By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
No, the RP hasn’t suddenly become a man of the cloth. The following beautiful words were part of a sermon delivered by Rabbi Jonathan Miller of Temple Emanu-El in Birmingham, Alabama on June 24, 2012, delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Birmingham:
Rabbi Jonathan Miller
I have a love affair with the State of Israel. I love its geography, from the sea to the desert to the mountains and hills. I love the orange groves and the high tech office parks. I love the oases and desert watercourses and the short lived blossoms on the hills after the rains. I love the golden city of Jerusalem, the city of such promise—the promise of the coming of the Lord and the coming together of all peoples. I love the people of Israel: the farmers and high tech innovators, the citizen soldiers and the doctors, the actors and the filmmakers, the mystics and the professors, the journalists and the scientists, the dancers and the store clerks and even the beggars on the street—they are mostly short tempered, quick to make decisions, overly generous, colorful and sweet. They will let you know their opinion before they have thought it out themselves.
I love Hebrew. After two thousand years of lying in books read by scholars and holy people, it is now used on the street by cops and crooks and little children on the playground. Hebrew is the only dead language in human history that has been reinvented by a people to use in their everyday life. The resurrection of Hebrew represents the triumph of the human spirit over the hopelessness of human pessimism.
And I love the people of Israel. I love how the cultures mix in this energetic melting pot. I love how the Jews, my people have flocked from the ghettos of Eastern Europe and the Soviet gulags, from the Ethiopian desert and the villages of Arabia, from the casbahs in Morocco to the hill tribe settlements in India, from France, from Egypt, from Yemen, from Tunisia, from Iraq, from Iran, from Rumania, South Africa and the United States—all colors, all stripes, a holy concoction of believers and non-believers, educated and primitive, to create a nation and a culture from the cauldrons of hate and the hopelessness of exile. Like my own country, the United States of America, Israel is to me that beacon of hope that expresses the fundamental truth of the human condition: that our destiny is in our own hands; that in the future, we are not subject to defeat just because we have been defeated in the past. Israel to me is the world’s quintessential symbol of the fact that the human spirit cannot easily be vanquished.
Read the rest of… Rabbi Jonathan Miller: Why This Liberal Jew Loves Israel
In recent months, the Commonwealth of Kentucky has received some criticism for the $43 million in tax incentives it is providing for “Ark Encounter” — a theme park offering a full-size recreation of Noah’s Ark developed by Answers in Genesis, a “Young Earth” fundamentalist Christian group that also hosts the “Creation Museum” — dedicated to the proposition that the Earth is less than 6000 years old.
Joe Sonka, a local liberal blogger, now with Louisville’s LEO Weekly alternative magazine, has been perhaps Ark Encounter’s loudest, most vociferous, and downright funniest critic. Click here and here and here to read some of his columns.
In this week’s “Fake Issue” of LEOWeekly, Sonka writes about a new project coming to Kentucky, Koran Kountry:
MUHLENBERG COUNTY, KY — Gov. Steve Beshear attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony Monday for the opening of Koran Kountry, the radical Islamic theme park that could receive up to $75 million in tax incentives from the state.
“We are excited to be here for the grand opening of Koran Kountry,” Beshear said. “This park will bring almost 1,000 jobs to this region and give a vital boost to our economy, with millions of tourists visiting the commonwealth.”
The controversial park is the creation of Answers in Koran, LLC, who seek to bring visitors to the “family-friendly attraction that celebrates the truth of the Koran, and the power of the global jihadist movement to liberate Muslims from the oppression of the infidels and Jews. We also have roller coasters.”
The $300 million park, built on top of a reclaimed surface mining site in Muhlenberg County, was constructed with the help of unnamed international investors from Pakistan and Iran. Their feasibility study projects millions of tourists from the Middle East and South Asia will come to the park in its first three years of operation.
“This day would not be possible without the great help we received from the Beshear administration,” said Kenwal Hamza, CEO of Answers in Koran. “Muhlenberg County is now truly the closest thing to Paradise on Earth.”
In addition to potentially $75 million in tax rebates from the state if the park meets its attendance projections, the state also spent $27 million on infrastructure improvements to the Wendell Ford Parkway and the Muhlenberg County Airport to accommodate the influx of tourists.
Koran Kountry contains a dozen thrill rides, including the Dead Sea Water Safari and the “Paradise Sling Shot,” which flings riders 400-feet straight up into the air, “recreating the ascension of the prophet Muhammad into the heavens.” There are also carnival-type games, including one in which people throw rocks at a female mannequin wearing a bikini in order to win a prize. The park also contains several high-tech multimedia shows in the “Martyrs Exhibit Hall,” celebrating the history of such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah, and attacking “the Zionist and Christian crusaders who occupy our homeland.”
No Labels isn’t alone pressing for immediate congressional reform.
“Fools on the Hill” is a new documentary that makes the case that Congress needs to pass some stringent laws to keep themselves in check. Things like no more adding hundreds of pages to a bill in the middle of the night and passing it the next morning.
The documentarians are organizing a march and rally on Congress July 17, and are asking people to sign a petition and join them as they converge on DC to demand Congressional reform.
I agree with my namesake, Jonathan, and spoke from that way from my pulpit in Alabama. In my experience, people change, and some people change radically and become their better selves. This was a shameful incident. But we do not elect 17 year olds to the office of President, thank God.
Further, I felt badly that Romney had to play dumb, that he couldn’t fess up or tell the world who he changed because of the gotcha political environment. The muted reaction to this event from the candidate and his minions was a result of trying to finesse the news cycles.
Says Linda Curry, Harrods Creek, KY:
I think he should definitely be held accountable. Romney was eighteen (18) years old. Legally he was an adult. Yes, it matters what he did fifty (50) years ago. He wants us to elect him President of the United States. From what I am hearing of his comments he will certainly “bully” the poor and helpless in favor of the ultra rich. He even tried to laugh the matter off as not remembering it. If he were honest with the American people he would not try to act like it didn’t happen.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Romney Bullying: The RP Nation Weighs In
The dog-on-the-roof-of-the-car story lost traction when the media discovered that the President had admitted to eating one. Thus, we now confront a story even more remote in time, which strives to raise implications which are certainly far more serious.
Yet, before we venture too far into the subject of how relevant the reported incidents are as a guide to Mitt Romney’s character today, should we not first revisit the threshold question of how deeply the political process should scrutinize a candidate’s personal history? Will those who have stood (often justifiably) aggrieved at attempts to dig into Barack Obama’s past perform an about-face, now that the shoe seems to be on the other foot? I hope not.
It seems as though the media launched this seemingly perpetual cycle back in 1988, when for the first time (at least in my recollection) a presidential campaign imploded under the weight of personal issues. Granted, Gary Hart foolishly challenged the media to “follow him around . . . it will be boring.” I can also recall how Hart’s opponents justified the whole exercise upon as relevant to Hart’s fitness for the presidency, as it supposedly reflected upon his “judgment.”
Fast-forward to the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. The poisonous atmosphere that pervades judicial nominations today dates back to the 1987 Bork nomination, which turned not upon personal revelations, but upon positions that Bork had previously articulated. One could argue that Bork’s past writings were drawn out of context and should not have disqualified him for the Supreme Court (to me, serving as the henchman who finally carried out Nixon’s orders to fire Archibald Cox was far more troubling) – but it was hard to argue that those writings were not relevant. In 1991, however – without any other means to stop Thomas’ confirmation – opponents turned to Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations. What followed, of course, was a drawn-out media spectacle which amounted to a public trial without discovery, rules of evidence, or any of the other protections which our system supposedly provides to ensure a dispassionate search for the truth.
This show trial even seemed to involve new “law.” While Thomas denied Hill’s accusations in full, some of his supporters suggested a defense of consent – based upon the indefensible notion that just because Hill remained in Thomas’ employment, she had somehow endorsed the alleged behavior. Hill’s supporters responded that an employee-employer situation constitutes a “power relationship” wherein sexual harassment must be implied, regardless of the particular facts and circumstances. Moreover, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee came under attack for showing “insensitivity” toward Professor Hill; this issue played a prominent role in the following year’s Senate campaigns.
Given this backdrop, is President Clinton’s ordeal later that decade surprising in any respect? If we must automatically imply sexual harassment from the mere existence of a “power relationship” between Thomas and Hill, should we not have drawn an even stronger inference from circumstances involving a president and a intern in her 20s? Yet – without any sense of irony regarding what they had unleashed – Thomas’ accusers immediately became Clinton’s defenders. Presumed harassment melted back into “personal indiscretion,” providing a particularly troubling display of the old adage, “where you stand is where you sit.” This time, of course, a public show trial cross-pollinated with actual legal proceedings (the Paula Jones case).
While Jonathan has articulated a very principled, even-handed argument with which I agree in most all respects, I do take exception to one aspect of his position. In our legal system, entire lives can turn upon the weight of false testimony. Accordingly, perjury is never appropriate or acceptable. One can argue very persuasively that President Clinton’s false deposition testimony should have been addressed – if at all – within the legal system instead of Congress (which would likely have required waiting until the end of his presidency), but re-defining his conduct as merely “lying about personal indiscretions” takes us down a dangerous path. For example, the assumption that people will “naturally lie” about personal matters has transformed domestic relations proceedings in some courts into lawless free-for-alls in which perjury is condoned, if not expected (on the basis that people will “naturally lie” about personal matters).
We seem to live in a society bent upon creating illusions of perfection – not only regarding ourselves, but in connection with the leaders we choose. Seeking to maintain such illusions, we rely upon hyper-technical distinctions and highly-nuanced arguments that have the practical effect of adjusting our standards. It would seem far better to set our standards high and exercise common sense, compassion, and mercy when people fall short. Within the legal context, prosecutorial and judicial discretion exist for this very reason.
Of course, the heat and passion of politics inevitably ensures that the slightest flaw will get wildly blown out of proportion. If we try hard enough, we will find a way to connect that flaw to a candidate’s potential performance in office (in 1992, Ross Perot memorably suggested that Bill Clinton’s alleged infidelity was relevant because if his wife could not trust him, how could we?). Yet, the preservation of “government by the people” – or government by human beings – requires us to accept leaders with all-too-human frailties. Could FDR have passed the medical scrutiny John McCain endured four years ago? What about JFK’s “judgment” in sharing a mistress with mob boss Sam Giancana? Would we elect Lincoln today if we knew about the pervasive depression with which he struggled for most of his adult life? How would today’s political inquisitors handle reports that at the age of twelve, Adlai Stevenson accidentally shot and killed a childhood friend?
The bottom line – we simply cannot know enough about an individual’s private life to place what we learn about the same in the proper perspective. The only reliable information we possess is the public record. Sticking with the latter as we assess potential candidates is therefore not only just; it is sensible and practical.
Walking through the metal detector at the Yom Ha’Atzmaut celebration, I thought to myself, “Funny how just a few years ago, we never would have experienced this.” My children, 5, 7, and 9 years old, see security all the time. All our synagogue doors and Jewish agency doors are locked. You need to buzz and state your name to the camera, before you are allowed entrance. This is the only world my children will ever know.
I remember when synagogue was a safe place. I never worried about anyone bringing in a gun or explosives. I never heard the words “terrorist attack,” unless of course, it pertained to Israel. But, not in this country. Not in my home. Not in my synagogue, my school, nowhere within the community I knew. All my children will ever know, is that we need a police presence to “make sure everything is ok and that everyone is safe.”
At least, that is what I tell them. I don’t tell them about the ignorant people who hate us simply because we are Jewish. I don’t tell them about those who distort their own religious beliefs in an effort to destroy others who aren’t like them. I don’t tell them about the evil that persists in the world. I only tell them that “we are safe.” Of course, safety is relative.
They have asked me, “Why is our country at war?” “Who was Osama bin Laden?” “Why do they hate us?” I do not lie to them. I answer in age-appropriate ways, sharing just enough to satisfy their need to know. What can I really say other than, “There is no need to worry.” And, yet, I do tell them to be cautious of strangers and not to leave their brothers alone when they visit a public restroom or run with their friends in the neighborhood. I walk that fine line, trying to prepare them for the realities of life without terrifying them. But, we can’t be prepared for everything.
I know we all experience tragedy. For me, it was losing my mother to cancer way before her time. And then following her death, my father was so terrified of being alone that he made unwise, disturbing choices that separated him from his family, resulting in my losing him, too. A father I was once very close to. It is difficult learning to mourn a father who is still living.
I know that everyone’s life experiences are different. They challenge us, they strengthen us. They shape who we are and who we will become. For my children, it will be no different. Nor do I want to protect them from that journey. I have hope and faith that my husband and I are building a healthy foundation upon which they will make their choices and live their lives. And, yet, I can’t help but worry about the tragedies they will face and hope that it will not tarnish them, nor spoil them to the beauty in the world.
I think about my children’s future. Their children’s future. And, I’m scared. I worry. What will their world look like? Will it be safer than yesterday, or worse than today? I fear for the state of the world, and I’m concerned for my children’s personal well-being.
Only one thing is certain. All my children will ever know is that I love them. They are my priority. In a world with such uncertainty, this one thing is certain. It is everlasting. I tell them that my number one job, my privilege, is to take care of them and keep them safe. God willing, I will succeed. God willing, we will all succeed in making tomorrow better, and safer than today.
Our readers, the RP Nation, had a lot to say about this controversy — we’ve received dozens of emails and comments. We list some of the better responses below:
Jonathan, you claim to be bi-partisan politically, but come near (but just this side of civil) to speak with a hint of animosity about the University of Louisville. WATCH IT!!!!! I’VE GOT MY EYES ON YOU.
Love, M.A, Louisville, KY
As a Saturday Night Live fan, I like Michelle Bachman or a comeback by Sarah, who should have a lot to say about reproductive health.
C.U., Hartford, CT
I agree with Portman who can swing Ohio. Yes, Rubio brings Florida and more of the Hispanic vote. I love Huckabee, but Arkansas is tiny and he is old news. Portman can legitimately run on a balanced budget platform, more so than anyone else.
S.C., Miami, FL
How about Kentucky’s head basketball coach, John Calipari?
B.M., New York, NY
Nope, it is Rubio.
T.W., Indianapolis, IN
I will be traveling on business through Wednesday morning, March 28th, with only limited access to email. If you need help immediately, please contact [Name omitted]. I look forward to being in touch as soon as possible.
D.H., Washington, DC
Read the rest of... The RPs Debate the 2012 GOP VP — The RP Nation Weighs In
Yesterday, The Recovering Politician featured a lively debate among the contributing RPs on the subject of whether states should expand gambling for the additional tax revenues they present during these difficult times.
To review all of the arguments and counter-arguments, pro, con and sideways, from yesterday’s RPs Debate, click here.
Our readers sent in some very thoughtful and interesting comments. We excerpt a few below:
I understand the need for gambling in Kentucky. I have no moral arguments against gambling. My discussion is more the benefits of the individual vs. the benefits of society. First a disclaimer – I’m very liberal. Statistically speaking, it is no surprise to the educated that gambling favors the “house”. The odds are any one person will probably lose more money than they gain from a wager.
According to a national survey, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be “pathological” gamblers. Impulsivity also was greater among youth of lower socio-economic status . Gambling can also find risk populations with older adults. The bottom line, to me, is does the benefit of society outweigh the benefit (or lack thereof) for the individual. W.C. Fields said there’s a sucker born every minute. And Kentucky would depend on these “suckers” to help fund our state. Yes, we have our signs that urge citizens to drink responsibly, gamble responsibly, etc. But I can’t help but feel Kentucky would be enabling a negative behavior for those least able to afford it.
I understand other states have gambling, and Kentucky is losing $$ to those states. What percentage of Kentucky citizens are flocking to tangential states, and what percentage do we anticipate gambling would increase in Kentucky with in-state casinos? We need to be creative to generate income for our state. And I know in-state gambling is one of those creative ideas. I just believe it is an idea the ultimately will generate as many problems as it attempts to solve.
Read the rest of… The RP Nation Weighs in on the Gambling Debate
The author is an Oscar(TM) and Emmy(TM) award-winning sound engineer, as well and a student of metaphysics and reason for more than two decades.
On March 26, 2009, in a CNN town hall meeting, President Obama stated (slightly edited), “There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation, [and I don’t know what this says about the online audience, but this was a fairly popular question], and the answer is no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow our economy.”
On the campaign trail a couple of years earlier, our President admitted that there was a time when he smoked cannabis, and when asked if he inhaled, he said he did, that was the point.
Obviously no one would suggest that President Obama has been stunted in his personal or political aspirations as a result of engaging in this (by federal definitions) immoral, illegal, and criminal activity: indeed, we elected him to the highest office in the land.
So what is the story with criminality and drugs? People take drugs, and take them for all kinds of reasons; and I think it’s safe to say, there has never been a point in history when there have been so many drugs to choose from.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: Don Digirolamo Rebuts
The author is the CEO of Host Strategic Resources, LLC, a firm specializing in strategic and crisis communications, speechwriting, web development and open source software implementation. He was the former Communications Director for Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R-FL)
A very thoughtful piece, Jonathan. I have become more open to the case for legalization in recent years, though I’m far from convinced.
First, the notion that pot is “harmless” is far from proven. Perhaps the best characterization of the evidence I have seen is that – like tobacco – the cumulative impact varies from person to person. For example, George Burns smoked cigars and lived to be 100. Likewise, there are plenty of “casual” pot users who don’t experience significant health effects.
Yet, according to a Scientific American article detailing the same peer review study you cited, “[c]hronic marijuana use has been associated with anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and depression.” Given the role of such mental disorders in violent crime, I respectfully disagree with how you dismiss the potential links between marijuana abuse and violent crime – not to mention the risks associated with impaired driving, heavy equipment operation, etc. Moreover, while marijuana may not have the addictive characteristics of cocaine, there is plenty of evidence that it can be addictive, at least for some individuals.
Thus, it appears as though one’s understanding of one’s own physiology, family health history (particularly instances of addiction) might be the most important consideration in deciding whether pot use is safe (just as it is in the case of alcohol and tobacco). This decision relies upon the judgment that comes with age. So, as part of a legalization regime, would we establish minimum age requirements – a “pot smoking age”?
Under this scenario, won’t we have the same problem all over again – kids grasping for the “forbidden fruit” – and won’t the same criminal elements hang around to meet this demand? For me, the “gateway drug” argument retains particular salience in this case. Kids will find it easier to deal with pushers than trying to obtain the drug through legal channels via a fake ID or other means. The legal availability of marijuana will certainly depress the “street price” – but pushers will still deal the drug in order to continue developing their market for harder drugs.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate Marijuana Legalization: David Host Rebuts
And I love the people of Israel. I love how the cultures mix in this energetic melting pot. I love how the Jews, my people have flocked from the ghettos of Eastern Europe and the Soviet gulags, from the Ethiopian desert and the villages of Arabia, from the casbahs in Morocco to the hill tribe settlements in India, from France, from Egypt, from Yemen, from Tunisia, from Iraq, from Iran, from Rumania, South Africa and the United States—all colors, all stripes, a holy concoction of believers and non-believers, educated and primitive, to create a nation and a culture from the cauldrons of hate and the hopelessness of exile. Like my own country, the United States of America, Israel is to me that beacon of hope that expresses the fundamental truth of the human condition: that our destiny is in our own hands; that in the future, we are not subject to defeat just because we have been defeated in the past. Israel to me is the world’s quintessential symbol of the fact that the human spirit cannot easily be vanquished. 
