, in large measure because I have seen the man’s work and am, for the most part, satisfied with it. Irrespective of the views of both his supporters and detractors, history, most importantly, will judge him on his deeds and not on his media-created (or distorted) image.

Add to this a genuine weakness of this President: his apparent reliance on personal friendship and trust, in lieu, sometimes, of good independent judgment, and his willingness to subscribe to secrecy and close counsel for its own sake, and his constituency is left to wonder: “what is this not-very-intelligent guy up to? Perhaps he really does mean to drop a few nukes on Iran.” Now, as viscerally satisfying as “dropping a few nukes on Iran” may seem to some of us, it is probably bad policy, and even worse policy to leak to the media that it is even being considered.

Putting all of that to the side, however, and given this writer’s support for the War on Terror and the Bush policies in Iraq, what concerns me the most is the utter lack of public discourse on the real issues which arise from these policies. I refer, of course, to the price demanded of our civil liberties and the evolving change of balance as between our rights and the powers ceded to law enforcement. And when I allude to public discourse, of course, I am not referring to the debate among the talking heads on Washington Week in Review, and its three or four weekly viewers, or the weekly bloodsport/screamfest-passing-for-discussion known as The McLaughlin Group. Rather, I am wondering: what happened to the “public” in public discourse? In the middle of a war, in the midst of a crisis in which the “President” of Iran speaks of wiping Israel off the map, and at a time in which the arrogation of power to law enforcement has resulted in so-called “free speech” zones at which the public may gather to express their displeasure with government policy, the public discourse devolves into discussion of such earth-shattering concerns such as who will prevail on American Idol, or who will be America’s Next Top Model.

I am sure, perhaps with some justification, to be accused of intellectual snobbery in appearing to suggest that entertainment and silly diversion has no place in the midst of international crisis. That is not my contention. Indeed, we are nearly always in some international crisis, or other, and people—ALL people, virtually—need diversion from the horrors that face us as members of the human race. We certainly cannot reasonably be expected to devote all of our waking hours to consideration of the horrors of Darfur or the likelihood of a viable nuclear capability in the hands of Pyongyang. That way, of course, lies madness. No, we need Desperate Housewives. We must have Entertainment Tonight. And the goings-on of Scientologist cum Philosopher Tom Cruise as well as the canoodlings of the moment by Lindsay Lohan and her partying in the “boite de jour” with her Mom (am I the ONLY one who finds that more than mildly disturbing?) are of inestimable importance to our national consciousness.

But even allowing for all that, the question remains: why is the public largely apparently indifferent to the invasion of its constitutional liberties? Is it ignorance? Cynicism? Or worse, have we, by silence, tacitly consented to a fundamental shift in our relationship with our government as the payment for the perception (valid or not) of greater personal and national security. I would like to think that ignorance is the culprit, simply because that cause is most readily remedied by a concentration of concerned individuals screaming loudly enough to be heard above the fray of: “would you like fries with that?” Cynicism is a tougher nut to crack, suggesting, as it does, that people have considered the problem, to a greater or lesser extent, but feel themselves so disenfranchised and removed from the scions of power that any efforts would surely prove fruitless. The consent argument is most troubling of all, because it implies that those principles for which our founding fathers bled, and upon which this country stands, are really not very important to us, at least not at the moment the chips are down.

There are, to be sure, legitimate arguments for encroachments upon liberties in times of war. Every schoolchild knows (or would know, if our schools were doing their job) that good old Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus for a time during the Civil War. Parenthetically, the rectitude of that action is still a subject of great debate among historians and constitutional scholars. Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps after Pearl Harbor (there’s not much debate about the moral defensibility of that action). And now, of course, we have issues such as the various provisions of the Patriot Act, the prospect of secret military tribunals, domestic spying and indefinite detention without trial at “Gitmo.” Are all these things a clear and present danger, per se, to our freedoms which must be fiercely resisted? Not necessarily. It should be pretty obvious to most people that military activities cannot be prosecuted effectively without a high level of secrecy. Interrogation of enemy operatives, especially in the terror milieu of the Middle East, cannot be accomplished entirely according to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules (there is, of course, a large gulf between fully according due process to enemy combatants and engaging in outright torture, notwithstanding the arguments of the “slippery slope-ists”).

No, my objection is to the lack of open discussion of these issues. It may be that national security requires that everyone open their bags for inspection as they enter the New York City Subways. It is a debatable proposition whether ethnic profiling for air travelers ought to be a tool available to law enforcement. It may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but it is nevertheless a fact that the horrors of September 11 were perpetrated by Arab Muslims, as has most (not all, to be sure) international terrorism in recent years. Our population needs to be protected by its government and military. Our borders need to be secure (we’re certainly doing a pretty poor job on that front). But the point is that these subjects need to be discussed, debated and yes, screamed about in the public domain, on the street, on blog sites, and around the office water coolers. Most of what I hear in those precincts concerns the latest episode of The Sopranos. (Not that the charms of that show are lost on me. Indeed, I have not missed a single episode of the five or six seasons of that show since it began airing some 27 years ago).

Long ago, we gave up any real right to privacy in this country. Madison Avenue saw to that, with its wholesale trading of customer lists and accompanying marketing data. What little was left was taken by the credit card companies, the internet and spammers. Commercial television ads for heated K-Y Jelly suggesting that we “see where it leads” followed by a knowing wink, have certainly removed what very little was left of the surprise and mystery of the bedroom for those of us who have not already been bombarded by internet porn over the last few years.

What, then, is left to us? Some of our allegedly constitutionally protected rights devolve from the implied right to privacy, to be found in the Bill of Rights. These include reproductive rights and, in recent years, newly “discovered” rights concerning sexual conduct. We still have some protections under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, but domestic spying is a potential threat to that. Do we want to do anything about that? Up to now, America’s answer has been…..silence. Other provisions of the Bill of Rights give us the right to counsel and trial by jury as well as the right to confront our accusers. Secret military tribunals put those rights at risk. Should we care? Do we care? Survey says???……..{Yawn}. Maybe our national security and defense do, indeed, demand the sacrifice of these rights. Maybe not. But the prospect of losing what little we have left of our Constitutional legacy because we are asleep at the switch is a horrifying proposition, to say the least. If we are going to cede these rights to our government in the name of safety and security, we ought to do so consciously. Security and freedom have always worked in inverse proportion. This is basic and self-evident. It has always been the fundamental mission of this Republic to find the ideal balance. I am sorely afraid, however, that we have stopped looking for it. There are a few (very few) people who seem to care. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly to me, personally, they are overwhelmingly to be found on the left. During the 2004 Presidential Election, when President Bush was making campaign appearances, there were, not surprisingly, anti-Bush demonstrators at most major venues. The security people assigned to the campaign designated so-called “free-speech” zones, usually many blocks from the site at which the President was to appear. In the most quotable line in many years, in this writer’s opinion, a woman (to whom I apologize for not knowing her name and thus, not being able to attribute the quote), said: “I thought this WHOLE COUNTRY was a “free speech zone!””

Alas, however, those sentiments are few and far between. And regardless of whether we vigorously support or actively oppose the foreign policy of this Administration, we have a profound duty to ourselves, our children and our national legacy, to exercise that atrophied muscle we call “freedom of speech” and publicly, and in the harsh light of day, examine what price we are willing to pay in order to keep it, together with the other liberties we routinely take for granted.

Where is the outrage, people?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author
Warren R. Graham is an attorney with the New York Law Firm of Cohen Tauber Spievack & Wagner LLP. He specializes in the field of Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of his firm or its members. Additional professional information on him may be found at:

http://www.ctswlaw.com/templates/page3_attorney.asp?docid=667

e-mail: wgraham@ctswlaw.com

2006-04-20T17:08:00.000-04:00

An Open Letter to the American Jewish Community

Dear Friends:

Let me begin by apologizing in advance for what follows. It is not my intention to lecture anyone about anything. I am no tzaddik, to be sure, and I have no right to preach about righteousness to anyone, let alone members of a community who, in many cases, have a moral compass much truer than mine and whose commitment to Torah puts mine to shame. Having said that, I am unable to keep silent about the subject that follows, so here goes:

Over the past few weeks, much discourse (both public and private) has taken place within the Jewish community (among many other communities, I am sure) on the subject of Darfur. Much of what has been said and written has been quite eloquent concerning the unspeakable horrors facing the victims there, and many have exhorted the members of our community to participate in an April 30 rally in Washington, to urge prompt action upon the Bush Administration. To my great surprise, and, I am sorry to say, embarrassment, I have heard words from people to the effect of: “what do I care about these people?’’ or “they’re mostly Muslim and hate Jews…why should we help them?”

In the world in which I grew up (and, I daresay, this applies to many, if not all of us), it was a virtual article of faith to say that: “while the Jews burned, the world kept silent.” I, like most of my peers, accepted that statement as (you should excuse the expression) Gospel. In my opinion, if we do not stand up for Darfur, we lose the right to continue complaining about world apathy, past and present, for Jewish woes. In short, we forfeit the moral ‘high ground’ and, I believe, no longer can lecture an uncaring world.

This is such a basic article of the Jewish creed, that I am astonished that it needs to be pointed out by anyone, least of all, an am ha’aretz like myself. One of the three principles enunciated and ALWAYS quoted and attributed to Hillel is: “If I am only for myself, what am I?”

Now I know that it is only natural that people worry first about their family, next about their friends and community and only afterward about strangers and the world at large. But somewhere in the mix, we need to consider not only WHO the victims are, but the severity and scale of the suffering. And while I would certainly be the last person to suggest that helping finance a yeshiva is unimportant (I beg that you not interpret my words to, G-d forbid, say such a thing), the people of Darfur are, in my opinion, the victims of a holocaust.

Yes, I know it makes Jews very angry to see that loaded term used in ANY context other than THE HOLOCAUST---hence, I use a lower-case ‘h’. But in reality, we might ask ourselves, “Why is this NOT a holocaust?” It is, after all, precipitated by nothing other than racial/ethnic hatred, involves the wholesale murder of, potentially, millions of people, and in a brutal, gruesome manner that would do the Nazis proud.

Thus, I am hard-pressed to understand why people who are always responsive to charitable requests, and who usually, if not always, turn out for Jewish or Israeli causes, find Darfur unworthy of their efforts. I don’t know a single one of the victims or potential victims of these atrocities. I probably never will. I don’t have any personal emotional investment in their well-being, or even that of their innocent children. But I know, as surely as one can know anything, that our standing up for them is a kiddush Hashem, and an obligation that we all share.

Those who do not think this horror deserving of their attention must, I think, consider carefully any future complaints against a world indifferent to Jewish suffering. And if our community, which (rightly) supports Jewish soup kitchens, UJA, Israel Bonds, and literally dozens of other wonderful and important causes and acts of chesed, does not turn out in DROVES for this event on April 30, then SHAME ON US!

Once again, please accept these words as an expression of strong personal feeling and not of criticism of anybody or of our community. The skilled and articulate leaders in our midst who are advocating participation in this event hardly need my help in promoting it. In reality, in any event, the justice of the cause should speak for itself. Please consider the foregoing in that light.

Sincerely,

Warren R. Graham

copyright 2006

2006-03-25T21:00:00.000-05:00

A Republican Jew (No, It's Not an Oxymoron)
By Warren Graham

In the wake of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, and the news that approximately 24% of American Jews (an increased, but still relatively small percentage) voted for George W. Bush, it is, I believe, an appropriate time to examine (not for the first time, of course) the phenomenon of longstanding blind Jewish loyalty to the Democratic Party,

I was raised in a time and a place (the New York Metropolitan Area of the 1960's) in which Jews were Democrats, period. Rabbis routinely preached politically liberal values from the pulpit and, although, in retrospect, some in the pews must have harbored some resentment for that, the consensus was so overwhelming that most, if not all, of those who dissented, did so privately, and chose to be silent. Astonishingly, not that much has changed. In those days, the only Jewish conservative I had even heard of was Norman Podhoretz, and he was roundly vilified by the Northeastern, liberal Jewish intelligentsia for bucking the tide. The prevailing attitude, I may say, without much exaggeration, was that voting Democratic was de'orraitah (Aramaic for from the Torah).

Even today, there is an attitude which I sense in the American Jewish Community in which the suggestion that one might consider support for the Republican Party, is considered fundamentally "un-Jewish." After all, the unspoken reasoning goes, the Democratic Party is the party of "working families" (whatever that means), and social justice, while the Republican Party is an uneasy alliance of wealthy, coupon-clipping, Daughter of the American Revolution, Mayflower-landing Wasps, on the one hand and trailer-trash, ignorant, fundamentalist Christian yahoos, who would ban abortion, start the school day with a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers," and shoot--with automatic assault weapons, of course--all homosexuals on sight, on the other. (I can fairly visualize liberals reading this and nodding in agreement).

During the course of the recent and very contentious presidential campaign, many of my Jewish friends and family members expressed their pro-Democratic leanings in terms of their fear of domination of this country by Christian Fundamentalists. There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that such fear is well founded, except that many Christian Evangelicals supported George W. Bush, because, I presume, he is known to be a man of deeply-held Christian faith. I know that many Jews, four years ago, were attracted by the presence of Joe Lieberman, a committed Jew, on the Democratic ticket. I don't think I ever heard anyone suggest that we were in danger of a mandatory "Daf Yomi" (daily Talmud study), compulsory donning of tzitzis and forced consumption of P'tchah (believe me, you don't want to know what that is). Parenthetically, the fear of Christian Fundamentalists also negates, in the minds of many Jews, the attractiveness of President Bush as a strong supporter of Israel. Evangelicals, they say, support Israel only because of Jesus-based Messianic zeal, which requires, in their prophecies, that the Jews prevail in Israel as a prelude to the Second Coming.

In a world in which Israel has precious few reliable friends and allies, I believe we should be grateful for those we have, and treasure them. Let the "End of Days" take care of themselves.

For the most part, in any case, I don't "vote Israel" in presidential elections. In a rare exception, I did do so in 1992, when I voted for Bill Clinton, having been very disappointed in Bush Sr.'s statements and relationship with Israel, and my antipathy toward James Baker, in particular, who was reputed to say of the American Jews: "F---- 'em! They didn't vote for us, anyway." Baker strongly denies having said this, but I have my doubts. In this recent election, Bush Jr. has a strong positive track record on Israel, and many commentators observed that Kerry, while having an excellent pro-Israel voting record, was, in his zeal to "mend fences" with European Allies, likely to put untoward pressure on Israel to make risky concessions. We will, of course, never know about Kerry's policy toward Israel. Nevertheless, I considered Israel to be largely a neutral issue as between the candidates. I had, however, many other good reasons to support Bush, so that the Israel issue did not resonate much with me this time around. This, however, did appear to increase, albeit slightly, Jewish support for Bush in this election. Interestingly, support for Republicans has increased dramatically in the Orthodox community, to the point where Republicans can now boast majority support there. This is of limited value in presidential elections in which the Orthodox population centers tend to be found in "blue" states (where, as I am fond of saying, the Democrats could run Joe Stalin without much risk), and are, at least currently, insufficient to turn the tide. But this is a highly relevant development for State and Local elections. Much of the Orthodox support for the Republican Party is based, not only on Bush's support for Israel, but on the Orthodox empathy for some of the social agenda items, such as, for example, opposition to gay marriage, which, ironically, is precisely what motivates much of the non-Orthodox Jewish Community to eschew the G.O.P.

The irony of the continued Jewish commitment to the Democrats is that many Jews are no longer voting either their philosophies or their pocketbooks. In the course of my discussions recently with many Jewish Democrats, it has become apparent, on an issue-by-issue basis, that they had much more in common with the Republican Party, both on the domestic and foreign policy fronts. Many support reduction, or at least containment of expensive social programs, and see that many have been wasteful failures. Many support the war on terror, and even the policy in Iraq, although they are distressed at the profound errors which have been made in its implementation (so am I). Many support tax relief and oppose multi-lateral foreign policy decision-making. These are all core values of the Republican Party. The social agenda which frightens many of them (and with which I, myself, mostly disagree) is, in the opinion of this writer, not shared by a high enough percentage of Americans to be a real threat. If it ever becomes so, it won't matter what party is in power. Ultimately, we have no choice but to rely on the Constitution to protect us. I know that some fear the appointment of right-wing judges to the Federal judiciary and Supreme Court in particular, as a danger. But I take much comfort in the fact that the protections afforded by the Constitution have served us well for many years, under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Roe v. Wade, the seminal abortion rights decision, was, after all, penned by Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee. Besides, the confirmation system is such that "extreme" judges simply don't get appointed….anybody remember Robert Bork? Historical evidence strongly suggests that Federal Judges, with lifetime tenure, tend to rise above the political motives of their proponents, once they are in the job.

It has been 93 years since the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. FDR has been dead for 59 years; Emma Goldman, for even longer. We have effective labor laws and civil rights protections in this Country. Those issues and people should not be trivialized. They were important in their time, but America is not the same country anymore. Jews are not an ostracized underclass. We are, in fact, very much entrenched into the mainstream structure and, I daresay, the power elite in this Country. And yes, I know that the same was true, to an extent in Germany. But I believe that, as much as we must be vigilant and wary of our enemies, who are real, we ought not to conduct ourselves in America as though a pogrom were right around the corner. That would be an insult to a country we love and which has been very good to us.

Thus, although we should always consider social justice and values beyond our own parochial interests, our voting patterns should not be reflexive, Pavlovian responses; rather, they should be reasoned measures, predicated on our beliefs. Those Jews who truly support the weltanschauung of the Democratic party should continue to vote accordingly. But voting Democrat is NOT de'orraitah. It is not a sufficient reason to do so because Bubbie and Zaydie did it. I look forward to the day in which Jewish support will be based on issues, not on mere party affiliation.

Warren R. Graham is an attorney with the New York Law Firm of Cohen Tauber Spievack & Wagner LLP. He specializes in the field of Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights. He is a frequent writer, contributor and commentator on political and Jewish affairs. The views expressed by him in this article are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of his Firm or its Members.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Warren_Graham