November 26, 2007 | 4:14 pm

Quote of the day

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

“Seventy-eight percent of all statistics are made up by pastors on the spot.”

—The Rev. Mark Brewer of Bel Air Presbyterian said that during his sermon last night.

November 26, 2007 | 1:03 pm

My chance at stardom

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Jonah Hill got the cover of Heeb magazine this fall, but it looks like I could have had it if I had played my cards right.

Jewfro—check
Comic foil appeal—check
Lumberjack beard—check ... wait ... just shaved ... uncheck
Lubed bagel—ummm, pass

More significantly, Hill says he met his sort-of sugar daddy Seth Rogen while sitting behind him during “The Life Aquatic” at The Grove. I was at that movie, at that theater, but probably not on the same night.

Oh well. I hated “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” anyway.

(For those doubting my cred, check out my “dancing” in N.E.R.D.‘s “Rockstar” video.)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 26, 2007 | 9:34 am

‘Giving makes you rich’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This week I am going to try to post some of the stories I’ve had sitting in the queue for a little while. This piece from Portfolio is apt for the holiday season and plays into the idea of the prosperity gospel, meaning that the more you give, the more God gives you.

In John Bunyan’s 1684 classic The Pilgrim’s Progress, the character Old Honest poses this riddle to the innkeeper Gaius: “A man there was, tho’ some did count him mad, / The more he cast away, the more he had.” Gaius solves the riddle thus: “He that bestows his Goods upon the Poor / Shall have as much again, and ten times more.”

Less poetically, the idea is this: Giving makes you rich. A lovely sentiment, to be sure, but quite backward-sounding to an economist. You obviously have to have money before you can give it away, right? Or in the pithy words of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, “No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions—he had money too.”

Well, it turns out that Gaius was right, and new economic research backs him up.

The rest of the article by economist Arthur C. Brooks reads somewhat like a balance sheet, but in it he explains that people aren’t just giving more because they make more, but that evidence shows people give more before they become wealthier. In essence, the egg is laying the chicken.

This is a good thing, and a good reminder that charity does pay (oddly, it appears, literally). There could be a biblical explanation for this: If you give your resources back to God, He will reward you with even more.

But the gospel of wealth, something televangelists love to trumpet, takes this too far. Yes, I believe God wants us to give back (at least 10 percent), and yes, I have faith that I will never be fully without means (though I’m uncomfortable with the idea of being rich in spirit and poor in the world). But there is a difference between a place to sleep and a house in the Hollywood Hills. The church is not an investment plan.

Ole E. Anthony, founder of the Trinity Foundation in Dallas, a televangelist watchdog, said he knew people who had given the last of their savings to TV preachers, hoping for a windfall that never came.

“The people on TBN are living the lifestyle of fabulous wealth on the backs of the poorest and most desperate people in our society,” Anthony said. “People have lost their faith in God because they believe they weren’t worthy after not receiving their financial blessing.”

Thomas D. Horne, of Williford, Ark., a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, said that in 1994 he was swept away by the rhetoric of TBN pastors and donated about $6,000 in disability benefits.

Time went by and he did not receive the promised surfeit of money. Last year, he found out that TBN had purchased a Newport Beach mansion overlooking the Pacific. He wrote to the network, asking for his money back.

“I want to recoup my hard-earned disability money I sent to these despicable people,” said Horne. He said he has received no reply.

Philip McPeake is another donor for whom God’s economy of giving did not deliver. Out of work and out of luck in November 1998, McPeake heard the Rev. R.W. Schambach make an impassioned plea for donations on TBN’s Kansas City television station, KTAJ.

Schambach promised that if viewers sent $200 as a down payment on a $2,000 pledge, God would give them the rest within 90 days - with a bonus to follow.

McPeake sent in his money and waited for his luck to change. When it didn’t, he complained to the Missouri state attorney general’s office and the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites). TBN refunded his donation.

To see how the gospel of wealth can support the luxurious living of those at the top, read this and this.

“Mansions, big planes, money, fame. That’s what it’s all about now,” said the Rev. Hector Gomez, a former Without Walls staff member who left in 2000. “There are prophets for God, and there are prophets for profit. That’s the category they fit in.”

(Image)

2 Comments — Leave your comment

November 25, 2007 | 4:23 pm

Saving Israel from Annapolis

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Robert Avrech at Seraphic Secret has posted an impassioned piece about saving Israel from the Israeli prime minister and the peace summit he will attend with Arab leaders Monday.

Annapolis is coming up tomorrow and a stew of Judenrein Arab countries are going to show up in order to pressure Israel to, well, cease to exist.

Yep, let’s face it, that is the end game.

Look, our friends the Saudis won’t even shake hands with Jews. Now that’s how to negotiate. And the left are so desperate for petro-approval they are willing to hand over Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, expel something like 85,000 Jews from their homes, hey Gaza Redux, that worked out really well, and offer citizenship to like a zillion jihadist Arabs—all for a handshake, and some vague promises of recognition.

Gee, what a bargain.

If I was offered a deal like that in Hollywood—I’d fire my agent.

No handshake to the infidel Jooz. Not surprising from a country—well not really a country—more like a massively corrupt family corporation that officially does not allow Jews to set foot on its soil, and soaks its people in the most ghastly Jew-hatred imaginable.

But the Saudis have a peace plan.

These people who condemn a gang rape victim to be whipped .

Yes, we’re supposed to listen to their geo-political wisdom.

Who else is coming to Annapolis?

Algeria.

Oh goody. Now there’s a model of state craft. Not a Jew left in Algeria. You know why? Because after the blood-soaked Algerian revolution against France the Muslims murdered or expelled the entire ancient Algerian Jewish community. Any reparations ever paid for property and money stolen?

You have to be kidding.

Who else is coming to Annapolis?

 

He goes on to discuss Yemen, Syria and Sudan, and suggests that PM Ehud Olmert “can be counted on to give away everything but a strategic coffee shop or two in Tel Aviv.”

Regardless of what Olmert offers, it’s unlikely he or his equally unpopular Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas, can implement anything.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 25, 2007 | 4:10 pm

On my employment at The Jewish Journal *

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

There have been a flurry of comments here lately attacking The “Jewish” Journal for employing a Christian to write about Judaism. The comments, which are coming from a few people, don’t bother me. I have no delusions regarding my insider-outsider role in the LA Jewish community. But they warrant some clarification.

1. I was not hired to educate Jewish people about Judaism. Amy Klein, our religion editor, reports on that. I cover stories that affect the Jewish community, but often are more about Jewishness than Judaism. Think Commentary incarnate.

2. Secondly, Judaism is not a monolith. Particularly in the United States. And while I don’t stake a claim to being a religious Jew, the ethnic history of the Jewish people is as much my family’s story as it is for most other Jews.

3. I am not at The Jewish Journal to fulfill a Christian mission.

Because many of these comments have come from anonymous users, I have adjusted the settings to only allow comments from registered users. (Sorry, Siamang. I always appreciate your insights and hope you’ll register.)

Additionally, I’d like to ask that comments remain germane to the post they are augmenting. If the business ethics of Thomas Kinkade spur you to write a nasty letter about how out of touch the JJ is with the Jewish community, please send it to letters@jewishjournal.com.

* Update: LAObserved linked to this post this morning, and when I read it I felt like I had left something out. So I sent Kevin Roderick this addendum:

One thing I probably should have added is that most people in the Jewish community are not concerned with my religious affiliation. It strikes many as a bit odd—indeed, The Forward interviewed me about it for a Q&A this summer—but, as a journalist would expect, most of the people I interact with are more concerned with the relevancy and accuracy of my reporting than with where I pray. For a few others, my employment has been an itchy scab.

13 Comments — Leave your comment

November 25, 2007 | 11:47 am

‘Only positive thing about Hitler’s time on earth’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Whether we print journalists like it or not, we bloggers are here to stay. Here,  Bill Conlin, a sportwriters for the Philadelphia Daily News, makes the mistake of trading ugly e-mails with a blogger.

The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth—I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers.

Bad call Bill on any Nazi nostalgia. He continues:

In Colonial times, bloggers were called “Pamphleteers.” They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: “. . .a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . .”

2 Comments — Leave your comment

November 25, 2007 | 11:35 am

Time to hang the Christmas lights

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Not for me, because there are scant places to string lights outside an apartment. But I know it is that time of year because “National Lampoon’s: Christmas Vacation” was on TV all weekend. Let me know if you pull off a light show like this.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 24, 2007 | 11:53 pm

It’s not about ethics, it’s business

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Everyone’s favorite Jewish ice cream entrepreneurs, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield—yes, that Ben and Jerry—are currently locked up in a bitter battle with soured franchisees.

No religion angle here, except the shirt shopowner Alan Sherman is wearing in Newsweek’s photo (right). But this reminds me of a story I wrote last year about accusations that Thomas Kinkade, the self-styled “Painter of Light,” had used his Christian faith to defraud investors.

Controversy has surrounded Kinkade for the past four years, after stock of the company he took public (Media Arts Group) plummeted from a high of $23 a share to less than $3. In 2004, he bought the company back at about $4 a share. Kinkade is now the sole owner.

His paintings are known for their vibrant colors and idyllic settings, their country cottages, chilly creeks, and glowing clouds. “The critics may not endorse me,” the artist told CT in 2000. “But I own the hearts of the people.”

Individual investors run some 500 Kinkade galleries worldwide, with the overwhelming majority in the United States. Signature Galleries, which sell only Kinkade art, cost upwards of $50,000 to open. Media Arts Group required that new owners attend a training conference called “Thomas Kinkade University.” Yatooma said this is where his clients drank “the Kinkade Kool-Aid.”

“Thomas Kinkade University had a revival-like atmosphere. They would close in prayer and join together in worship. Everybody would leave with their head spinning—now sign the dotted line,” Yatooma said. “They thought they were going to make money by sharing the light.”

Other investors told me that was nonsense, “comical” even, because they opened Kinkade galleries to make money, not spread the gospel. Which reminds me of that Mafioso axiom: It’s not personal, it’s business.

Two side notes:

According to my friends at Reel Intelligence, Kinkade’s inspirations may soon be, ehem, gracing, the big screen. Or, because the movie is “Thomas Kinkade’s Home for Christmas” and a release date has yet to be set, maybe they won’t.

Anyway, my favorite flavor is far and away Half Baked.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

November 21, 2007 | 1:37 pm

Nice try Rudy, but you’re no Jewliani

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Loyal readers know I’m no fan of Rudy Giuliani. Sure he has been masterful at bridging the divide between liberal New Yorkers and social conservatives, both of whom agree the Republican front-runner is scarier them President Bush. And though Catholic, Giuliani has been trying to play up his Jewishness. But I’m not the only one not buying this schlock.

According to Ken Kurson, a top Giuliani aide, if Bill Clinton was considered America’s “first Black president,” then Giuliani would be the first Jewish one.

While Giuliani did make an appearance on Seinfeld, and although one could argue that for years his comb-over served as a decent makeshift yarmulke, he screwed up a key component of being Jewish: We want to marry our mothers not our cousins.

6 Comments — Leave your comment

November 21, 2007 | 10:22 am

Vatican ambassador on Israel: ‘Better when there were no diplomatic relations’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The Vatican’s former ambassador to Israel has some frank words about his faith in relations with the Jewish state.

Italians have a wonderful phrase they use when things don’t work out as they had hoped: “It was better when it was worse.”

That was the thrust of controversial comments about the Catholic Church’s relations with Israel by Archbishop Pietro Sambi, currently the Vatican’s nuncio (ambassador) to the United States and formerly the papal envoy to the Jewish state.

Sambi, who was nuncio in Israel from 1998-2005, could not have been clearer about his discontent: “If I must be frank, relations between the Catholic Church and the state of Israel were better when there were no diplomaticrelations.”

He goes on in a long interview with www. terrasanta.net, an Italian on-line publication of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land. FaithWorld has more of his opinions in English.

I want to pause here and note how easy it would be to turn this into a watershed moment for Catholic-Jewish relations, a revert back to 1960 or, worse, 1492. Sambi, it seems, is not trying to incite a pogrom or propagating the blood libel. He is reflecting on his experience with the Israeli government. (Yes, this is certainly questionable timing considering the peace summit at Annapolis next week.)

The Catholic culture regarding Jews has significantly improved during the last two papacies. Pope John Paul II was, of course, beloved by Jewish leaders, not least for his memorable visit in 2000 to Israel and the Western Wall. The German-born Pope Benedict XVI, who served in the Hitler Youth, also has proven a better friend of world Jewry than many expected.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

November 21, 2007 | 9:33 am

The concious rock

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I have been fascinated by the relationship between neuroscience and the existence of God since reading Jonah Lehrer’s “Proust was a Neuroscientist.” Sunday, the New York Times added to this inner dialogue my mind has been having with the self. The article was titled “Mind of a Rock,” and, no, it was not a profile of, say, Keanu Reeves.

How could the electrochemical processes in the lump of gray matter that is our brain give rise to — or, even more mysteriously, be — the dazzling technicolor play of consciousness, with its transports of joy, its stabs of anguish and its stretches of mild contentment alternating with boredom? This has been called “the most important problem in the biological sciences” and even “the last frontier of science.” It engrosses the intellectual energies of a worldwide community of brain scientists, psychologists, philosophers, physicists, computer scientists and even, from time to time, the Dalai Lama.

So vexing has the problem of consciousness proved that some of these thinkers have been driven to a hypothesis that sounds desperate, if not downright crazy. Perhaps, they say, mind is not limited to the brains of some animals. Perhaps it is ubiquitous, present in every bit of matter, all the way up to galaxies, all the way down to electrons and neutrinos, not excluding medium-size things like a glass of water or a potted plant. Moreover, it did not suddenly arise when some physical particles on a certain planet chanced to come into the right configuration; rather, there has been consciousness in the cosmos from the very beginning of time.

The doctrine that the stuff of the world is fundamentally mind-stuff goes by the name of panpsychism. A few decades ago, the American philosopher Thomas Nagel showed that it is an inescapable consequence of some quite reasonable premises. First, our brains consist of material particles. Second, these particles, in certain arrangements, produce subjective thoughts and feelings. Third, physical properties alone cannot account for subjectivity. (How could the ineffable experience of tasting a strawberry ever arise from the equations of physics?) Now, Nagel reasoned, the properties of a complex system like the brain don’t just pop into existence from nowhere; they must derive from the properties of that system’s ultimate constituents. Those ultimate constituents must therefore have subjective features themselves — features that, in the right combinations, add up to our inner thoughts and feelings. But the electrons, protons and neutrons making up our brains are no different from those making up the rest of the world. So the entire universe must consist of little bits of consciousness.

Nagel himself stopped short of embracing panpsychism, but today it is enjoying something of a vogue.

(skip)

If you are poetically inclined, you might think of the rock as a purely contemplative being. And you might draw the moral that the universe is, and always has been, saturated with mind, even though we snobbish Darwinian-replicating latecomers are too blinkered to notice.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 21, 2007 | 1:43 am

‘Seinfeld’ auditions

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Because of the writers’ strike, which may or may not be a Jewish issue, there have been no new episodes of the Daily Show or Leno or Conan. So here’s one from the Conan O’Brien archives.

2 Comments — Leave your comment