Schepping No Nachas

It should be a source of pride, of “shepping nachas”, a Yiddish term for reaping pleasure and satisfaction. Jews, not just in the United States, but worldwide, should be basking in the glow of seeing their brethren rise to prominent positions in government and finance. But these last few weeks have been anything but times of joy and ego-fulfillment.

The perp walk began with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, once thought to be a shoo-in to become president of France, now fighting to stay out of prison for an alleged sexual assault on a maid in a New York hotel room.

Anthony Weiner was a rising member (pun intended) of the Democratic party. Now the New York congressman, once considered a potential successor to NY mayor Michael Bloomberg, is suspected of shameful Internet activity, of having tweeted a lewd photo of his wiener (pun intended) to a Seattle college co-ed he follows on Twitter. He’ll be lucky to keep his seat, though not his dignity.

And then there’s Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, by all accounts a solid family man. While Cantor has not sexually offended or attacked any woman, he, perhaps, has done more to destroy my faith in my co-religionists holding higher office than almost any other, for he, in my opinion, has violated indecency laws pertaining to the treatment of fellow human beings.

As House Majority Leader, Cantor is in a position to help millions of people, especially those who have suffered through unspeakable trauma. Instead, Cantor has embraced Republican elitism hell bent on destroying social services programs that are the safety net for the underprivileged of society.

Okay, I’ll cut him some slack for being ideologically aligned with those who believe less government is better than more government. But what irks me is his lack of compassion for the victims of the tornadoes that ravaged the heartland a few weeks ago. Cantor says no emergency aid will be provided to tornado-tossed citizens unless there are offsetting cuts to other government programs. In other words, to help residents of Joplin, MO, recover, someone else must suffer a cutback in government services, like early child care support. That’s hostage-taking and blackmail of the cruelest form.

Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation last Sunday, Cantor compared the federal government to a family on a tight budget.

"When a family is struck with tragedy, like the family of Joplin ... let's say if they had $10,000 set aside to do something else with, to buy a new car ... and then they were struck with a sick member of the family or something, and needed to take that money to apply it to that, that's what they would do, because families don't have unlimited money. Neither does the federal government," he said.

Delivering the weekly Republican address one day earlier, Cantor gave no indication the GOP would be playing political football with people’s lives. He said, “As we spend time with family this weekend, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Joplin, Missouri, Oklahoma City, and other areas of our country that are facing unthinkable circumstances and terrible tragedy. Please know that Congress stands ready for a request for funding from President Obama to ensure that the resources are available to help these communities rebuild and recover.”

During times of crisis, individual family units often reach out to members of their extended family for help. A rich uncle, let’s call him Sam, might step forward and offer some assistance. He always has, in the past, without attaching strings. He’s even helped corporations get back on their feet. How churlish of Cantor now to play politics with the lives of disaster victims. Is everything the GOP does going to be tied to deficit reduction, a subject Republicans ignored and even pooh-poohed during the eight years George W. Bush sat in the White House?

It’s fascinating to observe Republicans willing to give tax breaks to the wealthy, which reduces government revenue, but unwilling to give relief to those who most need it. I’m apparently not alone in dismissing the shameful position Cantor has postulated. Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) on Friday publicly disagreed with Cantor’s quid-pro-quo stance. We’ll have to wait and see if Barbour gets rebuked like New Gingrich did after he criticized Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare.

Meanwhile, my disappointment with, even shame of, my fellow tribesmen grows deeper.

Anger Management

My Anger Exploded: Driving around town earlier today I listened to the noon radio broadcast of the news from CBS. The anchor matter-of-factly recounted how two sisters were released from prison in Mississippi on the condition Gladys Scott would donate a kidney to Jamie Scott. The anchor finished the story by noting the women were in prison for 16 years on an armed robbery conviction.

I couldn’t believe my ears. I was so angered I almost slammed on the brakes. Yes, everything reported was true. But soooooo incomplete.

Did you know the sisters, 21 and 19 at the time of the robbery, were each given consecutive life sentences? Must have been a big haul, you’d think. Not quite. Just $11 (though some reports say as much as $200 was taken). Did you know three boys, ages 14-18 were also charged and convicted, that they served their time and were long ago released? Did you know the sisters denied involvement in the crime? Did you know the sisters are Afro-American?

Did you know the only reason Gov. Haley Barbour suspended their double life sentences was to avoid the $200,000 a year medical bills the state incurred from providing kidney dialysis treatment to Jamie? And that the sisters now wonder where they will get the money to pay for the transplant operation?

I like being updated by the news, hearing headlines. But it is so infuriating when the story is incomplete. Had I not known the background I could easily have been led to believe these sisters were beneficiaries of a benevolent governor rather than victims of heinous injustice, for even if they were indeed guilty of the $11-$200 armed robbery, how is a double life sentence warranted? (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/08sisters.html?_r=1&hp)


Call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s too exploitive, all the hullabaloo surrounding Ted Williams, the homeless man-cum-radio/TV announcer who has become an Internet sensation. I’m happy for him, but did the reunion with his 90-year-old mother have to be televised? Couldn’t they get together off-camera after 20 years instead being a cause bellum for the CBS Early Show and NBC Today Show (which, thankfully, the networks worked out)? http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/06/2011-01-06_ted_williams_homeless_man_with_a_golden_voice_reunites_with_mom_after_being_apar.html

Why must everything be a media event? Why must we see everything. Can’t our culture accept private moments in people’s lives? Yes, it’s wonderful to celebrate human achievement, second chances in life, whether it be Williams (who seems to have more than just one second chance) or the miners in Chile. At some point in time, though, we need to rebalance our priorities and distance ourselves from an all-consuming desire to know. Facebook and Twitter may be worth mega-billions, but good old fashioned privacy—maybe modesty would be a better word—is slated for a comeback. I hope it happens soon.

Until that happens, no doubt we will see a film in a year or less on Ted Williams, one like The Soloist which celebrated a street musician “discovered” by a Los Angeles reporter.


No Honor: He might have been a heckuva pilot, and a good seaman, but film is what done-in the promising career of Capt. Owen Honors who was relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise for inappropriate behavior while he was the ship’s executive officer.

Honors produced and starred in videos intended to boost morale aboard the aircraft carrier. But the films contained scenes and comments that were sexually explicit and also offensive to gays and lesbians. Bottom line—if ever there was a person unworthy of his name, Honors is it.


Statesmanship vs. Brinksmanship: Here’s why the U.S. Senate filibuster cloture rule might get changed—Republicans will deem it in their long term interest even if they suffer some short term setbacks.

Currently, it requires 60 votes to stifle debate. To get it down to a simple 51-vote majority, the GOP must agree to a change of rules. They’ll do so because they believe the 2012 election will give them control of the Senate, though probably not by 60 or more votes. To forestall Democrats using the same stalling tactics they have used, the GOP will accept a rule change now. Since Republicans control the House, their downside risk is limited to actions the Senate alone has the power to control, namely treaty and cabinet/executive appointment approvals.

By agreeing to the rules change, the Republicans could spin the action favorably as an example of their putting country first. Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion Democrats will go along with the idea. If they, too, believe the GOP will gain majority status after the next election, they won’t be able to stymie the right-wing agenda if they amend the cloture rule.

Harry Reid and his dragoons, along with President Obama, have a lot of strategic soul-searching to do before they put statesmanship ahead of brinksmanship.