Category: Blog

I am not the most observant person.   But that day even I noticed and reflected upon the sky.  It was almost eerily blue, almost eerily clear, so bright, so still, so undisturbed.  But all of a sudden there were rumblings on the subway platform where I was standing, fire, plane, people above the fire will not be able to get out.   10 minutes later, I saw it out the window of the train, a gaping hole in the building, flames, smoke.  No, people above the fire, will not be able to get out.   By the time I reached my office in midtown Manhattan a plane was flown into the second tower, a few minutes after I stepped into the office, it was announced that the South Tower collapsed.   19 years ago.  For 18 years this day served as a day of mourning for 2,977 lives lost that day, for all the memories that were not made, for all the could have beens for those that perished and the people that loved them.  It was also the day to remember when this country came together in grief, strength and determination.  

That day 19 years ago was not only the day we lost almost 3,000 souls, it was also the day that began our battle against international terrorism in earnest.  Was it revenge?  A fight to ensure we will never again be attacked on our soil?   A way to show that you don’t mess with these United State of America?  Whatever it was, it was a message that we wanted the entire world to see and hear.  A message that 2,977 American lives mattered, that we were not going to let them die in vain and be forgotten, that every single one of those lives was precious and sacrosanct. 

Today as we mark this grim anniversary, we’ve lost 200,000 Americans in the span of 6 months.   And I cannot help but wonder, will these lives be ever memorialized, will we avenge them, what will we do to make sure they did not die in vain?  Did their lives matter if they were taken not in a fiery explosion of an enemy attack, but by the hand of our own government?    Did we avenge the lives of 3,000 people in 2001 because we cared about them or because we wanted to punish the enemy and used the lives lost as an excuse? 

For more than a hundred years, US raison d’etre seems to have been to be the counter point to the Soviet Union.   Even three decades after the Berlin Wall fell and Soviet Union was no more, it remains our biggest boogie man.   The worst thing a US politician can be accused of is looking to bring on socialism (and by implication turn us into the Soviet Union).  But few really understand what it is that they so fear.   The ultimate tragedy of the Soviet Union was not lack of private enterprise or right to private property, its purported socialism, or poverty of its populace.  It was the lack of freedom, including the lack of economic freedom, but also the lack of freedom to worship, have opinions, express opinions, create, protest, hold their government accountable.  And when I say people did not have these freedoms, it means that these acts resulted in incarceration, torture, and often death.   The tragedy of the Soviet Union was not its purported socialism, it was that it was a murderous regime that killed staggering 20 million people (by a conservative estimate).   The tragedy of the Soviet Union was that human life had no inherent value, its value measured only in relation to some political ideals and the Party.   Simpy put, human life was cheap. 

Harmful actions of the US government combined with its inaction have now cost us 200,000 lives, and the number will keep going up.   Do these lives have inherent value and therefore, people responsible for ending them should be held to account?  Do we, as a country, unite in avenging these lives and ensuring that they were not lost in vain?  Or did these lives only have value as it relates to some political ideals?  Did we become what we most feared while fighting so hard against it?  How do we, in good faith, commemorate the lives of 3,000 people lost to an attack while looking at 200,000 lost by our own hand as “it is what it is”?

Today I mourn the 2,977 people lost on 9/11/2001, today I mourn 200,000 people lost to the COVID-19 pandemic, today I mourn my city that is once again devastated and in need of rebuilding, today I mourn the country that could unite in its belief that human life is sacrosanct.  #neverforget #nystrong

Wisconsin Supreme Court will remain solidly conservative for the foreseeable future thanks to very narrow and unexpected victory by Brian Hagedorn.   It was expected that Mr. Hagedorn’s more liberal opponent was going to easily win the seat especially after more natural supporters have turned away from Mr. Hagedorn.  All the explanations I have seen for this unexpected win point to conservatives being mobilized in response to perceived attacks on Mr. Hagedorn’s religious views.  And as often happens in this context the expression “religious freedom laws” starts to come up.    It appears Mr. Hagedorn’s most ardent religious belief is hatred of the LGBT people.  

The first time I became conscious of the term “religious freedom” being used as means of justifying discrimination and prejudice was when Indiana passed its Defense of Religious Freedom Act which was swiftly signed into law by the homophone in chief, then Indiana Governor, Mike Pence.  The purpose and context of the bill seemed to be strictly anti freedom.  So, perversely, freedom loving population was placed in a position of protesting something that, on its face, seems to be enshrined in our Constitution.  I have finally decided to look into this to understand if the conservatives are just using words to call up down and down up or if there is something more to this.  Here is what I have found.  The original Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed back in 1993.  It was introduced by, hold on to your hats, Chuck Schumer in the House and late Edward Kennedy in the Senate.  It passed nearly unanimously and was signed into law by President Clinton.  The intention of the law was really to codify a concept established by case law but overturned by later case law that if a law is passed that interferes with exercise of religion by its application, the government has to demonstrate that such burden is necessary for furthering compelling government interest and that the resulting burden is least restrictive.  There was a recognition that sometimes laws that have nothing to do with religion may result in restrictions or burdens of exercising one’s religion, and in that case, the government has to demonstrate that despite the burden the law may impose, such law is imperative in pursuing compelling government interest.  Later on, Supreme Court ruled that the law only applied to the Federal laws and not on the state level.  So, a number of states have passed equivalent laws to be applied at the state level.  Including, the now infamous, Indiana law.    While the intent of the defense of religious freedom act was really to ensure that people’s rights to exercise their religions in free and unobstructed ways were not frivolously impeded upon by the government, these laws have now been perversely used to justify impeding on people’s rights to not be discriminated against.  Everyone’s right to do anything ends when such right impedes the rights of others.  And defending general public from discrimination should be one of the most compelling government’s interests that exists.  Trampling on people’s rights should never be viewed as exercise of someone’s religious or any other freedom. If a person believes that homosexuality is against their religious beliefs, they should not engage in homosexual behavior.  If discrimination against people who don’t adhere to your religious norms is part of your religious beliefs, by all means do not go into a business of serving public.  But there cannot be government sanctioned discrimination. Taking away people’s freedoms while using a law that was intended specifically to preserve people’s freedoms is perverting the intent and design of the law. This distortion of law and its intent was recognized when Defense of Religious Freedom Act was being misused to justify denying women health care coverage in the Hobby Lobby case. Nineteen of the members of Congress that originally signed the law submitted a brief to the Supreme Court stating that they “could not have anticipated, and did not intend, such a broad and unprecedented expansion of RFRA”.

And speaking of perverting our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.  Julian Assange got arrested this week.  Maybe I should use the picture of him being carried out of the Ecuadorian embassy every time my kids refuse to clean their rooms, but then again, that might warrant a call from child protective services.  There have been fierce debates about his arrest, possible extradition to the US and US chargers against him.  Just like people who have used religious freedom laws to strip freedoms from people, Julian Assange has misused and misapplied the freedom of speech and press laws and principles to try and justify unethical and potentially illegal behavior.   To be clear, I do not believe that Mr. Assange should ever stand trial for exposing misdeed of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But doing a potentially noble deed does not justify or immune him from having to answer for all the other misdeeds that followed.  Julian Assange is not Catherine Graham and Ben Bradlee grappling with the publication of the Pentagon Papers.  Neither his motivations nor his methods have anything to do with serving anything or anybody other than himself.   He is an attention seeking anarchist punk hellbent on destroying something or anything as long as it brings him attention and fame.  He is currently serving Putin but I don’t think he really has an ideology beyond creating chaos in the world for its own sake, so if someone comes along that can be a better vessel for that goal that’s who Mr. Assange will serve. But being an attention seeking anarchist punk is not a crime.  Breaking or attempting to break into US Department of Defense computers is.  And if US government is able to make that case, Julian Assange should be punished for that crime.  He should also be investigated for his role in the theft (not publication) of the DNC e-mails and if the case can be made that he was involved in hacking the DNC, he should answer for that as well.  He should also stand trial for rape in Sweden.  Assange’s insistence that he needed asylum because he was afraid for his life and safety in the hands of Swedes (he claimed asylum when the only charges against him were pending in Sweden for sexual misconduct including rape) are laughable.  Once again, this makes me feel like we live in a distorted mirrors world.  Where a man who has endangered dissidents around the world by exposing them to regimes that really do kill and torture without proper judicial process is claiming asylum to avoid facing judicial process in one of the freest democracies in the world. 

My kids occasionally play the “I am rubber, you are glue” game, anything said about them bounces off them and attaches to you.  “You are messy”, “No, you are messy.”   I feel like I am living in this game permanently on a much bigger scale.  You tell conservatives, you are bigots, to which they answer, no we are not bigots, you are, because you are impeding on my religious freedom to be a bigot.  You tell a guy, you are endangering freedoms of people and whole democracies with your actions, and he turns around and says you are impeding on my freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the democracies I am trying to destroy.    We need to figure out how to ensure that the principles of freedom, democracy, and equality are not perverted by people who fundamentally do not believe in them for anyone else but themselves.  We really need to exit this hall of mirrors.

Ok, I am not going to lie.  I had vivid fantasies of Trump being led out of the White House in handcuffs upon the release of the Mueller report.  That, of course, was a complete fantasy that could not come true under any plausible set of circumstances.  But hey, I did spend some time living in Illinois, where heads of executive branch doing perp walks and serving real jail time is a thing.   But Bob Mueller has spoken.  For two years I’ve said and believed that Mr. Mueller is a hardworking, honorable public servant who has nothing in his history that would suggest that his integrity or loyalty to his country should be questioned.  I continue to believe all this about Mr. Mueller.  I believe that his investigation was conducted to the best of his ability with utmost integrity and competency.

Now, based on Mueller’s report we know that a hostile foreign power has interfered in our most sacred institution, our elections.   The interference was undoubtedly undertaken to ensure the victory by Trump.  Whether Trump conspired with Russia to win the election or not (according to Mueller, he did not), the question remains, why did hostile power want to ensure that Trump occupies the White House.  One obvious argument is that Putin had a grudge against Hillary Clinton and this was his way to get revenge.  I think that Putin is much more strategic than to spend time and energy on petty revenge.  I believe his motivation for installing Trump was to inflict real, long lasting damage to our country.  The question that neither Mueller, nor any of our institutions have answered is what is that damage.  Just because Tump did not collude to win, does not mean he is not Putin’s asset.   Mueller has concluded that Trump did not commit this one very particular crime (actually the crime that was investigated is that of conspiracy, collusion is not a crime).  Nothing in Mueller’s report and conclusions indicates that Trump did not (or is not continuing to) commit other crimes.   All the acts that were undertaken and brought to light partly by the Mueller investigation, like meetings with Russian operatives, continuing to do business in Russia (something not really possible without consent and involvement of political powers in the country) long and deep into campaign, etc, etc and the lying and denying ties and deep relationships with Russia, they all happened.  Not having committed a crime should be a minimum price of entry to be a presidential contender, not a conclusive referendum on the fitness to serve in the most powerful office (or at least it used to be) in the world.  But where do we go from here?  Having Mueller report become a lightening rod for impeachment was a fantasy.   He was never going to save us from this burning garbage dumpster of a presidency.  A different conclusion in the report would have just made us feel good.  Ensuring that our institutions function, preserving our democracy, and ensuring that only the most worthy, competent people focused on serving our nation and its people get to serve our nation is dependent on honorable men and women protecting these institutions.  Unfortunately, we are at a point in history when there is a distinctive shortage of honorable men and women willing to stand up for our institutions even if it might cost them their agenda or personal loss of political power.   So where we go from here is to a place of finding and supporting people who are willing and able to restore our institutions and ensure that our democracy prevails, at any cost.  The reason Putin wanted Trump in the White House is that he knew that Trump will weaken our country, possible irreparably.  This was Putin’s Trojan Horse and we took it without batting an eye, and now we are being destroyed from inside.  We need to make sure that we are as laser focused on ensuring that people are willing and able to protect our democracy and institutions our founding fathers deemed imperative for a functioning democracy get elected as the other side was on installing people who can implement their agenda. And just like the other side was willing to elect a philandering, immoral incompetent in pursuit of a religious agenda, we might have to compromise to ensure we are able to advance our agenda. The difference is that our agenda is actually supported by the majority of the country. Our agenda is focused on ensuring that people’s rights and livelihoods are expanded and protected as opposed to restricted and curtailed. But moral superiority does not win elections . A unified goal with everyone focused on the agenda and victory is what gets us there. And that requires us to make compromises (it needs to stop being a dirty word), to prioritize agenda items and get unified behind these priorities (and as sweet as the thought might be, putting Trump to jail is probably not one of these priorities, we literally have bigger fish to fry). We might need to recognize that politicians that could deliver real progressive change are not angels and may have made mistakes in the past and acted in ways that are not appropriate, especially from today’s vantage point. We might have to recognize and admit that not all inappropriate behavior is created equal. If we fail to apply these principles and focus on winning elections, we will continue to exercise righteous outrage while we watch children gunned down, immigrants abused, voters’ rights eroded, access to medical care become a luxury unafforded by most, all safety nets eroded, and other side’s agenda flourishing. We will see our country destroyed and gutted from inside.

Recently I received a longwinded e-mail that began with a defense and an explanation, of sorts, of nationalism and patriotism.   It wasn’t, at least on the surface, defending the tiki torches, swastika wearing kind of nationalism that immediately comes to mind when you hear the word “nationalism”.  In fact, the e-mail was written by a Jewish man.   The gist was that it is natural for every group to consider their group the smartest, most talented, and generally the best.  As long as one group is not denying anyone else the right to consider themselves the smartest, most talented, and generally the best.  The argument was that nationalism, patriotism, and desire to protect one’s own is the natural order of the world.   From that ensued the argument that pain and suffering of one’s own people hits one much closer than watching the suffering of other groups.   And that any criticism of one’s own group is counterintuitive and generally harmful.   The rest of the e-mail was filled with lots of rage against liberals and is not particularly relevant here.    The premise of this missive really disturbed me.  While on the first read, there was nothing particularly offensive about the idea of people standing with their own and generally considering their own group to be the best without denying anyone else their rights to do the same, at its heart there was really justification of the swastika wearing, tiki torch carrying kind of nationalism.   First of all, the very idea of one group being “the best”, by definition, denies all other groups being equal.  There is only one best (uhm, superior?).   This concept also implies that people’s right to survive and prosper is somehow dependent on them being “the best”, from that it’s not a long leap that if the group is somehow “proven” to not be “the best”, inferior, an argument can be constructed that their rights can be curtailed.   And the concept of everyone should protect “their own” can lead to horrific consequences once we realize that any group could be convinced that another group is posing a threat.  Because, unlike animals (who were, in fact, used in this write up as an example of standing up for their own) who instinctively know who poses a threat, we, humans, can be convinced of something constitutes a threat, at times, with minimal or complete lack of evidence.

This week was also the week of Purim.  Purim is a happy holiday that celebrates the ingenuity and strength of women, especially, Queen Esther who was able to save the Jewish people from slaughter and destruction as a result of an evil plot.  The holiday entails costumes, skits, and drinking (yeah, the happy kind).  It also entails the reading of the Scroll of Esther. It tells the story of how the plot to kill Jews was developed and how Esther thwarted it.  It’s the same text that gets read every year.  This year, I guess, I paid a bit more attention.  The piece that struck me was the argument that Esther’s uncle presents to her when he implores her to get involved. “Do not imagine to yourself that you will escape in the king’s house from among all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and rescue will arise for the Jews from elsewhere, and you and your father’s household will perish; and who knows whether at a time like this you will attain the kingdom?”  In simplest terms, the argument was, save all the Jews so you can save yourself.   And this got me thinking, is the only compelling argument for us to act always tied to our benefit?   Can we only relate to our own pain or, at best, to our group’s pain?  Have we evolved since the times of ancient Persia when the Book of Esther takes place? Or are we still in the same fundamental place of only truly feeling compassion when it is for our own?   This is by far, not the first time I’ve gone down the path of this inquiry.   Every time I see celebrities contributing to causes that deal with diseases or other issues after they impacted their families.  These diseases were problematic and causes were just as worthy long before the celebrities came in close contact with them, yet, personal pain is what spurs action and support.  Part of it is plain awareness, but I think a bigger part is inability to feel pain of others without experiencing it firsthand. 

So, the concept of standing up for one’s own and being most reactive to “our” people’s pain can be observed in so many contexts.  But is it or should it continue to be the natural order of things? Order that should be justified and protected?  I am hopeful that we are capable of overcoming these deep rooted and basic impulses. As we travel more, see more, learn more, recognize ourselves more in people we considered as “other”, I am hopeful we will learn to think of everyone as “us” and not “them” and, therefore, deserving of our understanding, compassion, and protection.  But just as overcoming all base instincts, this change requires a lot of work both individual and collective.  I derive a glimmer of hope from the fact that before proceeding with the Purim activities, our Rabbi led the Congregation in reciting mourner’s kaddish for the victims of the Christchurch mosque massacre.  But I am also reminded of resurgence of nationalism all around the world in all its ugly forms and that 70 years after Holocaust I received a write up from a Jewish man exalting the virtues of nationalism.