October 30, 2009 | 9:32 pm

A Man Who’s Changing Attitudes

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Thirty years in the civil rights field can make one jaded. You meet folks who purport to care about humanity, who are lionized for their virtues but turn out to be, at least on a personal level, less than exemplary human beings. They may talk the talk, but disappointingly, too often don’t walk the walk.

It is particularly striking then when you meet an individual who not only talks and walks the walk but does so with honesty, integrity, deep commitment and offers meaningful insights to boot.

Recently, I had the pleasure of spending several days with Andrzej Folwarczny, founder and president of the Poland-based Forum for Dialogue Among Nations; a group which he founded in 1998.  The purpose of the non-governmental group is to promote conversations between Poles and Jews in order to foster understanding and to help eradicate anti-Semitism.

I first met Andrzej two years ago when he visited Los Angeles to promote the missions that his group organizes for American Jews to spend a week in Poland. The trips explore the complex, nuanced and 800 year old relationship between Poles and Jews. He convinced me and several others, including Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, that the trip would be worthwhile.

We went on the trip in November, 2007.

Admittedly, I was ambivalent, if not skeptical, about how seriously to take this effort. The issue had always seemed rather clear to me, Poland, the site of all the Nazis’ extermination camps, was the home to millions of “willing collaborators” who facilitated (with some glee) the Germans’ Final Solution. I had seen Claude Lanzmann’s epic Shoah (and even arranged for him to be honored by ADL in Los Angeles in 1986) with its unforgettable images of Poles who lived near Auschwitz half smiling as they described the cattle cars full of people that passed their farms day in and day out during the Holocaust.

Despite my misgivings, the trip was, literally, life changing. Andrzej’s honesty and commitment were and are inspiring. From Krakow to Lodz to Warsaw, Andrzej and his Forum for Dialogue demonstrated the complexity of dealing with different narratives of history and how the commonly held perception of Polish attitudes towards Jews is often unfair, simplistic and a-historical.

There was and is no shortage of anti-Semites in Poland, but to ascribe to all the Polish people that most enduring of diseases is unfair. Especially when the authors of the Final Solution, Germans, are often given a free pass.

Andrzej has recounted the reasons why he does what he does:

After the collapse of Communism in Poland in 1989, Andrzej became involved in politics. He soon noticed that the first non-Communist political campaigns were marked by strong anti-Semitism: One party would accuse the other’s candidate of secretly being Jewish, while the accused party would trace their candidate’s roots to prove that he was not. The fact that accusations of being Jewish were being used in a derogatory way bothered Andrzej. “Something is wrong,” he remembers feeling, “when people are thinking in anti-Semitic patterns.”

It was at that moment that he decided to devote himself to Polish-Jewish dialogue. “And that’s why I’m here today,” he smiles. (Journal of Polish American Affairs)

There are countless missions to Poland—-many involving young American Jews. More often than not, the trips go to Auschwitz and Krakow and the kids end up with the impression that Poland was strictly a cemetery for Jews. There is rarely even a few minutes spent discussing the fact that for 0ver 800 years Jews and Poles shared the same land and, for much of that time, Poland was the center of the Jewish world.

The relationship of Jews and Poles is far more complex, nuanced and important (Poland is among the most supportive countries of Israel in all of Europe). Andrzej not only focuses on Jewish attitudes towards Poland, he also has over 200 Polish schools learning about their neighbors who aren’t there. The Forum’s curriculum and projects are slowly impacting the attitudes of young Poles.

I accompanied Andrzej on several of his visits with local Jewish leaders last week. It was inspiring to witness the impact he had on rabbis, community leaders and hosts of others as his genuineness and commitment and serious good works became apparent.

It’s worth checking out the Forum’s website and reading the Forum’s book, Difficult Questions in Polish Jewish Dialogue. 
Andrzej will be back next March; I’ll blog about his itinerary as we get closer.   

October 29, 2009 | 6:49 pm

Crime and Spin

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Today is one of those days where events coincide to remind us of where we are in America and where our society is.

I woke up this morning to the troubling news that the Adat Yeshurun synagogue in North Hollywood was attacked by a gunman who wounded two members of the temple on their way to morning services.

Arriving at work, after listening to repeated radio news reports that no one yet knew anything about the motivations of the gunman and that the two victims were lightly wounded, I read the just released ADL study of anti-Semitism in America (“anti-Semitic propensities are at a historic low since 1964, matching the previous all time low in 1998”).

I then watched the press conference outside Adat Yeshurun where a who’s who of LA leadership gathered to condemn the morning’s shooting and alert the community. The mayor made clear that the facts were unclear and whether or not a hate crime had occurred was yet to be determined.

What struck me as odd was that the Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Abe Cooper—who made a bow in the direction of the uncertainty of the situation—couldn’t resist warning about the danger of terror in economically hard times. Similarly, a spokesman for the ADL (prior to the press conference) warned that Jews and Jewish institutions should be alert to the dangers that the shooting presented.

It never hurts to be alert, but it is striking that the major figures in LA politics and Jewish community leadership were explicitly and implicitly warning about the implications of a crime about which they knew very little—- including the key unknown of what animated the gunman to act.

After working in the Jewish community for nearly thirty years, I am absolutely convinced that this is one community that does not need to be urged to be “on alert” or to be “concerned about potential threats”—-in our post-Holocaust times the risk of ignoring even hints of danger is one lesson that has been learned and learned well (see Rob Eshman’s opinion piece of this week). 

If there is any message that should have been conveyed to the Jewish community, it is that until more information is known, there is no need for concern or fear or expectation of other criminal acts. That message should have been reinforced by noting that anti-Semitism in America is at historic lows and, barring evidence to the contrary, the assumption should be that this morning’s shooting is an anomaly—-end stop.

In fact, we should take this opportunity to recount our blessings; we are a fortunate people in a blessed country.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

October 23, 2009 | 7:37 pm

Obama and Education Reform

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

The first nine months of the Obama administration have been intriguing; a model of what happens when a politician tries to hew to a fairly moderate line in his policies. He gets battered from the right for his “socialism” and he gets battered from the left for his “failure to do what has to be done and damn the compromises.”

Whether the issue is healthcare reform or Wall Street bailouts, he just can seem to quiet the critics. He is neither moderate enough for the right nor radical enough for the left. I can’t tell you many dinners I have had with friends (mainly on the left of the political spectrum) who express exasperation that Obama hasn’t yet transformed the world to their liking. The dialogue usually ends with our guests uttering an exasperated “he’s really no different than Bush.”

I understand the Republicans’ antipathy, that’s politics. With regard to the liberal critics, I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson’s witty quip regarding the difference between liberals and cannibals, “cannibals don’t eat their friends.”

If there was an issue that is the litmus test of whether Obama is serious about “change you can believe in” education is that issue. The pressures for inertia are enormous and come largely from a traditional Democratic constituency, teachers’ unions (see our blogs of July 28 and 31). If he is willing to buck those unions in order to effect meaningful change, than we all ought to take notice and acknowledge the political courage it demonstrates.

Today’s insightful New York Times’ column by David Brooks offers evidence that Obama is making a meaningful difference.  Brooks focuses on the Department of Education’s program for change, Race to the Top——$4.3 billion offered to schools districts around the country as a lever for doing what countless studies have shown works.

As Brooks writes, “Their (the Obama Administration) ideas were good, and their speeches were beautiful. But that was never the problem. The real challenge was going to be standing up to the teachers’ unions and the other groups that have undermined nearly every other reform effort.”

Brooks concludes that the news is “very good.” People concerned about education—from former Governor Jeb Bush to Bill Gates—-have been impressed by “how gritty and effective the Obama administration has been in holding the line and inciting real education reform.” Jeb Bush’s support, Brooks’ reports, is echoed by leaders as diverse as Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton.

States that don’t change their laws to comply with the new federal mandates won’t get federal funds (even dysfunctional California is changing its laws to gain access to the money); more charter schools are being approved; some unions are now agreeing to the “revolutionary” notion that teachers’ pay be related to how they perform.

We aren’t there yet and that are lots of political battles ahead that will offer ample opportunities to waffle and equivocate, but as Brooks writes about the president, so far “he has not wavered.”

I, for one, am getting tired of hearing about “Main Street versus Wall Street,” the inflated salaries of investment bankers, and whether the “public option” is the critical element in health care reform. I will not tire, however, in hearing about what may be the single most important domestic issue we face—-education reform. The question of whether we will have an educated populous that has access to a decent public education, no matter their economic status or background, is critical to America’s future—we seem finally to be heading in the right direction.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

October 20, 2009 | 4:43 pm

Rush Limbaugh and the Use and Abuse of the Racism Charge

Posted by  Joe R. Hicks

Now that Rush Limbaugh’s name has been dropped from a consortium bidding to buy the National Football League’s Saint Louis Rams, there’s a bit of summarizing that needs to be done.

A lot has been said over the last week about Rush’s involvement in the bid, and now that he’s been forced to drop out, based on claims that’s he’s a racist, many are gloating over what they see as a major victory over the hated conservative talk show host.

Rush is a big boy, with one of the nation’s largest megaphones in the form of a nationally-syndicated radio talk show – one that has the country’s largest listener ratings, so he’s more than capable of defending himself.

Seldom however, do the tactics of the nation’s race industry become so completely transparent.  And rarely does the leftward tilt of the nation’s mainstream media get displayed in such obvious ways.

As soon as it became public that Limbaugh had been invited to join with an investment group trying to buy the Rams, Reverend Al Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell arguing that the bid should be rejected because Limbaugh is a racist.

What is true is that Limbaugh is flamboyant, can be controversial, and pokes fun at his targets of the day – much in the way that comics and talk-show hosts do on late-night television.

We may need to be reminded that this is the same Al Sharpton who acted as the mouth-piece for Tawana Brawley, a black teen-age girl who claimed she’d been raped by a gang of white men.  As we were to discover, much like the recent Colorado balloon hoax, her story had been completely made-up without a shred of truth after tremendous media attention.  Part of the fall-out was that Sharpton lost a defamation court case.

This is the same Al Sharpton involved in the infamous 1995 “Freddy’s incident” at a Harlem store of the same name.  Sharpton called the Jewish store owner “a white interloper.”  His rabble rousing contributed to an environment that resulted in a shooting and fire-bombing at Freddy’s that left seven innocents dead.

He has never accepted his responsibility for these actions - apparently, being Al Sharpton, especially the 2009 version, means never having to say you’re sorry.

What had Limbaugh done to bring about such an overwhelming media reaction and virtual consensus that he is a racist? 

While briefly working as an NFL commentator for ESPN in 2003, Limbaugh offered the opinion that: “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.  The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” And “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.  The defense carried this team.”  Take issue with this if you like, but it was simply Limbaugh’s opinion.  Was it racist?  It is … only if you think criticizing a black quarterback is racist.

At the time I disagreed with Limbaugh, I think McNabb has been a tough, competent – if somewhat erratic– competitor; calling Limbaugh a racist for his opinion is at best overly sensitive.  Even the liberal Slate Magazine agreed with Rush’s assessment, saying “Limbaugh was right. Donovan McNabb isn’t a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he’s black.”  Is Slate racist as well?  It didn’t matter, the spine-less executives at ESPN summarily fired Limbaugh for his comments.

However, since the 2003 comments weren’t seen as convincing enough of Limbaugh’s racism, stories were concocted out of whole-cloth impugning Limbaugh’s racial attitudes.  Quotes were attributed to Limbaugh, and then were forwarded directly to CNN and MSNBC, which dutifully incorporated them into their reporting … uncritically.

According to the reports, Limbaugh had praised slavery and James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King, on-air.  To his credit, only CNN’s Anderson Cooper took the time to investigate the inflammatory claims and judged them untrue.

The non-stop onslaught to derail Limbaugh’s NFL bid included dredging up a quote saying “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Crips and the Bloods without any weapons.”  Racist you say? 

A 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times reported that the NFL was so concerned that some players were flashing gang signs that it hired experts to examine game tapes.  An earlier probe examined the criminal histories of all NFL players and discovered that a staggering 21 percent had been arrested or indicted for crimes, 26 times more often than the general public. 

But since the claims have been made, and spread far and wide by the internet and the mainstream media, how do we know that Limbaugh didn’t say the things he has been charged him?

Well, the very left George Soros has employed a team of stenographers, under the auspices of Media Matters, who transcribe every one of Limbaugh’s radio shows, hoping to discover a career-ending comment.  What have they been able to come up with after all these years?  Nada, zip, nothing.

The fabrication of claims against Limbaugh is simply another demonstration of how race is used and abused by the nation’s race-hustlers. 

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 14, 2009 | 2:43 pm

Complex Problems Deserve Thoughtful Responses

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Last week The Wide Angle reported on a Rand Corp. study that debunked the rationale behind last year’s Los Angeles City Council ordinance that limited fast food outlets in South Los Angeles for a year. As we reported,

Well, here comes the respected Rand Corp. and it concludes what seems obvious, that “the premises for the ban were questionable…contrary to ‘conventional wisdom,’ the density of fast-food chain restaurants per capita is actually less in South Los Angeles than in other parts of the city…..limiting the type of restaurants that move to the area isn’t likely to solve the problem.”

Interestingly, the study found no difference in fruit and vegetable consumption between residents of South Los Angeles and people in other areas. It also attributed the greater likelihood of South LA residents to be obese to their consuming more snacks and sodas than people who lived in other areas.

One would think that the findings of Rand’s study would give our city leaders pause before once again jumping into the complex arena where personal preferences, economics and a myriad of other influences effect individual choices.

That assumption would be a mistake.

Councilmember Jan Perry, the author of last year’s resolution, is at it again. This time, she seeks to prevent obesity in South LA (although she describes the effort as purely a “land use” matter) by regulating convenience stores. Her proposal would limit the density of small food stores in South LA by requiring a distance of at least half a mile between stores unless they sell fresh fruit and vegetables.

A seemingly noble aim, but to think that this measure is going to make any appreciable difference in food consumption patterns in South LA is silliness.

The Rand study couldn’t be any more explicit in its description of what influences residents of South LA, or any other area for that matter, to consume what it describes as “snack” calories—-“discretionary calories from cookies, candy, salty snacks, soda and alcohol”—that do not satisfy other nutritional needs. People are influenced by “external cues,” which include pictures, ads and food itself. These “snack” calories are “sold widely in nonfood establishments such as car washes, bookstores, hardware stores, laundromats, and office buildings, which do not need special food licenses nor are subject to health regulations or inspections. The ubiquitous availability of food can be overwhelming and artificially stimulate hunger and cravings for food, regardless of physiological needs”

Folks who can’t find the “snack calories” they crave at their local convenience store will cross the street to their local car wash, laundromat, or hardware store because “junk” food is truly “ubiquitous.” As the author of the Rand study has said in response to the Perry initiative, “I would be hesitant to prohibit the development of these stores” because they serve other needs, “people need access to food that is reachable.”

The Rand authors suggest that “portion control or counteradvertising might be more likely to lead to change as far as diet and obesity are concerned.” To confound the issue and demonstrate its complexity, Rand also found that “there are essentially no differences in fruit and vegetable consumption between South Los Angeles residents and others—-in the proportion of the population having five servings of fruit or vegetables a day, average daily servings of fruit, or average daily servings of vegetables.”

Closing off one source of “snack calories” when are there literally dozens of others makes the little Dutch boy with his finger in the cracking dike seem like a genius. Obviously, we can’t curtail the omnipresence of junk food, why not at least focus on avenues that might yield some success—education, advertising, menu labeling,etc.

Many of the problems Los Angeles faces are complex and demand serious examination and thought; they also deserve serious, and not necessarily media-genic, responses from our local leaders. We do a disservice to the people who need help when we assuage our consciences by doing things that make no real world difference but have the appearance of change.

Over 35 years ago, the late Irving Kristol warned of this type of reform that is “more concerned with the kind of symbolic action that gratifies the passions of the reformer than with the efficacy of the reforms themselves.”

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 13, 2009 | 4:50 pm

Knee Jerk Responses to Real World Problems Make No Sense

Posted by  Joe R. Hicks

Despite the fact that much positive change has occurred to America’s political social and racial landscape, some continue the mantra of victimization that persists in painting a picture of an infantilized, helpless black population.

Case in point was today’s op/ed in The New York Times by columnist Bob Herbert.  Commenting on the public flap that’s developed between Newark’s Mayor, Cory Booker and late-night comic Conan O’Brian, Herbert accurately describes urban realities in Newark as dismal and dangerous.  He rightly observes that Newark is not alone in this – it’s a fact from Baltimore to East Oakland.

However, Herbert then takes a (political) left turn and attributes the woes of urban America to what he called “twisted national priorities” – something that’s been the fall-back language of the nation’s left since the Sixties.

Has he conveniently forgotten a vigorous War on Poverty that netted nothing in the reduction of poverty rates?  Is he ignoring what Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us about over 40 years ago? After years of black economic and educational progress, Moynihan warned that a collapse was occurring in urban black families that would result in chaos and crime.  Of course, black leaders of that time accused him of “blaming the victim.”

Few took Moynihan’s warning seriously – pushing ahead with social engineering schemes and welfare entitlements.  Today, 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and 60 percent are raised without fathers present in the household.  On this matter, the data is clear: children raised without the benefit of married parents and intact, stable families are more likely to go bad.

Recently, on the mean streets of Chicago, that “going bad” looked like a 16 year old kid getting beaten to death by a mob of thugs.

Herbert referenced this latest atrocity in Chicago, and wrongly argues that “we’ve stood idly by, mute as stone …” and claimed that Americans watched the televised video of the killing “… in ghoulish delight ...” However, it is unhelpful speculation to imagine that any sane person took delight in seeing an innocent teenager lose his life to a pack of vicious thugs. 

The 16 year old who lost his life to a gang “beat-down” was Darrion Albert, who apparently was simply trying to get home at the end of a school day.  In some neighborhoods this is easier said than done. In Chicago, there were 43 killings and 29 shootings of young people last year.  Just since January, 40 students have been killed there in violent incidents.

Despite Herbert’s claim that inner-city violence is largely ignored, President Obama dispatched Eric Holder, the Attorney General, and Arne Duncan, his Education Secretary, to Chicago following the killing of Albert.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration has chosen to throw money at the problem.  Duncan announced that the school attended by the dead youth will receive $500,000 in federal money.  But toward what end?

Even more useless is a new study of youth violence in Chicago, financed with $60 million in federal stimulus grants.  Its brilliant analysis is that students at highest risk of violence are most likely to be black, male, without a stable home, in special education, skipping an average of 42 days of school, and having a record of in-school “behavioral flare-ups.”  So, taxpayers paid $60 million to hear the things almost everyone already knew? 

Herbert lists the issues facing urban communities, things that include employment, education, crime, as well as alcohol and drug abuse.  All are issues that have received endless debate, attention and literally truck-loads of tax-payer dollars.  Yet the problems persist.  No one is more aware of this than residents of black urban communities.  The U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms that almost half of the people murdered in the nation each year are black, and 93 percent of those are killed by someone of their own race.  They desperately await realistic answers to the problems.

Herbert rightly argues that we should think seriously about what’s going on in cities like Newark or Chicago and I agree.  However honesty is demanded if that discussion is to mean anything. 

In the film “Barbershop,” a character named Eddie argues that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend, and that “Rodney King should have got his ass beat for driving drunk.”  And his final piece of working-class wisdom?  For the black community to begin solving their own problems, Eddie says “black people need to stop lyin’.” 

1 Comments — Leave your comment

October 12, 2009 | 6:56 pm

A Chance to Fix LA Schools

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Community Advocates’ chairman, former mayor of Los Angeles Richard J. Riordan, has a clear and illuminating op/ed in today’s Los Angeles Times.

Riordan points out the significance of the LA School Board’s recently adopted Public School Choice Resolution. The motion allows charter school operators, unions, teacher groups, universities and others to apply to the District to take over low-performing schools and some of the District’s newly built schools.

Riordan describes the new act as a “big step in the right direction.” But he wisely warns that he (and I suspect others who have observed the District in action over the past few decades agree) is “skeptical as to whether the LAUSD will take full advantage of this window for change.” Undoubtedly, he recalls, as do we, the thousands of hours of staff and volunteer time invested in LEARN and other reform efforts that evaporated into an ossified, unresponsive and overly centralized bureaucracy.

Riordan offers concrete steps that ought to be taken to make sure “that this isn’t another wasted opportunity” to effect meaningful change. Among his proposals are holding Board members accountable for low performing schools, granting all new school operators the same powers (i.e. autonomy) as charter schools, and urging that new school operating proposals be judged on merit not politics.

His wish list for change is daunting but it may be our last hope for making the LAUSD work.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

October 8, 2009 | 3:33 pm

The Facts About Fast Food in South LA

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Tuesday’s LA Times had a small item that was revealing. In a piece entitled “Ban on fast food eateries is no fat cure study says” the Times reports on a Rand Corporation study  dealing with what had been a rather hotly debated issue last year—-the efficacy of a moratorium on fast food establishments in South LA passed by the LA City Council.

In an op/ed Community Advocates published in the Times last year, we argued that the moratorium was bad public policy,
The real health problems in South L.A. are the result of long-standing food preferences influenced by culture, pocketbook imperatives and the dearth of supermarkets in the community that offer healthy, affordable produce. This means that solutions to diabetes and obesity are far more complex than Perry (Councilwoman Jan) or her council accomplices are willing to admit.

Well, here comes the respected Rand Corp. and it concludes, what seems obvious, that “the premises for the ban were questionable…contrary to ‘conventional wisdom,’ the density of fast-food chain restaurants per capita is actually less in South Los Angeles than in other parts of the city…..limiting the type of restaurants that move to the area isn’t likely to solve the problem.”

Interestingly, the study found no difference in fruit and vegetable consumption between residents of South Los Angeles and people in other areas. It also attributed the greater likelihood of South LA residents to be obese to their consuming more snacks and sodas than people who lived in other areas.

Rand concluded that government leaders who are truly concerned about obesity and the health problems associated with it could encourage more healthful food consumption, improving nutrition and nutrition education in schools as well as encouraging farmers’ markets, fruit and vegetable carts and community gardens. All far more reasonable steps than what the City Council did which was to limit, not expand, choices.

Dealing with obesity, like many other issues, is just another example of a complex and nuanced issue being reduced to a slogan and quick fix by politicians who seem to have no stomach for patience, forethought and treating their constituents as adults.

1 Comments — Leave your comment