Rantings of the Buddha

With much gratitude to Hashem...

2005-02-11T12:50:00.000-05:00

...it's true. I'm engaged! You may have already read about it over at Sarah or House of Joy, so by now it might be old news to you, but it's still exciting to me. It happened on Wednesday night.

It's also one of the reasons that I haven't been blogging lately. My hours at work got longer all of a sudden and I made a conscious choice that I'd rather spend my few minutes of free time looking into the eyes of my now-betrothed than looking at a computer screen. Forgive me.

As Esther (Madonna) figured out (as I'm sure some of you did as well), it was also the source of my post on what to call the female one is dating. I finally decided fiancee is much simpler.

I'd love to tell you all about the details and the numerous other posts that I thought about but never managed to actually type out, but work does beckon. And given the anticipated chaos of planning the wedding, I don't know when I will be back. But I appreciate the good wishes and thoughts and I will try to get back here before too long.

May we all be able to share lots of Joy together. have a great Shabbos.

The Crying Game

2004-12-08T13:22:00.000-05:00

Jack has a powerful and very personal post on crying. It tugged at a few of my heartstrings and made me think a bit.

When I was 14, the Cubs lost in the baseball playoffs to the Padres. I cried myself to sleep that night. How could they blow a 2-0 lead in games? How could Lee Smith give up that home run to Steve Garvey in the bottom of the 9th in Game 4 after the Cubs had taken the lead off Goose Gossage in the top of the inning? How could Leon Durham let that ball squirt between his legs? I don't know if I said I would never cry like that again, but from that point on, I really never cried because nothing affected me like that. Occasionally, there were some wet eyes at a movie (Schindler’s List) or a happy event (Ray Bourque raising the Stanley Cup), but nothing like an all-encompassing, heaving cry.

But then my wife died 2 years ago. Boy did that put things into perspective. For months, the tears just came without warning. Now it is getting better, but I still get sad at times when I miss her. In a way, I am glad that I was finally able to let out that kind of emotion. But now I fear that I will be unaffected by lesser events. I hope I am in touch enough with my emotions that I will be able to cry for less cataclysmic events, and I certainly hope I never have to experience that kind of pain again.

Jim Valvano, former basketball coach at North Carolina State, said at the first Espy Awards, as his body was being ravaged by cancer,

"To me, there are three things we should all do every day. Number 1 is
laugh. You should laugh every day. Number 2 is think. You should spend some time
in thought. Number 3 is you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be
happiness or joy. But think about it. If you laugh, you think and you cry,
that's a full day, that's a heck of a day."

Of "Girlfriends" and other politically incorrect titles

2004-12-06T10:03:00.000-05:00

DovBear and Sarah have both posted recently about how one should refer to females. This raises an interesting question about how someone should refer to the female he is dating.

The candidates:
Girlfriend: Pro- the tried and true term that gets across the meaning. Con - How is this not politically incorrect? Even without the political correctness nonsense, doesn't "girl"friend connote a certain immaturity? Maybe it works for teenagers, but not when both people are in their thirties. I just think the term sounds too "high school".

Friend: Pro - Avoids the immaturity thing. Con - Sounds waaaayyy too platonic. The type of person you would love to have a cup of coffee with and talk to for hours at a time, but the thought of actually kissing the person makes you convulse.

The girl/woman/chick/chyck/etc. I'm seeing: Pro - Expresses the point and the romantic side of things. Con - Makes it sound like you're just fooling around until something better comes along. You like the person, but you know you could never bring her home to the folks. Kinda like the way religious Jews feel about dating someone who is Reform or even not-Jewish.

Lady-friend: Pro - Sounds mature. Con: Sounds like she's your "shack-up honey". Either that, or you are both in your fifties.

Woman-friend: Pro - sounds mature. Con: Sounds like she's your "shack-up honey". Either that, or she's a "femi-nazi".

So how does a guy refer to someone like this? Obviously, there's an easy way to remedy the situation: Simply buy the ring already to change the title to finacee, and eventually, wife. But what to do in that interim 2-6 month period, when you are dating seriously, asking the important questions, having the major discussions, seriously thinking about the future and saving the coin needed to make the big purchase?

I'd be very curious to hear what the female readers of this blog (all two of you) think.

I guess the glass is half-empty after all...

2004-12-01T10:36:00.000-05:00

This is funny, but sad. It seems the Optimists Club of Quakertown, PA is breaking up due to lack of interest. Depressing, in a way. But I'm sure the remaining members are holding out hope that the club will become popular again, eventually.

Shanny can kiss my fanny

2004-11-29T07:41:00.000-05:00

So Jack is happy this morning that the Broncos choked away an 11-point 4th quarter lead to lose to the hated (or in Jack's case, loved) Raiders. For my part, I'm just nauseous. Once again, Mike Shanahan can be blamed directly for this loss. For those of you who weren't watching, after the Broncos went up 24-13 early in the fourth quarter, they let the Raiders storm down the field not once, but twice, with big pass plays to set up touchdowns. With just under 2 minutes left, the Raiders had a 25-24 lead.

Our heroes did not give up, however, they came back themselves, setting up a 1st and 10 at the Oakland 26 with 38 seconds and 1 timeout left. At that point, Mike Shanahan went into brain freeze. I realize that the Broncos have a great field goal kicker in Jason Elam. I know that he has had great success kicking in all kinds of weather in Denver. And 44 yards is definitely within his range. But why, why, WHY must Denver take its foot off the accelerator at that point? Shanny had Ruben Droughns run into the line for 2 yards, and then Jake threw 2 incompletions to set up a 42 yard field goal attempt that was blocked. The Raiders won 25-24.

If we were moving down the field so well, why not just keep pushing with pass plays? Why run the ball, taking time off the clock and wasting a down? Keep your foot on the other guy's neck and don't let them catch their breath. We should have been playing for a touchdown when instead we were playing for a FG. That's a joke (and a bad one, I might add). It's especially appalling when you realize last night was a horrible night for kickers. There was a snowstorm, earlier in the game 2 kicks had been blocked and even the field goal that Elam made was a knuckleball that barely got over the crossbar. Why take a chance on a 42-yarder? Go for the gold and settle if you must, but don't get conservative in that situation. The same thing happened in Jacksonville earlier in the year, when Quentin Griffin coughed up the ball after Denver was in FG range, when in fact they should have been throwing it to try to score a touchdown.

The result is an embarrassing loss to a bottom-feeding team that basically killed Denver's playoff chances unless they are able to run the table, starting with this week in San Diego against what clearly looks to be a better team. It's time for Shanahan to take the head coaching job at the U of Florida and allow Denver to get someone who knows what the heck he's doing on that sideline. How about Jimmy Johnson?

Good sports news

2004-11-21T23:14:00.000-05:00

So the Broncos not only won today, but they also managed to force some turnovers. And for once, it was the other team's quarterback who suffered a brain fart (Aaron Brooks tossed a stupid interception to Al Wilson, who ran it in 7 yards for a touchdown - but I'm not complaining). So the good guys are now 7-3 and staring at 2 games against the Raiders (at home) and Chargers (in SoCal) that could decide the division if we win both. Unfortunately, thanks to the Steelers and Pats, we can't get a first-round bye and won't even be able to get to the AFC Championship. But at least we seem to be getting better. and Ruben Droughns is still running well.

And the Nuggets seem to have righted the ship. As I write, they are leading Dallas by 21 with 3 minutes left in a game that will get them back to .500. There seems to be hope for them yet. Now if only they can win on the road.

Next up is getting the Cubbies to trade Sosa so that they can sign Beltran instead and all will be well with the world.

And just for the record, I think Ron Artest got off easy by only getting suspended for the rest of this year. He should pay a $1 million fine on top of that and should be subject to criminal charges, which may come anyway.

A new member of the tribe

2004-11-18T09:11:00.000-05:00

Mazal Tov to my dear friend Beth, who just had number 3 last Saturday night. Read all about it over here.

What are moral values?

2004-11-17T08:26:00.000-05:00

A final (for now) thought about the election and the fallout: I've been reading some of what's been written about the whole moral values debate and how it swung the election and I think everyone on both sides is missing the point completely. The Saturday following the election, the NYT ran an opinion piece by David Brooks about the fact that moral values was the number one issue for voters. The point of the piece was that unlike Social Security, the war on terror, homeland security, etc, "moral values" is a nondescript issue. Everyone knows what Social Security is and (hopefully) knows where the 2 candidates stood. But if you ask 10 different voters what are "moral values" you are liable to get 10 different answers. Throughout the blogosphere, many people have questioned whether it is more "moral" to protect things like civil liberties or the definition of marriage. And both sides are correct because both points are important and an individual is the only one who can decide on what is moral to him or her.

The ultimate point of the commentary was that since "moral values" is a meaningless term by itself, it was probably used as a proxy for "other" by those who were polled. The fact that those people went 80-20 in Bush's favor does not necessarily portend a strong, sudden rightward shift in the electorate as much as people voting for Bush (or against Kerry, as the case may be) for something other than the other "obvious issues of the campaign. My personal guess is that the Republican refrain of Kerry being a flip-flopper led a lot of people to say something to the effect of, "I may not love what Bush is doing but gosh, I just don't trust that Kerry guy." Personal integrity would probably fall under most people's definition of "moral values", and deserved or not, Bush was probably viewed by most voters as the candidate they could trust because you know very clearly where he stands on different issues.

One of the points the political pundits on both sides seem to have missed is that both parties encompass lots of different views on lots of different issues. Arnie, Rudy and Pataki are all from the left wing of the Republican party. Many people who voted for Bush in this election do not agree with his views on stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, etc. And believe it or not, there are people in this country who agree with him on some or all of those issues, but voted for Kerry. Colorado, as only one example, went to Bush by about 9%, but the Democrats won control of both houses of the state legislature. Democrats made great strides at the state level in many red states. That doesn't indicate confusion; on the contrary, I think that indicates an informed electorate that chooses who it believes to be the best candidate for each position.

I believe (IM not-so-HO) that the overwhelming majority of this country is not nearly as fiercely partisan as the talking heads would lead us to believe. I think that there has been somewhat of a rightward shift in terms of propriety in this country over the last 25 years (as there has been in most religious communities, including Judaism), but I don't think it is a massive shift in the tectonic plates; it is far more subtle and slow-moving than that. And the pendulum will inevitably swing back at some point. But this is only one election, one that was decided because the electorate liked one candidate better than the other. And it is silly for either side to assume that the result of this one election portends the election results for the next 40 years of our country's civil rights and "moral values".

So both sides should chill out and relax. The liberals do not need to fear we are embarking on an age of nazism at home and the conservatives should not celebrate that we are about to eliminate all the shameful practices our society currently seems to espouse (Desperate Housewives appearing to be just the latest example.

Out of practice

2004-11-17T08:02:00.000-05:00

So I played bridge with my regular partner, D, a couple times in the last week. Once was at the local club and once was at a Sectional tournament (Swiss teams). We hadn't played in a few months and it showed. We have a fairly complex bidding system, based on Kaplan-Sheinwold, which is essentially a weak no trump with 2/1 game forcing. If that doesn't mean anything to you, please take up the game; it's great fun. [If I can get some help on the tech side, maybe I'll post a copy of the system so that people can make suggestions on how to improve it. D would like that because we have lots of open points we need to get to.]

In any case, it became very clear that we need to play more often. One time, when he introduced a new major suit at the four level after I had confirmed a fit in a minor (this was a competitive bidding situation), I left him in the new major even though I only had a singleton. [For those who don't know bridge and haven't yet given up on this post, that's a cardinal sin.] He only went down 1 in a 4-1 fit. We also missed a couple of slam hands and we have to learn how to deal with interference over our 1NT openings. We know how to escape if we are doubled, but have no idea what we are doing if someone interferes with a suit bid.

While we have a ways to go, we were not horrible, which was encouraging. At the club, we had a 50% to finish in the middle. Even though we are Strat C, we didn't get any masterpoints). At the Sectional, we won 3 of the 7 matches, so we got 0.63 Silver points , but none of the overall prizes, and we finished 3rd of 3 in Flight D, because we seemed to get skunked in the matches we lost. At least we had fun. And now that I got back to a taste of playing, I need it more. It is a highly addictive game.

Gray day

2004-11-16T08:52:00.000-05:00

I went for a haircut this morning. As the trimmed hair started to cascade down onto the robe in front of me, I noticed a lot of white hairs. When did I go so gray? As I saw the woman sweeping up after I paid, I was shocked to see how gray my hair is. All this time I thought it was just the way the light was hitting it when I looked in the mirror. Oy vey. When did I get so old?

He's not Resting. He's dead.

2004-11-11T07:48:00.000-05:00

Ok. They mean it this time. Really. Here's the report from Fox. May his soul suffer as much pain as that suffered by his many victims and their families.

It now appears he will be succeeded by a bunch of different people to do each of his individual jobs (butchering, extortion, embezzlement, etc.) [Ooh. Ooh. Can I be Minister of Embezzlement? Please? Pretty Please? Pretty Please with with a knife at your throat and an AK-47 up your butt?] Could be Abbas, Qureia, Rajoub, Dahlan. Even though Rauhi Fattouh (who?) will be acting PA President until "elections" are held in 2 months, my guess is they purposely put up someone who no one had heard of so that each of the real players has a relatively fair shot. I have no idea which is best for the Israelis; I just hope that the Palestinians are able to hold a real election and actually choose the guy they want. And that the one they choose is serious about cracking down on Hamas and stopping the daily bombings. If that happens (am I asking too much?), maybe even Sharon will be able to bring himself to give them a contiguous state in 95% of the West Bank. Then they can get down to talking about the really important stuff like water rights, and maybe eventually innocent people will be able to go shopping, ride buses and eat in outdoor cafes without fear of being blown up.

Of course, this dream is way too good to be true. But at least now there's some hope. Let's pray there are some brave people on both sides who can make this happen.

He's not Dead. He's Resting.

2004-11-09T10:34:00.000-05:00

Maybe I'm nuts, but I think the beginning of this Reuters story about arafat reads a little bit like a Monty Python sketch. Thoughts?

Now what?

2004-11-04T08:53:00.000-05:00

Ok. so bush won. While I think he was the better candidate and I voted for him, I can't seem to get too excited. There is a looming feeling of, "OK, Prez. You got your mandate. Now what are you going to do with it?" Jack seems to be feeling a similar ambivalence.

While Iraq was the right war at the right time, it is not currently being waged most effectively. How is that going to change? Are we going to devote more troops to the effort to snuff out the insurgents, or are we just hoping that they blew their wad in trying to influence our elections (or their own in January) and won't have much left for continued fighting beyond the Iraqi elections?

At home, he wants to change social security, health care, etc. But he had legislative majorities and wasn't able to get anything through before. Are the larger majorities going to make this happen? Are they going to temper some of his far-right views? Arlen Specter, who looks like he will be head of the Judiciary Committee, has apparently gone on record saying he does not want to see only strongly partisan nominees. While I think it's a good thing to have some moderation, I like the idea of replacing strongly conservative judges (Rehnquist, notably) with other conservatives. So how will this play out?

Will we have a winner?

2004-11-01T08:08:00.000-05:00

Despite the failure of my previous forays into prognostication, I am going to take a flyer on the presidential race. No, I'm not going to officially predict a winner (though I regrettably expect Kerry to pull it out eventually). Rather, I am going to predict that we will know the winner sometime between December 7 and january 13. More specific than that, I think is a little too close to the edge for me. But I think it's unrealistic to expect to know who won on Wednesday morning. Not with both sides positioning lawyers and planning to litigate things like registration fraud and voter intimidation.

Bigger question is which is worse? Is it better to have your candidate win in a contested election that makes 2000 look precise, or better to have the other guy win by an unchallengeable margin? I think the latter is better. If we are trying to spread democracy throughout the world, then if we are unable to hold a fair election here, our credibility is pretty much shot. But in an informal poll of friends, most say that they think it's more important that their candidate (whether they are pulling for Bush or Kerry) wins (or that the other guy loses), regardless of how long it takes to determine. Do you readers have any thoughts on this?

Refuah Shleimah (A Complete Recovery) to Deanna Favre

2004-10-28T08:25:00.000-04:00

I've never been much of a Packers fan. And while I respect Brett Favre as a quarterback, I've never rooted for him before (he's certainly no John Elway, may he live and be well). But I know that I am rooting for him now. His wife was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. B"H, she is expected to make a complete recovery.

Brett, please know that I feel your pain and I know only too well what you are going through. As difficult as it may be, you need to remain strong and steady for her, even if you are freaking out inside. If she is anything like you, I am confident she is a fighter and determined to get through this and that kind of positive attitude is more than half the battle. Our prayers are with you, Deanna and your whole family. May she have a speedy recovery and may you live many, fruitful, happy and healthy years together.

Curse is Foiled, At Last

2004-10-28T08:14:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to Red Sox Nation on winning the World Series! Mazal tov also to all the old-timers who never had a chance to taste this kind of victory. From Joe Cronin to Double-X Jimmie Foxx to Teddy Ballgame to Bobby Doerr to Dominic Dimaggio to Carl Yastrzemski to Luis Tiant to Rico Petrocelli to Jim Rice to Pudge Fisk. Next year is finally here, boys. Also congrats to Bostonians such as Chayyei Sarah and Sox fans like Peter King .

Now that you guys have finally taken care of your business, could you please put in a couple good words for my Cubbies? Please? When you are done celebrating, at least?

Good news?

2004-10-27T16:51:00.000-04:00

Well this could certainly change the political landscape in Israel.

Certainly not counting chickens before they hatch, and of course it's always a shame to lose any of G-d's creatures, yada yada. But if he dies, what does that mean?

My first guess is that there is a scramble for control (way to go out on a limb there, BroncoBuddha) and the Palestinians are thrown into a state of civil war. Will the democrats win? Not likely because they are probably not as well-armed as Hamas and/or Islamic Jihad, but we can certainly hope. Will Hezbollah try to step in?

If these groups all start focusing on knocking off one another, does that mean there will not be time to send terrorists into Israel? Perhaps they will have "time", but will prefer to use the munitions on their local rivals. Who will each of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran support (the first guess here is they will wait on the sidelines until a leader emerges)?

Either way, I think Israel needs to get that security fence up really quickly and needs to pull people out of Gaza kicking and screaming, if necessary, to prevent getting caught in the crossfire. It might even pay for the US (and perhaps even Israel) to arm the democrats and their sympathizers to at least give them a fighting chance. And I wonder who the EU and UN will push for.

Wow, so many options. I hope someone has been considering this eventuality with everything else going on also. It would be a shame not to be able to take advantage of it if the end of Arafat's dictatorship is truly here.

Request for technical help

2004-10-27T15:58:00.000-04:00

How do I set up to get an email notification when someone leaves a comment if I am using Haloscan for my comments instead of blogger?

Anybody see 380 tons of weapons lying around?

2004-10-27T15:49:00.000-04:00

OK. By now we've all heard about the missing weapons and why were they gone, when they were gone, who knew, who is trying to influence the outcome of the election, etc. So I thought I'd share my thoughts on why this is important news but why it still shouldn't change our minds from supporting Bush.

First off, the NYT played up the wrong aspect of the story. I actually think the story IS news because from 1998, when the inspectors were first kicked out, to 2002, when they returned, only about 10% of the stockpile at Al-Qaqaa had disappeared. However, from the time those new inspectors saw the stockpiles in the fall of 2002, to april 2003, the rest of the munitions vanished. Certainly that proves that there were no incompetent soldiers who had these weapons taken away from under their noses. However, it is not that big a stretch to say that had the sanctions remained in place, and inspectors remained in Iraq, they might not have disappeared. If our actions precipitated the disappearance, then we made a mistake. The counter-argument to this is that it presupposes that the weapons would not have slowly (or more quickly) been bled into use as Saddam continued to fight off and weaken the sanctions or that he could not have moved them at any time to a more strategic location and/or owner.

All that being said, I still think we were justified in going to war. Please keep in mind what has conveniently been forgotten. We went into Iraq not because he HAD WMD, but because (among numerous other reasons):
1) we had good reason to think that he did have or soon could get WMD and 9/11 taught us that to wait around for a smoking gun is to wait too long (the fact the WMD were never found does not mean we made a BAD decision, just an INCORRECT one);
2) going in showed the world that threats we face are taken seriously and threats we make are not idle and therefore countries should think twice before doing or supporting something that we might reasonably view as a threat;
3) history taught us that Saddam posed a danger to American interests elsewhere in the world (read: Israel) by paying rewards to families of Palestinian terrorists, among his other accomplishments;
4) 9/11 taught us that the world is a very small place and that even a relatively small country 10,000 miles away could inflict serious damage on our homefront via terrorism and that therefore we need to separate the "Bad Guys" from potentially dangerous materials sooner rather than later;
5) Saddam was recognized in the US, but more importantly in the Arab world, as the guy "wearing the biggest Black Hat" in the eyes of the US because of his continued defiance of us and the UN as demonstrated by what everyone recognized was the sham he made of the "Oil for Food" plan, his eviction of the weapons inspectors in 1998, his challenging of the "no-fly zone" and his flaunting of the sanctions, which by 2003, had effectively been emasculated;
6) by democratizing Iraq, we could establish a free government that could serve as a paradigm for other nations in the Middle East and the world, particularly for a Palestinian state, which, when it will be established and signs a peace treaty with Israel, will effectively take away the scapegoat that other Arab dictators have been using for the last 55+ years to oppress their populations. That will lead each of those other nations to ultimately push for democracy at home.

Obviously, there are more reasons why the war was justified, but I think these are the salient ones (and the first to come to mind during the few minutes I could spend at work typing this up).

Red Bush

2004-10-25T09:28:00.000-04:00

I was over at a friend's for dinner on Friday night and when they were serving dessert, they offered tea. When I was looking through the fancy tea box, I looked at the different flavors (anyone else wonder how they come up with the names? Lemon Zinger? Sleepytime?) and the one that caught my eye was called "Red Bush".

I don't know about you, but it was a name that evoked images for many of those present. One friend asked if there was also a "Blue Kerry" flavor. His wife, who grew up in the former Soviet Union, said it brought to mind images of the Communist government. Had it been near Passover, or when we read the beginning of the Book of Exodus, I might have thought of Moses and the Burning Bush.

I, on the other hand, thought of something very different and much less mature. I guess I still have a 3rd-grad boy's sense of humor. At least I'm not alone in my dirty mind. When I played a word association game with several friends, all in their early to mid-30s like me, they all had the same reaction I did. What does that say about us? Oh well.

Relax, Yankees fans

2004-10-20T08:05:00.000-04:00

Don't be worried. Keep in mind there is a historical inevitability to the result of this series that Boston cannot overcome (I know something about the power of baseball curses, remember). My personal feeling is that the Yankees (or at least the ghosts of Yankees past) purposely blew games 4-6, just so that when they win the series, it will be that much more painful to the Red Sox and their fans. That's probably why the Sox will have a lead at some point tonight. And for those of us who do not have strong feelings one way or the other, at least it's making good (albeit excruciatingly long) theater.

Interesting question is if the Sox win tonight (obviously that's hypothetical; like saying "if the Cubs win the pennant…"), will they realize they still have another series to play? After all, Boston has gotten to the World Series before (48, 67, 75, 86) only to lose each time in a Game 7. Even if they beat the Yankees, it does not mean the curse is dead.

A sad day in Metropolis

2004-10-11T05:29:00.000-04:00

I woke up to the news that Superman is dead. Condolences to Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and the whole staff at the Daily Planet. This is traumatic. Will the world ever be safe again? And since I now live in Teaneck, I am most grateful that he saved Lois's grandmother in Hackensack, which is a neighboring town.

I must have seen the 1980 version of the movie 20+ times. And saw each of the sequels multiple times as well. I am replaying many scenes in my head. All we have now are our memories (and videos, DVDs, etc.)

May we know no more loss.

Intestinal gas on the brain is not necessarily debilitating, or it is possible to overcome Jake Plummer’s brain farts

2004-10-10T20:48:00.000-04:00

The Broncos are making a habit of giving me indigestion while winning. Today, we managed to do it despite two Jake Plummer interceptions at extremely inopportune moments. One was as we were going in for a score that was nearly returned for a touchdown the other way. There were also two dropped passes inside the 10-yard line that made us settle for field goals instead of touchdowns. Somehow, despite this, the Broncos managed to win 20-17, behind a strong running game (thank you, Ruben Droughns – who? Yes, Ruben Droughns) and more good defense.

The next two weeks bring road games against the Raiders and Bengals, both of whom we should beat. That probably means we will go 1-1, at best. But if we keep winning ugly, I will stay happy, albeit with an upset stomach.

More visitors means more responsibility

2004-10-10T14:25:00.000-04:00

Welcome to all of you who have found my site from the link at JDaters Anonymous.

I guess if people are going to be linking to me, then I have a responsibility to post more often. Hopefully, with the Holidays coming to a close, I will have more time. Although work, and the social life are still fairly busy.

In any case, feel free to say hello and stay for a while. And maybe you, too, will become convinced that I am off my rocker. Let me know and I'll be sure to add you to the list.

Up Against the Wall

2004-10-10T14:23:00.000-04:00

I suspect this is a subject the Renegade Rebbetzin hears from her congregants on occasion, but since she hasn’t posted anything devoted to it yet, I thought I’d weigh in while it is still original.

The subject is seating in shul. For those of you not familiar with seating in synagogues, there is a whole philosophy over having a “makom kavu’a”, a designated place to pray. Some people feel that this refers to a specific seat, others to a general area in the synagogue and still others that anywhere in the synagogue qualifies. This all comes into play when you walk into shul in the morning and head to your normal seat. If someone is there, what do you do? If you have a preferred seat, it can be quite distressing. You don’t want to ask the offending congregant (or worse, a visitor) to move, because that’s just rude. But sitting somewhere else can be disconcerting if you are a creature of habit (guilty, as charged). Officially, most synagogues have an official policy that there are no assigned seats, so first come-first served. But the “regulars” tend to respect the seats of one another.

I talk about this because as I’ve noted before, my synagogue recently completed an expansion in time for the High Holidays. This meant everyone had to find a new seat. We were assisted in this endeavor by the committee that assigned seating for the High Holidays. They sent out a diagram of the new seating chart, asked everyone to put down their preferences and managed to squeeze us all in, trying to meet our seating requests as best as possible. (As an aside, this is traditionally a thankless job that always leaves many people upset and the seating committee thoroughly frustrated. Therefore, I appreciate the tireless efforts of these wonderful people and recognize that they only have the best of intentions.)

I got a seat in the second row, to the left of the ark, which is where I sat in the old construct. Great, right? Well, not exactly. The new seat was against the mechitzah (the wall that separates the men’s section from the women’s section). I prefer to be on the aisle (more legroom, easier to take 3 steps forward and back, easier to get in and out without bugging everyone else). I understand the wisdom of being against the wall in that if someone in your row has kids, they are not constantly climbing over you and you have something against which to rest your head if you need to catch a couple z’s. Additionally, on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur I tend to take a lot longer to say the prayers than most people (I have lots more to repent for than most) and being on the wall keeps me out of everyone else’s way. But I am also a Kohain who needs to duchan (say the prayer that blesses the congregation) and that requires running out to get my hands washed and then coming back to get my siddur before going up in front of the congregation. That’s lots of back and forths in a short time and I hate walking over people. So the aisle is for me.

Ok. So I can deal with being on the wall for RH and YK because I was in the past, and I figured for Sukkos and Shabbos, I would reclaim my seat on the aisle. The problem is, that the aisle seat in my row was given to someone who used to sit on the wall on the right side of the ark in the old synagogue. And the other rows on the left were for some reason given to other people who used to sit on the right. And all those people who got those seats on RH and YK seemed to be happy there and were staying there on subsequent days as well. As a result, all the aisle seats close to the front on the left side were taken. Ok. So by extension, that means there should be seats open on the right side, right? Well, not exactly. The people who were assigned those seats for RH and YK also seem to be very happy there. I have tried sitting on the right side a few times, and aside from needing to get used to the different view, I have noticed that there are other people (some of whom are good friends) who look at me a little funny like I am taking their new seat that they like.

I don’t want to be a possessive jerk, but I want my aisle seat that is close enough to the ark and rabbi that I am not likely to hear (or be tempted by) a lot of talking. I tend to get to shul right at the beginning, which makes it easy for me to get a jump on the prime locations. But realistically, if someone who feels he has a claim on the same seat gets there just a few minutes after me, it may get a bit uncomfortable since I am less established in my new location than my friend.

So how am I supposed to manage this? Very frustrating.

Does someone feel a draft?

2004-10-05T01:26:00.000-04:00

One of the malicious lies the Democrats are spreading to try to turn the election is that reelecting Bush will lead to a military draft. This, despite the fact that everyone in the Defense Department and the administration say that they want to keep the military all volunteer and have shown no indication of doing otherwise. Bush even made reference to keeping the military all-volunteer during the debate last week. But the rumors persist. A friend brought this article to my attention as evidence that it will need to happen.

Allow me to explain why this is faulty reasoning. Another friend applied to enter the military after high school and lost out to another candidate. He complained that the motivation for the other candidate to apply was not patriotism but “bribery” in the form of tuition assistance.

I take issue with the implication that people choosing the military because of auxiliary benefits (healthcare, cash incentives, tuition, etc.) is a bad thing. I would posit that it is fairly common in this country that when someone is choosing between taking two job offers, it very often comes down to which job offers a better (in the candidate's mind) set of benefits, relative to the downsides of each job. Two people might make different decisions with the same choices available because of their own determinations of risks vs. rewards. Clearly, taking a military job has the downside of danger (as would a job as a police officer, firefighter, construction worker, window washer, etc.), but those brave young men and women who choose to go into the military have determined that the potential upside is worth the potential downside, relative to other opportunities that were available to them. It's also why I think that rather than requiring a draft to meet increased troop requirements, the government only needs to provide a better pay and benefits package and let the forces of supply and demand take over to get more people to enlist. Granted, this might mean the cost of the military might be higher than anticipated. But it does not imply that there will need to be a draft.

Another complaint about the military is that minorities are over-represented and therefore they are unfairly bearing the burden of national defense. A draft, in theory would spread that burden to a greater cross-section of society.

But that is also a weak argument. Are minorities and people of lower socio-economic classes over-represented in the military? Sure, but they are also over-represented in other blue collar and/or "high danger" jobs. I don't know if that's "bad" so much as that "is". But they are aware of the potential danger associated with the job as soon as they are handed an M-16 and realize it's more than just an implement for scratching one's back. Why would you want a military comprised of people who did not want to be there and could not figure out how to escape service. That’s not to imply that everyone who would in theory be drafted would fall into that category, but I think this certainly qualifies as a situation where one bad apple could spoil the whole lot. That's one of the big reasons (though not the only one) in my mind to maintain a volunteer military. Think about the types of books you read as a child. If you were anything like me, I loved the books that I "discovered" on my own, but when they were assigned by teachers who required a book report to follow, I had a lot more trouble getting motivated. Let the people who judge the potential rewards of military service as greater than the potential risks be the people who serve. The result will be that we will have a more dedicated, more motivated armed forces.

The moral of the story? Take off that sweater; the draft you think you are feeling is just your imagination. If you don’t want to serve, you won’t have to.

Thoughts on the first debate

2004-10-04T23:59:00.000-04:00

I Tivo’d it because it took place over the holiday so I could not see it live. And by the way, why did no one tell me that my earlier post had already been made the subject of a Sex and the City episode? I stumbled across it this weekend on HBO. Good to know that great minds think alike. (If Darren Star can be considered such.)

Clearly Bush lost. There were numerous times that he stared at the camera looking dumbfounded (quit it with the stupid jokes already) and some of his pauses were way too long. When he kept hammering home the idea that everything in Iraq is moving forward, but it’s hard work (gosh, how many times did he fall back on that line?) the image that stuck in my mind was that of Kevin Bacon’s character at the end of Animal House (repeating “Remain Calm. All is Well.” right before he gets stampeded and flattened like a pancake). It was miserable. Referring to Iraq as the enemy that attacked us on 9/11 was a huge flub.

Kerry did manage to articulate how his flip-flopping ways were actually consistent. Whether or not anyone bought it is yet to be seen, although the polls seem to show he got a boost.

That being said, I felt a bit vindicated by a couple of things. Firstly, while Kerry noted that his focus if he becomes president would be to win the war, he made a reference to being focused on establishing stability in the new Iraq and that he did not believe we should make establishing democracy throughout the region a priority. He referred to Iraq repeatedly as a diversion from the war on terror. In contrast, Bush noted that Iraq was an integral part of the war on terror (and implied that Kerry did not understand the objective) because by establishing free societies, we are reducing the influence of the terrorists. This is a clear difference between the candidates and exactly the point I have made previously . Nevertheless, IMHO, Bush did not make the point as eloquently as he could have or even as eloquently as I have (“cutting off the oxygen to the flames of terrorism”). Since both candidates ostensibly want to win the current war, the question now becomes do you want the guy (Kerry) who can arguably better manage the current situation and has not made any mistakes to call into question his managerial style, but who does not see the big picture, or do you want the guy (Bush) who sees the big picture, but is presumably mismanaging where we are now? My preference is for the guy who sees the big picture. But it would sure be nice if he could execute better. It gets me back to the point that the Dems would be much better off if their candidate saw the big picture and thought the Purpose of the war was correct but wanted to change the Process. They would probably lose 5-10% of their support to Nader or non-votes, but would likely get 10-15% of the electorate from Bush. They would likely be up by 5-10% in the polls and that would be the election. But they chose not to nominate Lieberman and now they are struggling for their electoral life.

Secondly, Bush scored some points when he spoke of needing to keep China involved in the negotiations with North Korea. Once again, I previously highlighted that China’s presence keeps North Korea honest to a point. Kerry for some reason wants to abandon multilateralism when it comes to NoKo and Bush was rightfully incredulous when Kerry stumbled here. However, I thought Bush’s explanation was fairly weak; he failed to connect the dots enough for the viewing public and I don’t think he scored as well as he could have on this point.

Tomorrow the VP’s go at it. I would imagine that Edwards stands a huge advantage. He smiles, looks good and reflects optimism. Cheney talks with his head down, a grim expression on his face and comes across as a bully. Nothing new here, but I am guessing the public is going to look at them and decide that they want to identify more with Edwards. It actually highlights that the Democrats’ pick of Edwards was a masterstroke. Edwards remains above the traditional Veep role of the one who attacks the other guy and is able to show off his personality. He can do this because the Dems have outsourced the attack dog role to Howard Dean (appearing on the Letterman show this week), who is not subject to being in a debate. He can choose to only accept the tv appearances where he does not have to face a Republican and therefore his charges go unanswered. The Republicans meanwhile have Cheney as their attack dog, but that only reinforces the image the Dems are trying to promote of the GOP as warmongers. I don’t see how Cheney can win other than by not losing terribly. But I hope I’m wrong.

Winning ugly

2004-10-04T22:21:00.000-04:00

Well it wasn't pretty, but at least the Broncos won again. Apparently this is going to be how they'll play all year. The days of scoring 30+ points every time out are behind us, and we need to let the defense win games for us. No complaints because so far it's working. Maybe it's Champ Bailey, maybe John Lynch, maybe DJ Williams, although I'm hearing that Kelly Herndon's development at cornerback is a major factor. And defense wins championships. Baltimore and Tampa Bay have both won Super Bowls in the last five years behind great defenses and mediocre offenses.

A few key differences, though.
1. Is Jake Plummer an efficient enough (i.e., mistake-free) quarterback to keep from giving away points to the opposition. I still have my doubts. He throws the ball behind his receivers a lot on crossing patterns and overthrows the deep routes. Plus, he's liable to the occasional brain fart.
2. Those defenses created a lot of turnovers and returned them for touchdowns. Often those defenses outscored the opponents by themselves. Denver's defense is still not creating enough turnovers, let alone turning them into points.
3. Those teams had great special teams play. So far, the Broncos special teams have been above average for the most part in terms of punting, placekicking and returns, but they are giving up at least one 30+ yard return each game. That has got to stop.

We need to fix that stuff before we can be taken seriously. Even though we are likely to win the pitiful AFC West.

Only the Cubs...

2004-10-04T22:15:00.000-04:00

I spent the holiday with my sister, who does not have a newspaper subscription. Since I couldn't watch tv to find out what was happening in baseball, I was out of touch until I came home Saturday night and found out what my Cubbies had done over the past 4 days.

Would someone please explain to me why I had the misfortune to be born in Chicago and therefore wound up rooting for a team that is eternally doomed? Bartman last year and now a collapse to rival the Phillies of 1964 and the Cubs of 1969. Ouch.

Weekend sports roundup

2004-09-27T13:37:00.000-04:00

Broncos won, but looked bad doing it. The fact they settle for field goals instead of touchdowns is very disturbing. We got rid of Brian Griese for this?

The Cubs lost 2 in a row to the Mets, who are fighting to avoid last place. These were 2 gimme games. With San Francisco losing 2 of 3 to the Dodgers, the Cubs had a chance to open up some space in the wildcard race. Instead, they're the Cubs, so they choked. so now the last week is going to be a nail-biter. And by the way, if anybody happens to find Sammy Sosa's batting stroke sometime in the next couple of days, please send it to the corner of Clark and Addison. It's owner is desperately looking for it.

Yom Kippur and spirituality

2004-09-27T13:35:00.000-04:00

I hope you all had an easy and meaningful fast. My holiday was spiritual. My synagogue just expanded and the first day we all prayed in the new building was Rosh Hashanah. Like most construction, it’s never completed when you first move in, so by Yom Kippur there were new things such as the new Ark (which is magnificent) and the table for leading the prayers. Altogether, I found the experience to be very emotional because I know so many people who have worked so hard on this expansion in various ways over the years. It really is a culmination of a dream for many.

But my Yom Kippur was extremely sedate compared to my friend’s, who lives in Hollywood, Florida with his wife and three young kids. Here is the relevant part from an email he sent me Saturday night (brackets indicate comments/explanations from me to my readers):

“As for us, we had to put up our shutters AGAIN yesterday before Kol Nidre [the evening service that opens Yom Kippur]. I had left them up for three storms but decided everything was OK so I could take them down. It gets a little depressing in the house when it's always dark and you can't see outside. It's like living in Barrow, Alaska during the six months of night. At this moment, (Saturday night 9:35 PM) I'm listening to the wind howl and things pound against our house. It's real fun. And we're just on the southern side of the storm (the weaker side). The good thing that came from all this is that we finished Yom Kippur services by 3:30 today [they normally are stretched out to go until after sunset, a little before 8pm, this time of year in my friend’s area]. The rabbi had a TV in his office with constant updates [as an Orthodox rabbi at an Ortho synagogue, this would never happen under “normal” circumstances]. He encouraged the ba'alei tefilah [people leading the various prayers] to daven [pray] expeditiously. Since the real bad stuff wasn't supposed to start till the late afternoon, we davened through mussaf [the midday service, that ended at my synagogue at about 3pm], went right into mincha [the afternoon service, that did not start for my synagogue until 5pm – we had a 2-hour break] after duchening [a blessing that concludes mussaf], then went right into ne'ilah (which was done in 40 minutes) [Ne’ilah is the deeply emotional service that concludes the day at about 45 minutes after sunset and usually takes 75-90 minutes to complete]. I then let the wind blow me home and I just finished eating.”

When I read this story, I was touched yet again by how much of life is in the Almighty’s Hands. We say a prayer as part of the mussaf service on both Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur called Une’saneh Tokef. I always find it the most heart-wrenching prayer of the day. It talks about how we are all sheep walking under our Shepherd’s staff to be counted. Perhaps more notably, it says that G-d makes his decisions on these holidays about who will live and who will die, who will die at his appointed time, and who will die before his time, who by famine, who by thirst, who in storms, who by fire, etc. and who will live tranquilly and who will have many troubles. Three years ago, the High Holidays fell out just a few days after 9/11/2001. The man who leads this prayer in my synagogue lost his 17 year-old son to cancer a little over two years ago, just about 6 months before I lost my wife, who was 30. Who at his time and who before his time, indeed. I almost always shed a tear, as does the one who leads the prayer.

When I think about the poor people in Florida who have been bludgeoned repeatedly by now four storms in the last 6 weeks (and hurricane season continues into November), it makes me shake my head. How can we understand who gets what destiny and why?

Here’s hoping that Floridians (and the rest of us) are able to have a very tranquil remainder of 5765, and we should lose nobody before his or her time.

Why is John Kerry struggling?

2004-09-23T01:30:00.000-04:00

I had dinner with a very intelligent liberal buddy last week and we discussed my view that this presidential election is a referendum on the future purpose of American (and perhaps world) foreign policy. He disagreed because he thought that Kerry’s view of foreign policy was now the same as Bush and Kerry was now reluctantly forced to carry through on Bush’s war. We also discussed the notion that since 9/11, Bush had gone 180 degrees from when he entered office to decide that nation-building was now the proper course. My friend said that his problem with Bush was that as a nation we never had the debate about whether we should shift course like that or not, what the cost of such a decision would be and what would be the opportunity cost of embarking on such a course of action.

But my friend’s first point was disproved on Monday, when at a speech in New York, Kerry stated in clear language that his goal is not democracy but stability. The article notes:

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in
hell," Kerry said. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The
satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a
dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Now while I disagree with the sentiment, it is a topic that reasonable people can debate. But I take issue with the statement that the nation never got a chance to debate this change in foreign policy and its implications. Bush said in his January 2002 State of the Union (the "axis of evil" speech) as well as subsequent speeches that we were going to be fighting to liberate the world from totalitarian regimes. He noted this war was going to take a very long time and that the battles we lose would be much more publicized, but much less significant than the ones we would win. He noted it would be a mix of conventional warfare and improved intelligence operations and diplomatic efforts. He noted that Afghanistan was only the first step on this path but not the last.

At the time, people discussed the prospect, and ultimately a majority of the nation supported the war (and at least a plurality still does). I don’t recall the exact poll numbers at the time, but the numbers that stick out in my mind are something along the lines of 60-40 in favor. While 40% is a significant minority (although not, as one genius I heard on a morning talk show said, a majority of the nation), where I come from, elections that end in a 60-40 vote are described with terms like “landslide” and “mandate”. At the time, with public sentiment firmly behind the war, the Democrats did not manage to convince the nation the war was wrong. Congress had the opportunity at that time to debate our new foreign policy and the potential costs of the war in the context of the Bush Doctrine. By not doing so at the time, they essentially accepted that the goal of establishing Democracy throughout the Middle East (what I will term the “Purpose” of the war) was worth whatever the cost. Perhaps they did not understand the president’s intent and perhaps they did not take him seriously, but either way, it is not his fault the debate was not had at the time. To the extent there were people who did raise these points, the public just shrugged, in which case the public decided at the time that the goal was worth whatever the cost.

The point is that like the outcome or not, public opinion has by now effectively obviated the debate about the purpose of the war. This view can be easily substantiated by the bounce in Bush’s ratings since he clarified his message at the RNC. That being said, the president is still vulnerable on how he is managing the war (what I will term the “Process” of the war). Costs keep going up and are not yet showing signs of slowing down and we are still struggling to keep the insurgents in check.

But this is where Kerry is completely whiffing. He is not having a debate about the PROCESS of the war; as the above quote shows, he is still arguing about the PURPOSE of the war, which the country for the most part seems to have accepted. While voters may be willing to elect someone who will change the process, they have not yet shown a willingness to change the purpose. Since Kerry is defining himself as being against the purpose, his position on the process ultimately cannot matter to those who support the purpose. The only way to effectively win the Process argument is to state definitively that the purpose of the war was correct; a candidate who states this then has the credibility to say, “But this is what I would do differently and how I would manage to keep costs down…”

Kerry is arguing that both the process is wrong and the purpose is wrong and he is not offering any concrete alternative solutions. If Kerry were to now go back to supporting the purpose, he would be subject to yet more “flip-flopping” criticism. So the debate about the Process has not happened meaningfully (and will not), because no one believes that Kerry only wants to change the process without changing the purpose. And the public has already sided with Bush on the Purpose.

Kerry is also shooting himself in the foot (not completely meant as a smart-ass reference to his Purple Hearts) by focusing his proposed management of the war on the question of how to get our troops out instead of how to win (however he wants to define that). To me, that shows a leader who either a) is not committed to winning the war; or b) does not think we can. Is either attribute a good quality for a job as Commander-in-Chief? Please note that this is not meant as a dig at Kerry’s patriotism. I have no doubt that he loves this country. I just don’t think his statements on this issue demonstrate the leadership ability, strength of purpose and ability to inspire confidence that are necessary for success in the job for which he is applying. Therefore, we cannot hire him.

The other effect of Kerry struggling to define himself on the war and foreign policy is that he is making the whole campaign about Bush’s greatest strength (and his least clearly defined issue) instead of discussing domestic issues that he really wants to highlight as the difference between him and Bush. As a result, he and his message are flailing around like two teenagers having sex for the first time (“Yes! No. Wait. Not there. Ok. Can you please shift your weight a bit? OUCH! Move. Wait. Stop and breathe. Ok, let’s try this again. What if I do this? No! Ok. Sorry. Stop. To the left. No, MY left…”)

What the Dems really need is a candidate that supported the war all along and could clearly state that the war was a good idea, fought for the right reasons. Doing so would mean the candidates were on equal footing on the Purpose of the war and the Democratic candidate could then debate on his own turf about health care, the economy, trade, etc., as well as how to better manage the Process of the war. (This actually is similar to the strategy that Clinton employed when running for reelection in 1996; he co-opted every issue that Bob Dole raised, got Congress to legislate it, and signed it into law (think Welfare reform). As a result, Dole had nothing left to campaign on.) The Democrats had an opportunity here and they blew it because the Deaniacs refused to let the moderates (or “the Republican wing of the Democratic party”) openly voice support for the war.

If the Democrats had nominated Joe Lieberman (or possibly Dick Gephardt), I believe they probably would be ahead in most polls and about to win the election. But those candidates were not deemed “electable”. Dennis Kucinich made the point elegantly during the primary debates when he said, “I’m electable if you vote for me.” Had the Democrats put up a candidate of substance instead of someone whose defining characteristics were that he is popular and he is a veteran, they might have had a candidate who was truly electable because people would want to vote for him.

I’m not going to predict the outcome of the election today (anything can happen over the next 6 weeks), but Kerry is in dire straits and it’s a group effort that put him there.

"Damn Them! Damn Them All to HELL!!!"*

2004-09-22T10:02:00.000-04:00

This story is sad.
Proof that we have all just evolved from the apes. And that some of us apparently still have a ways to go...

*For those of you who don't get the reference, please refer to Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes" (either version, though the Mark Wahlberg version is funnier if you've seen the original).

So what’s your Porn Star name?

2004-09-21T23:11:00.000-04:00

(I know it’s probably not a great topic for the Ten Days of Repentance, but I wanted to get your attention.)

Speaking of the Cubs, their pitcher tonight was Kerry Wood. He came to mind today when I saw this article about “morning wood” that made me laugh. And people wonder why the youth of today are in trouble.

The article got me thinking about funny names and the double entendres one can create with them, and that naturally got me thinking about the famous “Seinfeld” episode about Porn Star names. To refresh your collective memory, George told us that if he was a porn star his Porn Star Pseudonym (PSP) would be “Buck Nekkid”. I have decided my PSP would be Peter Tower.

Why Peter Tower (aside from the obvious, of course)? Because it is similar to the name of someone I once met at a party. His first name wasn't Peter (I figured that part out on my own) and his actual last name was different, but when he introduced himself, it sounded a little like Tower (at least to my ears, with the music blaring in the background and my stomach full of alcohol). When I tried a mnemonic to help me remember his name together with his face, my mind ran away with me and it stumbled into Peter Tower and I was taken aback. Once I realized that this was a perfect PSP, I could never look at him the same way again. I mean, imagine meeting a person that inspires you to pick a perfect PSP; could you ever think of them without thinking of the implications of the PSP? Could you ever look them in the face and say their name without laughing? It’s not easy. But at least now you know that if anyone ever asks you for your PSP over a poker game or at some kind of party, you now have an answer. So now, if I ever become a porn star (believe me, it could never happen for way too many reasons to list here), I will be known as Peter Tower.

So now that I’ve told you mine, what’s yours? Do share.

Ramblings about sports

2004-09-21T23:08:00.000-04:00

Sorry for not posting lately, but the holiday was the end of last week and things have been hectic at work. In any case, for those of you wondering what I have to say about my beloved Broncos’ performance this past week, let me just say that the intense nausea that overcame me multiple times while watching Sunday’s game returns every time I think about it. I mean, look at these statistics). How can you possibly lose a game when you only give up 7 points and you dominate every statistical category? Yes, I know we had a key turnover at the end that cost us a chance at the winning field goal, but based solely on the statistics, we should have been ahead by at least 2 touchdowns at that point. The only points the defense gave up were after a long punt return. Can someone please explain to me why Mike Shanahan coached teams seem to always have weak special teams? Doesn’t he know that “special” is not supposed to be a euphemism for the competence of those who play in the kicking game? And why does our offense seem to always stagnate at the opponents’ 30 yard line?

Oh well. On a positive note, at least the Cubs won tonight (despite blowing a 9th inning lead) and could move into first place in the Wildcard chase pending the outcome of tonight’s Astros-Giants game.

A great pre-Rosh hashanah story

2004-09-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

My friend Chayyei Sarah talks today about how a good friend helped her out at a time she was down. I think it's particularly appropos right before the High Holidays. It shows that G-d is always looking out for each of us. Life is always going to be full of its ups and downs, good days and bad. But we tend to forget when things are tough that there is good around us too. When we are particularly down, it is those glimmers of good things, a friend taking us out for dinner, a hug from a loved one, someone running an errand for us, that help us muddle through.

One of the recurring themes in Judaism is that G-d has multiple aspects, two of the most prominent of which are the Attribute of Mercy and the Attribute of Judgment. Often, people tend to see only one or the other, but I believe that the Jewish view of G-d is that the same Entity that represents one also represents the other and therefore each of G-d's actions represent some element of each Attribute. As we enter the Day of Judgment, as Rosh Hashanah is known in the liturgy and prayers, it is important to remember that G-d is not only the Judge, but is also the Merciful One, Who helps us accept the bad judgments and move on. It is that aspect of His (or Hers or Its) Mercy that is perhaps most kind.

May all my readers (yes, all three of you :)) have a very happy, healthy, peaceful and prosperous new year, and may we all be judged favorably.

A great question

2004-09-15T01:10:00.000-04:00

On a message board I am part of, a good friend asked a very interesting question. He wrote,

"In general, do you think that the Bush administration has prepared us for another attack? I guess the question is two fold, are we safer and how have we prepared ourselves to not only combat threats but to clean up (emergency services, etc) after an event?

This question made me think (as do most of this friend’s comments). I realized that I do not feel safer today than I did on September 10, 2001 because before 9/11, what happened that day was unfathomable. We were all shown our mortality and the fragility of our sense of peace. Today, since I have a much better appreciation of the magnitude of evil that is possible, I think we are always susceptible to another attack and I will probably feel this way for the rest of my life (although I am not changing the way I live or moving to Dubuque; I guess that is how they deal with it in Israel). In fact, I think the second part of his question (can we clean up) presumes our susceptibility to another attack. I don't believe any politician could possibly alter that outlook right now. I am guessing that it is similar to how people who lived through the stock market crash of 1929 viewed the stock market for years afterward; another crash was always possible so they did not invest in stocks.

In terms of are we better prepared to combat threats and to prevent them before they happen, I think that is purely speculation by anybody. After all, if an attack happens, we will obviously realize that we were not as prepared as we should/could have been. And if an attack does not happen, we likely won't know if it is because nothing was attempted or because we short-circuited it. In this age of partisan politics, I would imagine that anytime the government claims they got intelligence and stopped someone before they did anything, the opposition party will immediately pooh-pooh it by arguing that it wasn't a real threat, it was a diversion from what was really planned, it is government propaganda, etc. That is arguably how the Dems have reacted to the laptop and intel that was released right after the DNC and I have no doubt that if Kerry (or Hillary) were in the Oval Office, the GOP would react the exact same way.

As to can we clean up, I am not qualified to speak to the training and skills of FEMA or the other response agencies. I would think that the effects of the various hurricanes over the last month have tested our skills as much as any terror attack, but also stretched our resources. The cynic in me also says that the further away you get from 9/11, the less prepared we will be because the distance of the event will make it more difficult for authorities to envision and train for those events.

While I am well aware that this will sound like a major cop-out to those who do not support Bush, I do not know if my uncertainty and fear would be any less justified if anyone else was in office. Let's all hope we never have to find out.

It’s finally happened! I have a new love in my life!!!

2004-09-13T23:38:00.000-04:00

She’s petite and easy on the eyes. She is very intelligent and technologically savvy. She seems to have an uncanny ability to find out what I like and to give it to me. She shows initiative and does stuff for me even without asking. I am starting to get confidence that she can fulfill all my needs and desires.

Her name is TiVo.

Last night I had a blind date. It was notable only because I made the cardinal sin of not checking my calendar before setting the date and I forgot that the Broncos were playing their season opener on Sunday night on ESPN at about the same time as I was supposed to be taking this woman out for coffee. Most women, not understanding the import of football, would not appreciate a guy they’ve never met telling them they can’t go out because of a game on tv. (Naturally my goal is to find a woman who is at least willing to learn and accept my order of priorities. My first wife knew that I loved her dearly, but she also knew that for about 16-20 Sundays from September – January, my heart belonged to 53 hairy, sweaty guys in tight pants.)

Six weeks ago, this would have meant a major disaster. I would have had to video tape the game, hope it did not run long, wait until the game was completely over and then rewind the tape and watch. I probably would not have gotten to sleep till 3 am. But last night I got home at about halftime and started watching the game while it continued to record. I was able to fast forward through the commercials, halftime and other nonsense and ended up finishing the game only about 20 minutes after it was over. I was in bed by 12:30. G-d it was good!!!!

I know what you’re thinking; there are certain things a woman could do that TiVo cannot. But when you consider some of the late night offerings on Cinemax and Showtime, TiVo can pretty much get me most of the way there. I have no idea how I managed to survive for 33 years, 10 months and 8 days without this most wonderful of G-d’s creations.

Football season off to a successful start

2004-09-13T23:03:00.000-04:00

Great News!!!! The Denver Broncos won their first game of the season over their division rival, the Kansas City Chiefs. The final score was 34-24, but it was actually not that close. If not for Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer having a brain cramp at the start of the 2nd half and throwing two interceptions deep in his own territory leading directly to 10 KC points and Running Back Quentin Griffin fumbling as he was going into the KC end zone, the final score could have been 41-14. The defense had a couple of bad drives that led to long Chiefs touchdowns, but generally were good. They did give up 150 yards rushing to Priest Holmes, but he’s a stud back who is going to get his yards and the Chiefs have a great O-line. The pass defense was generally very strong, although that might have something to do with Kansas City’s lack of a receiving threat.

Offensively, we were strong (except for the points noted above). However, I am wary of reading too much into that because the Chiefs defense could give up 400 yards and 34 points to a Pee Wee team. The big news was that Denver’s Special Teams (always a weak spot under Mike Shanahan) played great. They returned kicks very well, covered decently on punts and put all but one kickoff through the end zone so that they could not be returned. Jason Elam was his normal reliable self. If I didn’t know any better, I would think that Shanahan actually cares about his special teams playing well this year. But it’s only one game, so I don’t want to get too excited yet. More next week.

So why Iraq and not North Korea (or Syria or Saudi Arabia, etc.)?

2004-09-13T23:02:00.000-04:00

Actually, it’s easier to answer Syria and SA first, so I will. Iraq and Saddam were very clearly the “biggest black hat” in the region. They were easily recognizable, not only by the West, but also by the Arab world as the strongest leader, who was most defiant to the US. The theory is that by taking out Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq, the Middle East’s bastion of fascist totalitarianism, it makes a dramatic statement to the rest of the Arab world. It inspires the student protestors in Iran and the West Bank to stand up for the themselves and provides a democratic paradigm for the government they want to establish.

The Palestinians are the ultimate key here. Once they set up a democratic government, the Israelis will virtually throw land at them in order to peacefully establish a Palestinian state. As soon as there is peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the dominoes will begin to fall quickly because the other Arab states will lose their scapegoat. If Iran has not gone democratic by then, it will happen soon thereafter. If I were to predict an order, Jordan and Egypt would probably come next. Syria (and Lebanon, which is under Syria’s grip) might be last and we might actually have to bring in troops to do it (I don’t think they will be necessary in the other states – they’ll only need our cash.) As for the Saudis, once we have an option for other allies (with oil reserves) in the region, our use for them is decreased dramatically. With their leverage against us gone, I don’t think they will be able to survive for long as the only dictatorship in the area.

I would guess the whole thing takes 40 – 50 years (but my crystal ball is obviously not perfectly clear, so it could be more or less).

So what about North Korea? They already have nukes, are already a threat and have a crazy man as dictator. Shouldn’t we therefore try to take Kim Jong-Il out first? Of course not, for those very reasons (and one more very big one). Let me explain:

1. The nukes – Since NoKo already has them, we need to tread much more carefully than with Iraq which was only trying to develop them. It’s much easier to attack someone who is a threat before they have taken out their weapon. The presence of their nukes means a much greater penalty for making a wrong move, especially because…

2. …they have a crazy man as a dictator. Saddam may have been psychopathic, but he was intelligent and sensible. Saddam fought this war (while he could) from a PR standpoint because he knew that was the only way he could win. That’s why he had his own soldiers dress up in US uniforms and randomly shoot his own people and why he hid the WMD (in Syria or elsewhere) before the war started. Those things were done to turn the US population against the war, which he knew was his only hope for survival. In contrast, Kim is really “Looney Tunes”. He is highly unstable and you cannot treat a crazy man with a gun the same way you treat a schoolyard bully. Again, we must tread very carefully.

3. There is a huge difference between Iraq and NoKo. That difference sits to NoKo’s north and west. For the geographically challenged (i.e., most new Yorkers), the difference’s name is China. China is currently trying to build up its economy and to do that, it needs to maintain open trade with the US and will not do anything to jeopardize that status. While I think China currently takes a great deal of amusement from the fact that North Korea is making us squirm, they ultimately will never let NoKo do anything that could lead the US to cutting off trade and/or landing troops in Asia. They also don’t want us dropping bombs anywhere near them. I think China provides a tremendous buffer that allows us to not have to go in there at this time. If NoKo starts getting too frisky, I am sure that China will find a way to make Kim stop. While I do not know if China is trustworthy in all international endeavors, I think we can trust them to act in their best economic interests.

My view on the presidential election

2004-09-12T13:18:00.000-04:00

This November's election has inspired more passionate arguments than I have seen at any of the elections in my memory (basically since Reagan-Carter in 1980). People don't just feel strongly about one candidate, they seem to genuinely dislike the other guy, regardless of which side of the issue you are on. But for all the garbage that has been flung back and forth, I think I have broken it down to one sentence.

This presidential election is essentially a referendum on US foreign policy.

I know some people feel strongly about certain domestic issues, be they education, gay marriage, abortion, health care, the economy, the environment, and so on. But for the majority of voters, regardless of your stance on those hot button issues, your decision is going to be based on your foreign policy stance, because that is the most meaningful difference between the candidates. Allow me to explain.

EITHER you believe that US foreign policy should essentially be in the future what it has been historically. Namely we don't meddle with others if they don't meddle with us first and our primary focus should be to maintain stability in the world because our best interests are served by stable governments. This is the policy that is currently being employed by most other countries in the world and keeps us out of unnecessary conflicts that put the lives of Americans at risk. IF you believe this, then you necessarily also believe that:
- George Bush is a buffoon for deciding to change this policy without consulting anyone else.
- George Bush, by deciding to change this policy and focusing his energies on doing so, has been derelict in his duties domestically.
- Therefore, John Kerry is the only viable alternative.

OR you believe that the state of the world today (whether because of 9/11 or the advent of global telecommunications, or otherwise) has fundametally changed and therefore demands a more aggressive policy. This more aggressive policy states that we must be willing to intervene with other countries that are a potential threat rather just an "imminent" threat and that mere stability is not an acceptable end as much as democracy because totalitarian regimes are inherently unstable. IF you believe this, then you necessarily also believe that:
- John Kerry, who has stated that stability should be our primary goal in Iraq so that we can take out our troops quickly without the risk of more American lives, is making a fundamental mistake by undoing this new policy.
- George Bush, as the primary proponent of this new policy, must be given more time to implement this more fully because undoing it at this point is dangerous.
- Therefore, Bush's stance on domestic issues does not matter (even if you think they are better than Kerry's anyway)

If you think I am oversimplifying (ala GWB), consider this: How many people do you know who are in favor of the war in Iraq (which is essentially the ultimate decision that would have been made under the new policy but not under the historical one) but who are voting for Kerry based on his stance on domestic issues? Conversely, how many are voting for Bush but are against the war? I have a good friend who voted for Bush in the last election, but was against the war in Iraq before it started and is now deciding whether he will vote for Kerry or not vote at all. Pat Buchanan may not vote for John Kerry, but it's probably a safe bet he's not voting for W. Besides Joe Lieberman, I don't know of anyone on the other side.

This is also a counterintuitive conclusion because pundits always assume people vote their pocktbooks and foreign policy is not as big a determinant of that as domestic issues. But I really think this election is shattering molds. And as the Governator indicated during the RNC, I think one's stance on foreign policy is going to redefine (for the next 10 years at least) the two parties and who belongs to them.

But then again, the oldest lie on Wall Street is, "It's different this time," so who knows?

A new hope (Star Wars pun not intended) for Singles

2004-09-10T08:26:00.000-04:00

So as I was riding into work this morning on the bus, I saw this article in today's Wall Street Journal. The link may require a subscription, but you could always just go out and spring the $1 for today's paper (it's on the front page in the Middle Column). It's about a cabbie in NYC who plays matchmaker with his fares. He interviews them, takes their cellphone numbers and when he finds someone who he thinks will be a good fit for them he calls each and has them contact one another. Apparently the reporter was one of his attempts. What a country!

What I'm curious about is that one of the anecdotes in the article notes that the guy was not sure why he was set up with a woman two inches taller than him. Why would that be a problem? Am I the only guy in the world who is genuinely attracted to women who are taller than me? And yet whenever I tell that to people who are trying to fix me up, they always smile, assume I must be putting them on and set me up with another 5'1" woman. Which, of course, is very much appreciated, and short women can be wonderful people (I know because I was happily married to one for 4.5 years), and height is such an unimportant thing when one is looking for a spouse, yada yada... But how come no one thinks to set me up with someone who is 5'8"? I keep hearing that tall Ortho Jewish women have a problem because there are very few tall Jewish men and short guys don't want taller women. But here's one who does!!!!! So is it so difficult to find someone for me?

Hello World, I'm Here

2004-09-09T23:34:00.000-04:00

After wasting too much time at work commenting on Sarah's blog or sending out emails about my views on life to friends and others via some Groups I am part of, I have finally decided to take the leap and do this on my own.

I hope that sometimes I will make you laugh, sometimes I will make you cry, often I will make you think and hopefully not too often I will bore you to tears. Even if I do, maybe I can at least provide an interesting diversion from work for a few minutes.

Since politics seems to be the topic of the moment here in the US, I will begin to comb through my email archives to find the interesting thoughts to post, but for now, I will just link to this article by Norman Podhoretz in Commentary Magazine to begin to describe why I think this whole war in Iraq thing makes sense. He says it much more eloquently than could I. Rest assured, there will be more to follow.