May 31, 2012 | 1:02 pm

Spiritual Border Crossing and Change

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Follow JewishJournal.com on

It isn’t often that one reads an article that connects dots that have long seemed disconnected, but it does occasionally happen

Last night I was reading one of my favorite magazines, The New Republic (I have been a subscriber for decades) and came across a book review of From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933–1965 by John Connelly, the review is by Peter E. Gordon.

Admittedly, I haven’t read From Enemy to Brother but the lengthy review is, in itself, fascinating. It details the book’s analysis of the development and adoption of the revolutionary document, Nostra Aetate (In Our Times), which may have been the single most significant development in Catholic-Jewish relations in two millennia. Adopted as part of the transformational Second Vatican Council convened by Pope John XXIII, Nostra Aetate changed the liturgy of the Church as well as its attitude towards its “older brother”, the Jewish community.

The new teaching of Vatican II implied that the relation between Judaism and Christianity was no longer understood as competitive or successive (with the former a mere preparation for the latter) but complementary. The revolutionary idea of a “two covenant theology” drew upon a variety of theological sources (including Jewish ones, possibly including the medieval writings of Maimonides and the modern writings of Franz Rosenzweig).

What is intriguing about the article and the book it describes is its revelation that essential to the process of the Church transforming its two thousand year old attitudes was the world view and input of key converted Jews and Protestants in the hierarchy (e.g. John Osterreicher and Karl Thieme) who brought a new and different attitude to doctrinal anti-Semitism and notions that had pervaded the Church for millennia.

According to the review, it was the role of these “border crossers” that made the transformational change of Nostra Aetate possible. As it points out,

The revolution would not have succeeded at all were it not for the curious phenomenon of border-crossing by which outsiders became insiders who then transformed the Church they had joined.

It’s a fascinating look at one of the seminal events in inter-religious relations of our time which also speaks to the importance of “border crossers” and diversity—-getting different opinions from different folks who can offer new perspectives and attitudes.

I have often wondered how the enormous changes of Vatican II came to an institution reticent to change itself (as are almost all religious institutions) and impact many of its adherents who favored tradition and the rituals they had grown up with and been taught. This article offers an interesting insight how such epic change happens and the dynamics of it.

The article and, I trust, the book are worth a read.

April 30, 2012 | 12:39 pm

An Important Issue—-What to Do About Iran? Tomorrow Night

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Tomorrow night Community Advocates and KPCC are presenting an important panel discussion on the topic of

What to Do About Iran?

We Invite you to a live taping of 89.3 KPCC-FM’s Award-Winning program, 

AirTalk with Larry Mantle

.

Negotiations with Western powers in Turkey, internal turmoil in Iran, the Stuxnet virus, harsher sanctions, tough talk from Prime Minister Netanyahu….the headlines continue. What should the West, America and Israel do about the looming threat of a nuclear Iran—-muscular military action, a “wait and see” approach, or a “learn-to-live with a nuclear Iran” approach?

These and other options will be discussed by a distinguished panel of experts.

Jim Walsh

of MIT is an expert on international security with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program. He is one of a handful of experts who has traveled to both Iran and North Korea for talks with officials about nuclear issues and has written articles on the Iran issue for The New York Times, The New York Review of Books and numerous other journals. Walsh has taught at both Harvard and MIT.

Robert G. Kaufman

of Pepperdine is professor of public policy at Pepperdine University where he specializes in foreign policy and national security matters. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University and his doctorate from Columbia University. Kaufman’s articles have appeared widely including in The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The Baltimore Sun and The Philadelphia Inquirer. His most recent book is In Defense of the Bush Doctrine. Kaufman has taught at the Naval War College, Colgate, and the University of Vermont.

Reza Aslan

is an acclaimed writer and scholar of religions. He has authored the international best seller, No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam and How to Win A Cosmic War. He received his doctorate from UC, Santa Barbara and is on the faculty at UC, Riverside. He is the author of a widely-read article in The Atlantic, “Do We Have Ahmadinejad All Wrong?” Aslan was born in Iran and immigrated to the United States as a child after the Khomeini revolution.

Tuesday May 1, 2012

6:30 PM-8:00 PM
KPCC’s Crawford Family Forum
474 South Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA
RSVP or call (213) 623-6003

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 4, 2012 | 3:20 pm

An Interesting Change

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Yesterday a poll was released that examined “Jewish Values in 2012”. It purports to be the “most comprehensive, representative national study of its kind conducted by a non-Jewish research organization.”  It was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D C which appears to be a legitimate survey research operation.

The headline making findings of the study include that an overwhelming majority of respondents believe that pursuing “justice” (84%) and “caring for the widow” (80%) are somewhat or very important values that inform their political beliefs and activities. Over 70% say that “tikkun olam” (repairing the world) and “welcoming the stranger” are important values as well. Additionally, nearly twice as many respondents connect their Jewish identity with a commitment to social equality than tie it to support for Israel or religious observance.

What also struck me about the survey is the absence of anti-Semitism from the list of “important Jewish experiences” or from the listing of “most important issues for the 2012 presidential vote” or from the concerns that are the “qualities most important to Jewish identity.” In previous polling that I am familiar with, anti-Semitism, is invariably among the top concerns and priorities of American Jews. 

For example, a 2003 study by the American Jewish Committee found that approximately 66 percent of those surveyed termed anti-Semitism “somewhat of a problem” an additional 29 percent said it is a “very serious problem.” That is, 95% of those surveyed saw anti-Semitism as a matter of concern.

That is in striking contrast to this poll where anti-Semitism doesn’t even make the cut-off for the top five concerns. I have a query pending at the pollsters who conducted this survey to determine whether they chose simply not to probe the issue or if they had a reason, such as non-salience, for why it wasn’t included in their polling instrument.

They polled a significant proportion of younger folks (40% of those surveyed were under 45 years old) which may help explain the seemingly anomalous results.

In the meantime, it’s worth the time to look at the poll and the variety of data that the pollsters uncovered.

When I find out what explains the shift, I’ll update this blog.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 30, 2012 | 3:10 pm

ACLU’s Dishonest Report

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

This week the LA Times reported that the ACLU of Northern California had charged the FBI with -profiling Northern California Muslims in what the ACLU termed “an affront to religious liberty and equal protection of the law.”  The Times reported that the Bureau had used their “community outreach efforts as a guise for compiling intelligence on local mosques.”

The ACLU’s allegations of spying during the 2004 to 2008 period are based on material they, and others, obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2010 and a lawsuit filed in 2011.

The ACLU’s incendiary allegations and breathless charges decry the FBI for the “secret gathering of intelligence [that] raised grave constitutional concerns because it…. undermines the trust and mutual understanding necessary to effective law enforcement [and it] violates the federal Privacy Act prohibitions against the maintenance of records about individuals.”

The sweep of the ACLU’s accusations is broad and the charges serious—-they just happen to be misleading and false.

The ACLU has issued a dishonest set of allegations that smack more of a political agenda than any real civil libertarian concerns. If one delves just an iota beneath the surface of the ACLU’s charges they are revealed as troubling distortions of the truth and manifestly inaccurate. It’s as if an intern at the ACLU wrote the report full of hyperbolic prose but failed to consult the underlying documents to see if what he/she was alleging was true.

A portion of the Times’ and ACLU’s puffiness can be ascribed to the term “intelligence” itself. It has become a pejorative that evokes memories of COINTELPRO, Abscam and Watergate. In fact it means no more than “information”—it is neither positive nor negative.

The documents ostensibly blow the cover on Special Agents using the “guise” of outreach to the Muslim community to undermine the community’s rights. But the documents are the reports of agents engaging in that outreach—-discussing the problems of Islamophobia, the inconvenience of waiting in security lines at airports, concerns regarding hate crimes, and then reporting on those meetings (in the most bland and perfunctory way) as any bureaucracy would demand. These are memos written by agents doing their job and presumably accounting for their time by reporting on what they did.

Read the documents, there is not a hint of concealment, eavesdropping or in any way exploiting the contacts that the agents have developed. The memos are disarmingly sympathetic and straightforward, “the writer [the special agent] wished ____well on the Hajj,” the FBI handed out FBI pens to ____ ,gave the writer several video and audio CD’s regarding both the Hajj and Islam in general….____was very friendly and once again expressed an interest in continuing a dialogue with the FBI.”

In reviewing the dozen or so FBI memos that are the purported “smoking guns” they are all similar in their straightforward accounting of open and friendly encounters of FBI Special Agents with a community they are reaching out to. There is nothing nefarious, no hint of derision or cunning.

Were the ACLU’s agenda not so transparently accusatory and aimed to rouse its donors, it could as easily have written a report on the seriousness with which the FBI takes its outreach efforts to the Muslim community—-chronicling open and pleasant meetings, offering assistance to congregants at religious gatherings and then sharing the congregants concerns with others in government—-that’s how the memos read.

The ACLU subtly deflects from the paucity of its documentation when it admits that even if the intelligence in the files is of “otherwise innocent activities” it could have very serious negative consequences. Those hypothetical consequences are farfetched, to say the least.

The ACLU asserts that the innocuous reports, by their very existence, would lead agents to “assume it was relevant to an investigative and intelligence mission,” the innocuous information might “cast a cloud of suspicion over the group or individual” and might lead “to more intensive scrutiny or investigation” and other law enforcement agencies might “investigate innocent groups or individuals.”  It’s true. There could be stupid people out there who might misconstrue innocent information and misuse it, but that’s hardly a reason to condemn the folks who reach out and gather that information.

These bizarre hypothetical concerns are the nub of the ACLU’s allegations that the FBI is “chilling American Muslims’ religious rights.” The allegations are transparently false; the report is dishonestly hyperbolic and is beneath the dignity and historic tradition of the ACLU.

If this is the best that the ACLU can come up with after a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit, there is little to be concerned about. It owes the public, its supporters and the FBI an apology.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

March 27, 2012 | 4:53 pm

Tragedy Gets Exploited

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton are just two of the civil rights all stars who are weighing in on the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. Each seemingly intent on outdoing the other in ratcheting up the rhetoric to make sure that America gets the message——racism is alive and well and young black men are at serious risk.

As a proviso, it seems likely that race played a role in the Martin tragedy and that the killing warrants a thorough examination at the local and, if needed, federal levels. The delay in arriving at some action regarding George Zimmerman seems inexplicable. 

But acknowledging the problematic set of facts in Sanford, Florida does not justify what we are witnessing.

Rev. Jackson went so far as to tell the Los Angeles Times that “blacks are under attack” listing home foreclosures, unemployment, student loan debt, disenfranchisement of black voters, and the black prison population as part of the assault. He also dismissed any notion that the election of Barack Obama had ameliorated the position of blacks in this country, “There was a feeling that we were kind of beyond racism…that’s not true. His victory has triggered tremendous backlash (sic).” He then made it seem like America is a dystopian nightmare for blacks; that it’s open season on African Americans because “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”

Jackson’s words, and those of countless other mavens on race relations, have dramatically illustrated how tragedy gets exploited and perverted by activists with their own, self-serving agendas and how complicit the media is in amplifying divisive and sensational messages. While this phenomenon is nothing new (we opined about this issue when certain Jewish leaders crassly exploited the 2009 shooting at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in the Times)—-it seems to have reached a new height and depth in recent weeks, and is pervasive.

First, let’s look at something that Rev. Jackson chooses to ignore; data.

Other than relying on anecdotal incidents of horror that are, mercifully few and far between, it’s not clear what metrics exist to support the notion that hate against blacks is on the rise. The FBI’s Annual Hate Crime Report documents hate “incidents and offenses” (over 80% of the acts directed at “persons” were either intimidation or simple assault) based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability gathered from across the country since 1990. It is the yardstick for measuring acts of violence directed at minorities. In terms of hate in which African Americans are the victims, the number of incidents and offenses has

.

Admittedly, hate crime data is fraught with numerous methodological problems (under-reporting, categorization, law enforcement agencies that don’t report, etc.) but the trend is indisputable and moving in the right direction. Presumably, if there were a “tremendous backlash” against blacks where “killing us is a big business” the FBI and its bosses at the US Department of Justice (headed by an African American) would have seen the data and alerted the nation.

Locally, the LA County Relations Commission’s Hate Crime Report is no different in the movement of the trend line. In 1999 the Commission reported 232 hate crimes directed at African Americans in LA County. By 2010 (the last reported year for which data is available),

. Apparently, the “backlash” and “open season” against African Americans hasn’t reached LA County with a population of some 850,000 potential targets.

The studies that evidence increased tolerance and recognition by Americans of the changed environment are plentiful. That the attitudes of 95 million Millennials reveal more racial tolerance than “any generation” is indisputable (93% approve of inter-racial dating). A 2010 Pew Center survey, “Blacks Upbeat about Black Progress, Prospects” found that “a majority of blacks believe that life for blacks in the future will be better than now, that most blacks (as do whites) believe that blacks and whites have grown more alike in their standard of living and core values, that 54% of blacks believe that President Obama’s election has improved race relations and that 32% of blacks (in late 2009, well into the Great Recession) rate their personal finances as ‘excellent or good’.”

The hyperbole surrounding the tragedy of Trayvon Martin is understandable and all too predictable. The exaggeration around race relations will, undoubtedly, only increase locally in the weeks ahead as numerous talking heads will analyze where we have come in the twenty years since the 1992 riots.

There is a special toxic brew that results when kvetching by spokesmen for civil rights/human relations organizations (most of whom have a vested interest in portraying a bigoted America that continues to need their help and guidance) combines with a tragedy that has a racial, ethnic, or religious overlay and that blend is put before the media. These spokespersons are treated as if they were academics neutrally analyzing data and the world around them rather than folks with an agenda that presupposes and thrives on the perception of continued inter-group tension (lest they be superfluous). The media loves the hyperbole—-it’s a great lead-in to the 11:00 news and fuels the 24/7 news cycle—the spokespeople love the exposure and seeming relevance—and the viewers and readers are the poorer for it. A portrait of America gets painted and absorbed that does not comport with reality.

Reverends Jackson and Sharpton would do us a favor by cooling it for a bit and adapting their agendas and their rhetoric to the changed world around them.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 23, 2012 | 3:56 pm

A Pyrrhic Victory for Labor

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

The latest news on the Wal-Mart saga has just broken.

The City Council, in an all too predictable display of spinelessness, adopted the motion to restrict “formula retail uses” of over 20,000 square feet in “Chinatown”—the motion we wrote about yesterday and today. In a 13-0 vote, the Council went along with its supporters in labor and can reassure them, “we did your bidding.”

The interesting twist to the tale is that Wal-Mart secured its building permit yesterday so that the motion will have no impact on its plans. That is, unless the Council can figure out how to end run the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws. 

While Wal-Mart may have made it through by the skin of its teeth, the unfortunate message has been sent to businesses that are considering opening up in LA—beware, LA can change the rules in mid-stream and, if you aren’t nimble enough, you may drown.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

March 23, 2012 | 2:15 pm

The Times Hits the Nail on the Head—-Again

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Photo by Jared C. Benedict/Wikipedia.

Yesterday, Community Advocates blogged about the dishonesty animating a motion (as you read the motion keep in mind that the Wal-Mart is nowhere near what is commonly thought of as Chinatown, but at the top of Downtown where Grand meets Cesar Chavez/Sunset) offered by Councilmen Garcetti and Reyes to effectively ban Wal-Mart from leasing a space in an existing building that has been vacant for years at Cesar Chavez and Grand . You can read our blog here. 

The conclusion of our piece was,

We aren’t Muppets and we aren’t idiots and our electeds ought not treat us as such. If they have a problem with Wal-Mart because their union supporters do—admit it. If those concerns trump new jobs and enlivening a neighborhood that needs retail be honest about it. Don’t hide behind a façade of concern that is transparently dishonest.

Today the Los Angeles Times chose the same topic to editorialize on and their conclusion mirrors ours (this is the second time this week that the Times has taken a position consistent with The Wide Angle’s).

….. the proposal is unwise and counterproductive …if the council approves the moratorium, Wal-Mart will be asked to produce studies and endure delay for a proposal that already meets the city’s rules and objectives.

Some people don’t want to work at Wal-Mart because of its labor practices. They shouldn’t have to. Some don’t like the way it treats its suppliers or the fact that its workers are not unionized. Those critics should feel free to shop elsewhere. But the government should not change the rules on this project when it already is underway. The council should reject Reyes’ proposal.

The Times argues that changing the rules of the game on Wal-Mart at the behest of labor will make LA even more unattractive to new businesses than it presently is, a risk that LA can ill afford.

It will be interesting to see what the City Council does today—-will they acquiesce to labor’s demand and kill Wal-Mart’s plans or will they allow a legitimate business to comply with existing rules and provide jobs and services to a community that needs them.

The result will tell us a lot about the mettle of the Council we have and about those who would be mayor.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 22, 2012 | 12:24 pm

A Not So Hidden Agenda

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

A game changer that the City Council didn’t stop, it is just one block from where the new mini Wal-Mart would be. There are three of these behemoths with empty retail on the ground floor; so much for concern about "neighborhood character."

Goldman Sachs may have referred in their internal emails to their clients as “muppets”, but were we to see the internal emails of members of the Los Angeles City Council undoubtedly they would refer to their constituents as “fools.”

How else to explain the obvious contempt that members of the Los Angeles City Council have for the citizens of LA and our intelligence?

Today’s LA Times reports that the City Council is considering an ordinance that would block Wal-Mart from opening a 33,000 square foot “Neighborhood Market” at the corner of Cesar Chavez (Sunset) and Grand Avenue. According to the Times, Councilman Ed Reyes and Councilman Eric Garcetti have introduced a bill that would deny building permits to “formula retail” stores—-those that have standardized facades, color schemes, décor, employee uniforms and merchandise.

The proffered reason for the Council’s sudden concern about décor, design and uniforms is to “protect the character of Chinatown” and the small businesses there. The Times reports that the bill is on an expedited schedule so that it can deny Wal-Mart the building permits it needs to proceed with remodeling the presently empty retail space on the bottom floor of a non-descript mixed use apartment building.

The reality, as anyone who has a glimmer of knowledge of LA politics knows, is that Reyes and Garcetti are doing the bidding of labor unions who have made Wal-Mart their target of choice and the seeming incarnation of all that is evil in American society. It’s a non-union chain so labor wants to pull every string it can to prevent it from opening stores in LA until it unionizes.  Clearly Council members Reyes and Garcetti have had their strings pulled and have responded slavishly.

The notion that limiting Wal-Mart from moving into an empty retail space at Cesar Chavez and Grand is benefiting Chinatown is absurd. Drive by that corner the “small businesses” being protected there are a Burger King (which, by the way, has a standardized façade, color scheme, décor and employee uniforms), the massive LA Unified’s Arts High School, an apartment house set back from the street and the mixed use building where the Wal-Mart planned to move. There is one full service market serving a thirty block radius from that corner.

The reality is that Reyes and Garcetti are assuming that few folks will venture to the corner of Cesar Chavez and Grand and see what a ridiculous notion it is that small businesses are being protected or that the “character of Chinatown” is being preserved. Most people’s notion of Chinatown is blocks away. Additionally, they assume that most of their supporters view Wal-Mart with such disdain that abrogating normal processes to punish Wal-Mart is acceptable.

One only has to travel one block west to the intersection of Cesar Chavez and Figueroa Streets to observe monstrously over-sized, gaudy, Italianate apartment houses that occupy three of the four corners—-buildings that clearly didn’t bother the City Council and which do, in fact, alter the “character” of the neighborhood.

The councilmen’s move is also distressing because it will cavalierly put in jeopardy dozens of jobs that the city desperately needs. Wal-Mart has 28 stores in LA County employing 12,000 people (an average of 428 employees/store). This store would be about a fifth the size of a normal Wal-Mart, so it might employ about a fifth of the number in a normal store, about 85 folks (Wal-Marts provide health care coverage to employees who work at least 24 hours/week). For a city that is only now returning to 2004 levels of employment, those are 85 jobs we need that neither the councilmen nor the unions should be killing.

To disabuse anyone of the notion that Wal-Mart is the incarnation of evil that deserves the special animus of the City Council, read the op/ed written last year in the Times by Michael Kinsley, former editor of The New Republic and former editorial page editor of the LA Times—hardly a right wing, anti-union propagandist: 

There are those whose objections to Wal-Mart are more aesthetic than economic: the barn-like quality of the stores, the impact of a Wal-Mart on old downtowns, even the whole culture of consumption that some people find distasteful. They’re welcome to those views as long as they acknowledge that higher prices at non-Wal-Mart stores are bad for consumers — especially poor consumers.

Wal-Mart’s employees seem as cheerful as those at Target or Costco. But perhaps the company has hypnotized them — or possibly me — in some sort of Stepford wives scenario.

Big companies make fat targets, but a more deserving target might be small companies. Instead, we have the ever-inflating myth of small business. Small businesses come and go, creating and eliminating jobs along the way. Yes, they are an important part of the economy, and often they come with inspiring tales of hard-working immigrants and so on. But they’re in it to make a profit, just like Wal-Mart. And I doubt that many offer healthcare to people working less than 24 hours a week.

We aren’t Muppets and we aren’t idiots and our electeds ought not treat us as such. If they have a problem with Wal-Mart because their union supporters do—admit it. If those concerns trump new jobs and enlivening a neighborhood that needs retail be honest about it. Don’t hide behind a façade of concern that is transparently dishonest.

0 Comments — Leave your comment