Questions for Democrats From Me and The Times

To get an Op-Ed piece published in The New York Times you have to give the paper a three-business-day window to review your submission. The Times says it will contact you if they plan to use it. Otherwise, you’re free to publish it anywhere else it might be deemed worthy.

Last Friday night I emailed to The Times 10 questions that should be asked of each Democratic presidential hopeful during next week’s debates. Apparently, great minds think alike, because The Times had been working on a similarly themed idea which it unveiled Wednesday. The Times formulated 18 questions to which 21 candidates provided video responses (https://nyti.ms/2NbBe1Z). 

Having not heard back from The Times by Wednesday night, herewith are my questions (since expanded to a dozen): 

1. Will you support the eventual Democratic party nominee and not run a third party candidacy?

2. What will be your first five executive orders upon taking office?

3. Given what we now know about Donald Trump’s activities before and after the 2016 election, would you support a criminal prosecution of Donald Trump?

4. What action by the Trump administration has most enraged you and how would you counteract it?

5. If the Senate remains in Republican control, how would you counter Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stranglehold on legislative affairs moving forward?

6. What steps would you take to improve our trade position vis-a-vis China?

7. How would you stem the flow of undocumented immigrants across our southern border?

8. Which country or entity or concept is America’s number one enemy today and in the future?

9. Should the Palestinians have their own state or should they become citizens of Israel and other Middle Eastern states where they reside?

10. What is your position on the impact and viability of technology companies, banks and investment houses that have grown “too big to fail.” Should they be broken up or more intensely regulated? 

11. Are some Afro-Americans entitled to reparations? How would you define reparations?

12. What steps would you take to improve health care?

For those who chose not to click on the link to The Times feature, here’s a list of its questions (added benefit: each question is linked to the candidate responses). You decide whose queries, mine or The Times, were more incisive. 

1. In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?

2. Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replacing it with single payer?

3. Do you think it’s possible for the next president to stop climate change?

4. Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights?

5. Who is your hero, and why?

6. Would there be American troops in Afghanistan at the end of your first term?

7. How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

8. Do you think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States?

9. Where would you go on your first international trip as president?

10. Describe the last time you were embarrassed. Why?

11. Do you think President Trump has committed crimes in office?

12. Do you support or oppose the death penalty?

13. Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?

14. Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?

15. When did your family first arrive in the United States, and how?

16. What is your comfort food on the campaign trail?

17. What do you do to relax?

18. Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?

It's Over But Don't Begrudge Bernie Another 15 Minutes in the Spotlight

The political world anguishes over Bernie Sanders’ next move. Will he accept reality and, figuratively at least, hug and embrace Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party’s not just presumptive but inevitable presidential nominee? Or will he continue to soldier on, less a Don Quixote-like figure, more a Sancho Panza, cleaning up a mess his alter-ego has created.

Sanders has defied the odds. Like Donald Trump, nobody thought he would achieve what he has. Trump, however, is the consummate personal optimist. I don’t see Bernie believing he would have such success when he set out on his anti-Hillary crusade a year ago. After all, he had not even joined the Democratic Party back then.

So why doesn’t he drop out already? Is it loyalty to the millions who supported his candidacy with small donations, volunteer work and votes? Is it steadfastness to the ideals of his campaign and a hope to influence the party platform and maybe the selection of a vice presidential candidate?

I’m no psychoanalyst, but maybe, just maybe, it is because he really is like every other politician. He enjoys the attention. He enjoys the limelight. The power he never had in Washington, the spotlight—though much dimmer—that he enjoyed as mayor of Burlington, VT. Maybe after he’s “seen Paree,” as the lyric goes, he just doesn’t want to be relegated back to the farm. He’s Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront, wanting some respect and bemoaning he could have been a contender if only that darn Hillary wasn’t there and her superdelegate union bosses weren’t throwing the fight her way.

It is all about ego. How often had he met one on one with a sitting president before Thursday? How often had he been on Face the Nation or Meet the Press or the evening news almost every night. How often had he joked around, then got serious, with the likes of Stephen Colbert or Bill Maher?

Yes, the attention is mesmerizing. So don’t begrudge him an extra 15 minutes of fame. He deserves it.

On Reaching an Existential Tipping Point

When I started this blog almost six years ago part of my my intention was to stimulate your senses, your memories, your emotions, to elicit a reaction from you, pro and con. One truth I wish all journalists, particularly bloggers, had was the understanding that they are not the sole repositories of truth. Divergent opinions exist and sometimes might even be more correct. Accordingly, I welcome feedback, either directly to me at mforseter@gmail.com or by posting a comment at the bottom of each blog by clicking on the “No Comments” link (I know it sounds counterintuitive but that’s how Blogspot works). 

Last week’s post on the existential threats facing Israel and the United States (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2015/03/existential-threats-within-and-without.html) elicited more than the usual level of feedback including this heartfelt response from a friend whose identity will remain anonymous. Please favor it by reading it through and, if you are so moved, contribute to the dialogue: 

Let me preface my thoughts by saying that I am by no means a Bibi (Netanyahu) fan. I was actually quite upset that he was re-elected and thought it was time for him to go and maybe let some fresh ideas come through. Going to Congress, while it was an electrifying environment and moment, was ill-timed and, of course, the crude attempt to galvanize the electorate with the “NO” two-state solution was appalling. But in spite of that, Israeli voters do have a right to fear for their existence and we hardly could, from our cushiony high-chairs, dictate to them how to feel or tell them that they bought Bibi’s bridge. And, yes, the right-wingers here and abroad stand for many things that you (and sometimes even a center right/left person like me) can deride.

BUT my question is this…. it is a hypothetical but very real question, given the current trends and facts on the ground. At what TIPPING point do you say to yourself (forget about the blogging of it), that Obama and a growing number of Democrats no longer have any interest in Israel (no matter who is in power in Israel)? That Israel just gets in the way of a new wave of American contraction and isolationism (being able to defend militarily against a nuclear threat from Iran is not the “real” existential threat here). 

At what point does an American Jew say that Obama and my so called “parents’” Democratic Party no longer defends or represents my interests and I need to stand up against my own party to stop the Anti-Israel bashing or silence? At what point does the antenna go up or one wakes up from sleep and one realizes that, while anti-Israel criticism is acceptable or even a democratic right of speech, more and more of the world (including America) is using it as a veiled pre-text towards anti-Semitism and we are slowly but surely becoming collectively guilty of letting it grow by not speaking out against it or rationalizing to ourselves that it is Ok and either acceptable or will just pass?

Will that TIPPING occur when, as a result of academic boycotts, Jews are no longer allowed in certain schools? Will that TIPPING occur when a Jew is killed on campus for being a Jew? Will it occur when your grandchildren apply to prestigious colleges and are politely rejected (like in South Africa)? 

Will it occur when a school rejects a Jew from a student council because she is engaged in Jewish organizations (kind of happened already in California!!)? Or when a university board actually adopts a BDS resolution that applies to all of Israel? Or does it occur when police have to guard our shuls from possible attack (oh! Isn’t that already happening!), or does it occur when the police maybe no longer answer, or delay, the “protective” call and no longer investigate acts of anti-Semitism? At what point does mainstream Jewry collectively say, “We’ve seen this movie before and it doesn’t end well!!”?

My point is not to say we are there yet (Israel is still overwhelmingly supported but Democratic support is decreasing and becoming increasingly “soft”), but rather at some point every Jew, no matter their ideological bent, should create a very clear marker of when that tipping occurs (I think we are pretty darn close to that tipping point in Europe). 

And don’t for a second think that American Jews aren’t nervous and thinking about it as we speak (it is topic number one among many center/progressive non-Orthodox Jews), as they hear every day of Obama threatening to stop supporting Israel in the UN and letting Israel hang to dry. These aren’t idle political threats. Obama is foretelling you his future actions (it is always his MO of taking a position and not let go of it) and is petulant enough to “teach Bibi a lesson” by throwing Israel under the bus.  

Do we really believe that anti-Israel sentiment is somehow good for American Jews? Can we just ignore it or somehow defend it if it grows and becomes very mainstream? Are we so naïve that we believe that one can divorce anti-Israel rhetoric from anti-Semitic rhetoric? Or when many performers sign on to boycotting all of Israel?  

So at what point do Jews who support Obama actually start to get a reality check and push-back against Obama’s veiled (well, it’s not so veiled anymore) non-support of Israel which purposely green-lights others to engage in anti-Israel behavior (or do we continue with the status quo type of thinking that this is all the right-wing’s fault), before some real intractable damage is done? Just asking!!!

I am just asking these questions, not to elicit debate or convince you of anything, but to maybe (I use that term lightly) make you think of where the line is and when is it actually crossed (I don’t expect an answer). If history is of any guidance, maybe it is better if one is delusional and over-reactive on anti-Israel or anti-Semitic sensitivities, than under-react and realize it when it is much too late.  I can with great certainty say, that my antennae are currently rising!!!  You’ll have plenty to write about over the next two years.

Sex in the City

Did you have sex last night?

According to a new Web-based survey of 1,000–plus Americans 18 and older, sponsored by adults products purveyor Adam & Eve, if you did you were among the 14% who choose Wednesday as their preferred day of the week for intimate relations. Wednesday is the most preferred mid-week day for sex, followed by 13% for Mondays and Thursdays and 12% for Tuesdays.

Not surprisingly, weekends are most often chosen for lovemaking, with 30% of respondents preferring Saturday, 22% opting for Friday and 20% Sunday.

To quote the company’s press release, “Interestingly, a whopping 65% of all respondents said they have no preference when it comes to which day they choose to have sex.” I’m guessing most of those 65% were men.

Speaking of sex, it’s hard to imagine anything but a delayed resignation coming from Congressman Anthony Weiner. I can’t imagine anyone in the Democratic party leadership praying for anything but a quick resolution to this sordid and spectacular fall from grace for a politician nobody really liked but many admired for his tenacity, in-your-face-attitude, and inexhaustible energy.

Gilda brought home an article in amNew York Tuesday that sought to explain “what made promising pol act this way?” The newspaper carried opinions from a psychology professor and psychiatrist.

But do we really need a mental health professional to explain why he did it? After all the politicians and sports figures, celebrities and, recently, bankers who have misbehaved, can’t we comprehend these high testosterone players feel they are above the fray, above the law, that even if they’re caught they can get away with it because they think they are special and generally can afford the high-priced lawyers who can safeguard their freedom? It seems no amount of prior revelations of their peers can deter these self-destructive men from behaving badly.

Staying with sex as today’s theme, a few weeks ago the NY Times ran an article on the Museum of Sex in Manhattan (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/nyregion/new-blue-laws-for-new-york-inspired-by-the-museum-of-sex.html?scp=1&sq=museum%20of%20sex&st=cse). Located on Fifth Avenue at 27th Street, the museum has been open nine years. About two years ago, after attending a Sunday theatre matinee, I visited the Museum of Sex with Gilda and two friends, a married couple who shall remain anonymous in case their grown children see this blog.

Just to be clear about this, it was Gilda’s idea, not mine. Truth be told, it was a fascinating experience. Yes, you could wind up smirking at some of the bawdy merchandise for sale, but the actual museum displays, with their elaborate histories of our nation’s repressed sexual mores, were quite illuminating.

Just in case you didn’t read the article on the museum, it ended with a reference to “Adam and Eve Disappearing Fig Leaf Mugs.” Use your imagination to figure that one out.



(Editor’s note: From time to time—which means when I remember—I will include the following disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my dear wife, Gilda.)