Machers -- The Jewish Oligarchy

The Madoff story has put the Jewish community in the news in the most prominent possible way. But not in ways that its members would have wanted. It seems that some, many, of the most prominent Jewish machers -- movers and shakers -- have left the community vulnerable at the hands of a stupendous Ponzi scheme. The man accused of guilt in the Ponzi scheme is Bernard Madoff. One of the men accused of facilitating the scheme -- without being criminally responsible himself -- is J. Ezra Merkin. Both have been known as big machers among the Jews of the land. (A front-page article by Diana Henriques in the New York Times of December 20 tells the story in great detail.)

[Here is a personal aside. I have had a bit of a mole-view of the Merkin family since my mother had been a baby nurse (domestic servant) in the Merkin and allied families some fifty years ago.]

Who are these machers, these movers and shakers, and what is their role ?

In a word, the machers constitute the oligarchy that has by and large run the Jewish community. The idea that nominally democratic institutions are actually run by oligarchies was most forcefully argued by the 19th century German-Italian thinker Robert Michels, especially in a classic description translated in English under the title Political Parties.

Michels speaks of an "iron law of oligarchy," a view that has led later social scientists, notably Seymour Martin Lipset, to refine the concept and specifyy limits to the phenomenon. And indeed, macherdom was defeated in those institutions that, throughout, maintained a high degree of self-criticism and due diligence. The UJA-Federation of New York, with some others, stands out as a bastion of good sense.

Wikipedia describes the oligarchy concept as traditionally formulated:

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers or occult spiritual hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγος olígos) and "rule" (ἀρχή arkhē). Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children were heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. This type of power by its very nature may not be exercised openly; the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means. Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group.

President Joel (Yeshiva University) presents an honorary degree to Trustee J. Ezra Merkin as Ludwig Bravmann, vice chairman, Board of Trustees, looks on. November 26, 2003

J. Ezra Merkin & friends, charity function, June 16, 2008

Mr. Bernard Madoff

In the American Jewish community, as far as I can tell, the machers play a diffuse, inconsistent, but often dominating role.

I cannot offer a tightly delineated definition. Take the level of synagogue leadership. The concept of macher overlaps, but is not identical, with elected officer and board member. Not every macher has a formal role; not every formal leader is a macher. But as I have observed it in at least some synagogues, you cannot hold an elected post without the behind-the-scenes nod from a consensus of the machers. A macher tends to be rich, well-connected, and very influential. Influence, of course, is the stock in trade of macherdom.

Macher-led synagogues and other organziations have formal elections, but these elections are essentially sham because there is no more than one candidate per post. (I have heard of a venerable Orthodox synagogue in Manhattan, however, in which there is a lively democratic tradition with real, i.e. contested, elections.)

Literally tranlated, a macher is one who does things, who makes things happen. The membership of macher-run groups often could not imagine how things could happen without these machers. The machers tend to be thought of as despots, perhaps, but benevolent despots. The groups keep running, at least that seems to be the impression, largely because of the work and ceaseless energy of the machers.

Machers are thought to be very wise. During the planning for a synagogue renovation, it was the judgement and wisdom of the machers that prevailed, even though expert-backed contrary views were offered. Disagreement with machers -- especially on problems where expert advice might suggest that the machers are actually beyond their depth -- is scorned. As I see it, this is one of the greatest dangers to Jewish public life: an unwarranted faith in the wisdom and benevolence of the machers. Macherdom tends to prevent the one activity that saved some individuals and institutions in the current Madoff affair, due diligence.

How do you become a macher ? What are the qualifications ? These questions await careful treatment by scholars. But there are two institutions that seem to foster and develop macherdom. One is the honorary degree bestowed by prestigious institutions, the other -- more important because much more pervasive -- is the "award dinner" at which groups promote the idea that prestige can be fostered and created artificially. Awards are bestowed for apparent financial prowess, for handing over money to institutions, and for, well, being a macher.

No doubt there are many recipients of such "honors" whose merit can be objectively verified. A scientist or scholar who has made verifiable contributions to his field, or an artist or writer whose work can be independently assessed, may well have at least some of the merit that is attributed to him. But as for the merit of all those other honorees and awardees at award dinners and award dinner-dances, well, that merit partakes more than a little of the great investment returns offered by Mr. Bernard Madoff. It is widely talked about, very widely praised and admired, but it is not verifiable. It does not withstand due diligence.

It is often said that a synagogue, say, relies on such award dinner-dances to raise the funds that it needs. There are three problems with this proposition. 1) It has not been empirically tested -- nobody has tried alternate, more ethical methods. 2) Whatever the financial value of such activity, there is a terrible moral price that is paid, viz. claiming merit where no such merit can truthfully be claimed. 3) At least in the current environment, it has been shown that there was no financial gain to the institutions in this counterfeit traffic in honor.

Finally, I wish to offer two thoughts on how to strengthen Jewish communal activity:

1) Due diligence. When the combined wisdom of the machers in your congregation, say, urges a path of action, resist. Ask for outside expert advice. Independent expert advice is the antithesis of macherdom. Insist on it. Be a trouble maker. You won't earn an award at a dinner dance, but that, as I see it, is an added benefit.

2) Do not in any way approve of or participate in the bestowal of honorary degrees. Ever. Those who have the merit to deserve such degrees probably have earned, real degrees.

3) Do not, ever, attend an award dinner-dance. Do not praise the big machers in display ads. Do not be part of the macher claque. Ever.

Sidwell Does So Help Public School Kids

In my "Modest Proposal for the Sidwell Friends School" (see my blog of November 22), I wrote, among other things

At least some of Sidwell's resources could be made available to all students in the District. Perhaps there could be classes in art appreciation, or college-entrance preparation, or music, or whatever, free of charge to all children. Perhaps the STO funds could be used for these services.

I have now had the chance to talk with Mr. Ellis Turner, the Associate Head of the School, and learned that Sidwell has a number of specific programs to help children in Washington's public schools. For example, Sidwell has a relationship with the (public) Brightwood Elementary School to help in a "lap reading" program. On the high school level, it has a relationship with the (public) Duke Ellington School, which, among other things, provides scholarships for math students. And these are only two examples of programs in which Sidwell cooperates with public schools.

Bravo Sidwell !

African Americans at Sidwell Friends

I have now had word from Ellis Turner, the Associate Head of Sidwell Friends School, with further information on the racial composition of the school. He reports that 12.8% of his students are African-American. But when we compare this percentage with US Census figures for the District of Columbia, where 55.4% of the population is Black, we can see that African Americans at Sidwell are not doing well -- they have less than a quarter of what their share would be if the student body were representative of the District.

Mr. Turner also reports that a further 13.2% of the student body reports itself as "multi-racial" (the Census figure is 1.5% for multi-racial in the District). The significance of this figure is not clear to me, and, unlike Mr. Turner, I cannot see that it mitigates the very low African American presence at the school.

Moreover, given this low African American presence, I must repeat that the only figure published by the school for "students of color" on its website -- 39% -- is misleading.

Finally, Mr. Turner has taken me to task for my suggestions that Sidwell share some of its resources with the public. I have made these suggestions for two reasons: 1) Like all non-profits, Sidwell is the recipient of significant public financial aid by way of tax benefits; and 2), more important, such sharing is required by the professed values of the school. Here are Mr. Turner's comments:

Further, you make an erroneous assumption in stating that we do not
"share some of your resources with the public, especially with those
children who have no hope of ever attending your school." We have many programs and co-sponsored activities which do just that.

Please investigate before you publish.

I have invited Mr. Turner to let me have details on these programs and co-sponsored activities, and I will put them on my blog as soon as I receive them. It would indeed be good if there could be a public discussion of what SFS does to share its bounties.

Three Athletic Fields, Five Tennis Courts, and a Six-Lane Track

Facilities on the fifteen-acre Wisconsin Avenue campus ... include the Earl G. Harrison, Jr. Upper School Building; the Middle School Building; Kogod Center for the Arts; Richard Walter Goldman Memorial Library; Zartman House ... three athletic fields including one with all-weather turf surface; five tennis courts; and a six-lane track.

The five-acre Edgemoor Lane campus in Bethesda includes the Manor House ... and athletic fields and two playground areas with climbing equipment.

So who wouldn't want to go to Sidwell Friends School in Washington, the new center of learning for the Obama girls ? Can you imagine, three athletic fields, and all those tennis courts, and six whole lanes of track ? Or rather, who couldn't go ...

For starters, those not judged "academically talented" cannot go. The school says as much. Moreover, there is a requirement to submit to intelligence tests as part of the application process: the WPPSI, the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence for the youngest, then the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), and then on to the SSAT, etc. etc. Sidwell demands (conventionally defined) intelligence and rejects those who do not perform well on standard tests. What of the "Quaker values" of the school, proclaimed on its website, that would require a more egalitarian approach ?

The Quaker belief that there is "that of God" in each of us shapes everything we do at Sidwell Friends School. It inspires us to show kindness and respect toward one another. It motivates us to recognize and nurture each person's unique gifts. It teaches us to apply our talents in service to others and to work courageously for peace.

So there is a disjunction between what is professed (egalitarianism) and what is practiced.

The (in my view) immoral notion that power and the good things of the world should be distributed unevenly to those judged to have "merit" -- i.e. the advocacy of a "meritocracy" -- was savagely satirized by the most profound sociologist I ever met, the late Michael Young, in his widely quoted but rarely appreciated "The Rise of the Meritocracy," 1958. Forty three years later he revisited the topic in an op-ed piece, "Down With Meritocracy."

Back to the Sidwell Friends School admissions. Doing well on conventional tests is a hurdle, but, so it would seem, is money. It costs around $30,000 in tuition and fees, and even those who have benefited from financial aid, roughly a third of the student body, still pay an average of $10,000 per annum.

Finally we come to the problem of the race of the students. Does it matter ? Well, according to the professed "Quaker values" all races should have equal access to all those athletic fields and tennis courts. The school prides itself on its "diversity," and has in fact appointed a number of "diversity coordinators" (at least one of whom has a Ph.D.). But in fact the school equivocates more than a little on how racially diverse it is.

We are told on its website that "39% of the student body [2008-9] are students of color." "Of color" is not a census term, so it's a little difficult to evaluate exactly what it means. We do know that the US Census reports the current population of D.C. as being 34.5% White, and 63.6% as belonging to other races. So, as a first approximation, we know that a white child has almost twice the chance (1.76 times) of going to Sidwell as someone "of color."

But what exactly does "of color" mean in the Sidwell context ? The Census categories are white, black (African American), Asian, and "other races." Now there is a world of difference, from the point of view of educational opportunities, between African Americans on the one hand and Asians on the other. I would suspect that Sidwell's "students of color" include Asians and children of diplomats, among others. To know just what Sidwell's profession of diversity means in practice, we would need to know the percentage of African Americans in its student body. I have written to Sidwell's administration and my inquiry was duly acknowledged, but I have not yet received the figures. If and when I do, I will report them here.

A Modest Proposal for the Sidwell Friends School

Washington's Sidwell Friends School

The Sidwell Friends School in Washington is in the news: once more, important and powerful people are sending their children there. It is by all accounts an excellent school. It has the resources to assure the best in teachers, in equipment, in curriculum, and in caring parents. In all these areas Sidwell, like other such private schools in the District, stands in sharp contrast to the public schools of the nation's capital. These are struggling, and, the affluent and influential having deserted them, are now ghettos for the non-white and non-privileged.

Like other non-profit institutions, Sidwell would be exempt from local taxes, and contributions to Sidwell would be deductible from income taxes. So taxpayers, including the poor who cannot afford to send their children there, are nevertheless asked to pay for some of its costs.

But many of Sidwell's parents are on record for improving the lives of the poor. This is certainly true of the powerful politicians that are now preparing to send their little ones to Sidwell in the coming year. Sidwell's own Board of Trustees has voiced similar sentiments:

We cultivate in all members of our community high personal expectations and integrity, respect for consensus, and an understanding of how diversity enriches us, why stewardship of the natural world matters and why service to others enhances life

It isn't cheap to go to Sidwell, in fact it's downright expensive. Tuition and fees come to over $30,000 per child per year (with twenty-two percent of the student body receiving some degree of financial aid). At these prices, "service to others" means, primarily, others who are well off.

And here is another disquieting thing about the Sidwell philosophy:

We seek academically talented students of diverse cultural, racial, religious and economic backgrounds.

Those who are not "academically talented," whatever that term may mean, what are those students, chopped liver ? Is that the meaning of the "Quaker way" that is so proudly touted by Sidwell ?

In other words, there is a bit, more than a bit, of a disjunction between the high-minded sentiments of parents and Board on the one hand, and the elitist nature of the program on the other. It doesn't look good.

But wait... this blog has some solutions.

Sidwell and its parents have tremendous resources that they could make available, to some extent at least, to that vast majority of District children who have no hope of ever becoming Sidwell students. Here are some ideas, submitted with all the humility for which this blog has become justly famous:

● Sidwell parents could be asked to make financial contributions to enrichment programs at the public schools. Whenever a Sidwell parent makes a tuition payment, a "Service to Others" (STO) surcharge could be added.

● At least some of Sidwell's resources could be made available to all students in the District. Perhaps there could be classes in art appreciation, or college-entrance preparation, or music, or whatever, free of charge to all children. Perhaps the STO funds could be used for these services.

● Some of Sidwell's parents command considerable venues on their own. The White House itself will soon be one. Perhaps such facilities could be used for regular enrichment programs for all of the District's children.

P.S.: How many of the Sidwell folk can be found in this part of Washington ?

Truxton Circle, Washington DC

How the Jews Voted: Exactly 78 Percent for Obama ?

Hasidim of Brooklyn: Strongly for McCain
photo by wayupnorthtonowhere

Upper Westside: Probably Obama Country
photo by Ed Yourdon

My friend was an Obama supporter. "Seventy-eight percent of the Jews," he told me, "voted like me." How did he know, how does anybody know anything ? The New York Times. Of course. All the news that's fit to print.

Nobody in authority asked me my religion when I voted. That doesn't happen, and if it did it would be illegal. But it appears that there are "exit polls" in which professional pollsters place themselves in front of polling places and importune voters who have just voted. I myself have never encountered such a pollster in more than 60 years of voting, but I have been told that this is, roughly, how the conversation goes:

Sir, would you mind telling me for whom you have just voted ? Thank you so much. Just a few more questions .... years of education ?, occupation ?, etc. etc., and yes, "religious preference." And then of course there is a quick peek to ascertain race.

As a result of such exit polling, we have information on a national scale that has been shown to be more-or-less accurate for the broad demographic groups. We know that McCain, like Bush before him, received a convincing majority of the white vote. And, this time round, we know that Black people voted Obama in overwhelming numbers. The same reports that tell us these well-established things also purport to tell us about the Jewish vote: 78% for Obama. The trouble is that unlike the large demographic groups, the small minority of Jews in this country (between one and two percent of the population) make any such precision illusory.

The New York Times, for example, carried a report on the exit poll that was conducted by Edison/Mitofsky on November 4. It seems that 17,224 voters, at 300 polling places nationwide, were interviewed that day by E/M. Among these there were about 350 Jews, of whom 78%, or about 270, said that they had voted Obama, with almost all the rest having voted McCain.

To what extent can these 350 individuals be said to be representative of the American Jewish electorate ?

The sample of 300 polling places, or about 5 per state, represents about one quarter of one percent of the nation's voting districts. It was drawn as a random sample of all the nation's districts, and, for purposes of the larger population, can yield reliable results. But to accept its validity as representative of the Jewish population, we have to assume that the Jews of the country (roughly one or two percent of the population) are randomly distributed, more or less, over all the voting districts, all over the country. The proportionate size of the Jewish communities of Williamsburg and Borough Park would have to be similar to those of Idaho and Utah. If that assumption does not hold, there is no validity in the result. (There are statistical techniques -- oversampling -- used for the larger minorities, to correct for some of these problems. There is no indication that such techniques have been used for the Jewish population. I have written to Edison/Mitofsky to get details of their methods, but so far I have had no reply.)

The Brooklyn Paper has reported overwhelming support for McCain in Hasidic neighborhoods. No doubt there was heavy support for Obama on the Upper West side. The Jews of Wyoming, Idaho, Utah ? It is doubtful that the national pollsters ever encounter any of these at all. A valid sample of the American Jewish electorate would have to encompass such diversity. A national sample of all American voters, if it is of practicable size and complexity, cannot do this.

These exit polls almost certainly overstate the extent of Jewish support for Obama, for this reason: since they are based on methods that seek to create representative samples of the American population as a whole, they may do an adequate job of reaching Jews who are well dispersed in that population. But they cannot adequately reach those dense pockets of Jewish population that consist, to a large extent, of Orthodox Jews. And it is probable that these Orthodox pockets were much more favorable to McCain.

Did the Jews generally favor Obama over McCain ? Probably yes. But to the extent of 78 % ? Not likely.

Sarah Palin and Her Cultured Despisers

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska

In the City of New York, the enlightened are smarter, more cultured, more couth than the Governor of Alaska. The woman is a redneck ! Could you find her at MOMA ? Could you see her reading The New Yorker ? Or, for that matter, The New York Times ? Would you find her at a parents' meeting of Brooklyn Friends ? None of the above, obviously.

And she is not an Episcopalian, not a Reform Jew, not a member of Ethical Culture. She does not attend mass at St. Patrick's. Her religious affiliation, Pentecostalism, can be found in Spanish Harlem, but since when is that part of New York, part of Culture ?

Way back in 1799, the German theologian Schleiermacher had a message for the "cultured" of his time. But did this put an end to mindless, ignorant, snobbish judgmentalism ? What do you think ?

Friedrich Schleiermacher, author of
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799)

The ideology of Trinity United

Stanley Kurtz

The ideology of Trinity United, the Chicago church in which Obama was an active member for twenty years, is not at all representative of Black churches. It is a strictly minority view in Black American Christianity. It is the brain child of the radical "Black Liberation" theologian James Cone of Union Theological Seminary with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his most prominent disciple. "Black Liberation Christianity" proclaims that Jesus was Black, that only Black Christianity is authentically Christian, that White Christians should be ashamed of their skin color, and so forth .

The black intellectual's goal, says Cone, is to "aid in the destruction of America as he knows it." Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt. The black-power theologian's goal is to tell the story of American oppression so powerfully and precisely that white men will "tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil." In the preface to his 1970 book, A Black Theology of Liberation, Wright wrote: "There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: 'How can we become black?'"

This quotation is from a thorough explanation of Black Liberation theology by Stanley Kurtz. Kurtz's piece, in my view, is absolutely required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the folks that Obama worked with for those twenty years. Click here to get the full text.

Barack and the Sonim

Washington Post

mlive.com

Bill Ayers by edexcellence.net

My neighborhood -- Downtown and Brownstone Brooklyn -- is graced by diversity of commercial and religious enterprise. Restaurants of high and low quality, stores (ditto), and of course people. So it's not surprising that you can buy, no trouble at all, copies of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," both in the street from vendors and from a number of bookstores.

Now one of these stores that has featured this work in its shop window has just begun to display a great big sign: Obama Needs You, Sign Up to Help as Volunteer, or words to that effect. This particular store is run by "Afrocentric" sonim, haters of Jews. (There is now an absolutely hair-raising account of "Afrocentric" sonim at Wellesley College, of all places, by Mary Lefkowitz: "History Lesson.")

I do not for one minute believe that Obama shares the views of these sonim, nor do I think that he would be aware of what they do in his name. But, as I have pointed out before on this blog, it is a curious fact that haters of Israel and of the Jews endorse him. Why ? Do they know something that the rest of us don't ?

By and large, the media and even the McCain campaign have given Obama a free pass on his twenty years in a Church of Hate and on his connections with other extremists. Now Commentary Magazine, God bless it, has broken this silence and has published a comprehensive (almost) account of these matters in an article by Joshua Muravchik in its latest issue.

I do not endorse the doctrines and dogmas of Commentary, which to some extent inform this article. Nevertheless, I think that the factual account is sound (except that it leaves out, surprisingly, the Hamas connection with Trinity United Church). I do hope that the article will find the readership it deserves. Some material on Obama's connection with the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers, for example, has not been widely known before.

Hating Israel, Loving Obama

The Frozen Smile

Barak Obama has said, more than once, and in unmistakable language, that he supports Israel's right to exist and Israel's right to defend itself. But the funny thing is that (at least some of) those who hate Israel and who don't think that it has any right to defend itself nevertheless love and endorse Obama. Do they know something about Obama that perhaps Obama himself either doesn't know or doesn't want to say ?

First and perhaps foremost, there is Jimmy "Frozen-Smile" Carter, who thinks that Israel practices "apartheid" and is solely responsible for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It has been announced that Carter will be one of the main speakers at the Denver convention to endorse Obama, although, as of this writing, it appears that he has been told not to mention the word "Israel." The Soviets, before passing out of history, experienced a thaw. Can we hope as much from Carter and/or his smile ? Hope again.

[Update, Aug. 28: In the end, the Forward reports, the Dems decided to honor Carter by showing a video of him but not allow him to speak at the convention.]

The Nation magazine, something of a voice of twenty-first century American Communism, gives a little more hesitant endorsement of Obama, all the while blaming Israel for everything that is wrong in the world, or at least in the Middle East.

And then there is the poor little Communist Party of the USA. It has seen better days -- say those of Earl Browder and William Z. Foster. But it still soldiers on as a ghost of a ghost, somewhere halfway between being moribund and dead. It endorses Obama (with some hesitation), but never misses a beat in beating down on Israel.

But wait, there is hope for those who want to dismiss everything I say in this posting. There is at least one enemy of Israel (not counting Pat Buchanan) who will not support Obama. That is the estimable Cynthia McKinnon, who is running for President all on her own.

On Vanity and Pride and Bragging

All is Vanity
Painting by Charles Gilbert (1873-1929)

Praising oneself (or one's children) inordinately is something that is frequently practiced but never condoned. All the sacred sources that I could find, religious and secular, with the only possible exception of Ayn Rand, condemn the practice. "Pride cometh before the Fall," or words to that effect, expresses the professed attitudes. Our language generally implies a negative evaluation of "braggarts," of "vanity," "vainglory," and "boasting," with positive evaluations of the "unassuming" and the "modest." But practice, as I said, is often different.

The question is, in a world that depends so much on selling and buying (of goods and esteem), could we do entirely without just a bit of exaggeration, say just now and then ? When I want to sell, say, a new automobile, can I say that what I have to offer is just about as good, or maybe a little inferior, to the wares of my competitors ? American law allows "puffery" in advertising, defined as an exaggeration that no reasonable person will take literally, but it does not allow misrepresentation, which, presumably, may mislead. Some "exaggeration," when it does not mislead, is something we seem to have accepted and are willing to live with. (Of course outside the sphere of advertising legality, or even within it, the line between "puffery" and misrepresentation may often be far from clear.)

Granted that bragging is something we all do to some extent some of the time, at least three important questions present themselves. First there is the extent, insistence, and sheer volume of claims made at any one time. A second question is how customary or expected an incident may be, considering community standards. Finally, there is the question of the veracity of the claims. I am mostly interested in claims that are 1) insistent and shrill; 2) relatively rare, i.e. not customary in the given circumstances, and 3) essentially lacking in veracity. (Lawyers might see a three-prong test here for what is flagrant bragging.)

Disclaimer: My observations and conclusions are not based on systematic research. Nor have I been able to find such systematic research in the literature, pace Erving Goffman and his school of "ethnomethodology."

The Groves of Academe

To some extent, self-promotion by academics is as necessary as self-promotion in any other field. It's hard to imagine a scholar advancing in his own field -- receiving necessary research grants, obtaining good graduate students, achieving promotions in the academic ladder, etc. -- if he does not spend a certain amount of time informing others of his accomplishments. As long as the interactions take place among peers, who can be assumed to understand the difference between meaningful accomplishment and embroidery, there is little opportunity for vainglory. But when self-promotion is directed to people outside academia proper, the door opens to claims that are no longer veracious, or are, at least, borderline veracious.

Before the internet, it was difficult to see who does the unacceptable bragging. Information tended to remain local, or confined to small circles of insiders. But now, when so many professors have their own websites, the braggarts -- for better or worse -- can be observed far and wide. I will give just one case study to illustrate what can go wrong. Although I don't cite the name of the individual, the details are all based on the information given by the person's websites.

Professor X. is at a large denominational university. He is the chair of his department and he also holds other administrative posts at his university. He has at least three websites, which, in addition to the more customary material of such sites, also feature

a. "downloadable publicity shots of Dr.[X]"
b. the claim that he is frequently consulted by the media on matters of public interest
c. the claim that he has had "conversations" with a former president of the United States
d. his schedule of occasional lectures at other universities now and in the future. (One such appearance, claimed by X to have been a "Keynote Address" to a learned society was listed on the website of that society as no more than an address.)
e. the fact that one of his books had "forwards" (sic) by two well-known (but controversial) men
f. testimonials of his work by a number of well-known (but controversial) public figures
g. laudatory descriptions of these public figures
h. details of X's travels in various parts of the world
i. nomination for a prize that he did not ultimately receive
j. lavish self praise ("Professor X's work extends beyond the ... analysis usually offered by the media to encompass the essence of spiritual evolution...")

This material, as I see it, adds up to the portrait of a flagrant academic braggart, using the three-prong test that I have suggested:

1. There is high "volume;" the claims are shrill, insistent, numerous
2. The claims, taken together, do not seem customary in academia
3. They lack veracity, at least by implication. Professor X. claims, by implication, that praise by the cited well-known personages is relevant to his own scholarly merit. Of course other scholars in his field cannot be misled by such claims, so to them the claims may be no more than "puffery," material that reasonable men will ignore. But Professor X. addresses himself, by his own insistence, to people outside the scholarly community. When addressing this larger audience, Professor X's claims lack veracity.

Professor X is a braggart, flagrantly so.

The Synagogue World

I know very little about Orthodox and Reform synagogues. I have been a member and guest at a number of Conservative groups over the years, and find, when it comes to a bar or bat mitsvah, that every one of these youngsters, to believe the rabbi, is always the brightest, the best, the most learned, the most selfless of all creatures. The volume of this praise is high and the veracity, obviously, is low. But here is the problem: this bragging seems customary in the Conservative community. Which community standards should be operative: that of the Conservative world, or that of the larger community ? In other words, is this synagogue practice an instance of flagrant bragging ?

I will end my little disquisition on boasting on this uncertain note, just to prove my own modesty: I don't have all the answers.

It is clear that flagrant bragging, as the Parsonian sociologists used to say, serves important "functions." The world would certainly be different without it. But I myself think that it is at least useful to identify bragging, especially flagrant bragging, because the practice impinges so importantly on the ethic of truth. Even if we do not wish to be "moralistic" and condemn bragging (God forbid !), we should at least know the difference between a braggart's account and that of someone more restrained by the truth.

The Volkswagen and I

We have had Volkswagens off and on since the 60's. They have been more or less OK as automobiles, although it's hard to forget the company's origins in the Nazi period. The very name "Volkswagen," after all, is a piece of Nazi-German.

Well, this is the end of my relationship with this company. We have just traded in our '99 New Beetle. During the nine years of misplaced pride of ownership, it was hard to see its inexcusable downsides. I did, and still do, love the looks of the car, but not enough to overlook its grave defaults:

1) It sits too low off the ground. This caused us at least two expensive repairs because the car could not avoid objects and curves on the ground.

2) The visibility from inside the car is worse than in any other car that I have ever driven. It's very difficult to see what's coming from behind, and even difficult to see what's on its sides.

3) The service, as exemplified by the local VW dealer, is poor. Service hours are scheduled to accommodate the dealer, not the customer.

4) The inside space is cramped, the space in the trunk is laughable.

5) Repair history, as reported by Consumer Union, is below average.

I am now driving a Honda Civic, and driving has become a pleasure once again.

Auf Wiedersehen.

Hunger

This picture by Käthe Kollwitz hung in my childhood home in Berlin when I grew up, and later in my mother's apartment in Washington Heights. My nephews and I donated it to the Israel Museum when my mother died some ten years ago.

The picture was part of a leftist Weimar-era teaching, which my parents conveyed to me, that we have an obligation to feed the poor of the world. Everyone I have ever known, or ever hope to know, agrees with this sentiment. But who has made it a priority ? A priority on the level, say, of war-time priorities to protect our freedoms ?

I think that this election year gives an opportunity to rethink priorities. I think that poverty in the Third World, particularly Africa, hangs over all of us as a terrible threat. How can we enjoy what we have when we know that, in Africa alone, there are some 300 million people without enough to eat ?

The problem of poverty is enormously complex, containing at the very least six interrelated components: under-development, governmental greed and corruption, chronic inter-ethnic violence, disease, western indifference and greed, and hunger itself. One expert, Alex de Waal, has done us the tremendous service of reviewing some recent scholarly work, and any thinking on the subject may well start with the study of such materials.

One of the things that I learned from de Waal is that the British government, beginning with Tony Blair, established a new, Cabinet-level Department for International Development
to administer and coordinate British concerns for feeding the hungry. This is more than we have done, it seems to me.

I think that, with due regard for the great complexity of the issue, and the great unlikelihood that fully satisfactory solutions can be found soon, we need more of a sense of urgency on the part of our top political leadership.

Whether you favorite presidential candidate's name starts with an O or an M, will you write to him and ask him to place world hunger somewhere on the top of his concerns ?

Father Pfleger speaks about Farrakhan and Wright

Father Michael Pfleger at Obama's church

Here is the Reverend Otis Moss III, the new pastor at Trinity United Church in Chicago, introducing Father Michael Pfleger. Fr. Pfleger here speaks in support of Senator Obama in the Senator's own church. Ed Lasky gives some background on Fr. Pfleger.

Two articles about Obama-Wright that you DO NOT WANT TO MISS

Peter Wehner

The first of these is an altogether excellent analysis that has just been published by Peter Wehner in the National Review. The article is in the form of twenty-two questions to the Senator about his relationship to the Rev. Wright. For example, there is question number Eight:

When you/those on your campaign cancelled Reverend Wright’s delivery of the invocation when you formally announced your run for the presidency in February 2007, what were the grounds for the cancellation? What did you know about Wright then that moved you to cancel his appearance?

There is a different type of article, also excellent, about Obama's church in this week's New Yorker. It is entitled Project Trinity, by Kelefa Sanneh. Where Wehner is sharply polemical (but, in my view, right on), Sanneh is non-judgmental. His is a scholarly examination of Wright's origins in a certain segment of Black religion. But for all its objectivity and refusal to take sides, it is all the more devastating, IMHO, as a refutation of Obama's defense of his pastor and his church.

Kelefa Sanneh

Obama's Defense: "You Say Guilt By Association"," or YSGBA

In previous postings I have complained, as have many others, that Senator Obama's loyalty to his pastor, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., reflects badly on his fitness for high office. This pastor is on record asking God to "damn America." He is on record as giving high praise to the notorious Minister Farrakhan. And this pastor has reprinted in his "pastor's column," with his specific endorsement, an op-ed piece by a leader of Hamas. (For a description of the virulent, radical anti-Semitism of Hamas, see the New York Times, April 1, 2008). All this, many of us suggest, reflects on Obama, no matter how many or how few of the offending sermons he actually heard first hand.

But those who criticize Barak Obama in this manner are accused, by Obama's friends, of using "guilt by association." We are told that this criterion is illogical and abusive, if not "McCarthyite." So "You Say Guilt by Association," or YSGBA, is presented as a self-contained, self-justifying defense of Obama.

It is interesting that "guilt by association" is not a phrase that is ever used by those who presumably believe in it. Like other such polemical expressions (see, for instance, the article by Klehr and Haynes on "premature anti-Fascist"), it is used by people who accuse others of advocating ideas that they do not, in fact, either advocate or hold.

What can be said about this bugaboo, mostly used by the Left, of "guilt by association" ?

Eliot Spitzer and the Mafia

A few days ago the New York Times ran a story, very prominently on the front page of its Metro Section, entitled "Call Girl Linked to Spitzer Knew Reputed Mob Affiliate." The story was murky but went on for a few hundred words. It seems that a certain Mr. Anthony Scibelli "who the authorities contend is an associate of organized crime" had an acquaintanceship or relationship (of an undisclosed nature) with Ms. Ashley Alexandra Dupré, the professional lady with whom Spitzer is said to have consorted in Washington.

So here it is. Our ex-governor, in addition to all his other sins and problems, seems related, by no more than three or four degrees (depending how you count) to, yes, to the dreaded Mafia.

What are we to make of this story ? Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say that Spitzer, instead of being the relatively unideological figure that he in fact is, were a figure beloved by the Left. In that case we could imagine a "progressive" reaction to the Times's treatment:

This is a clear case of guilt by association ! The New York Times, for reasons best known to itself, sees fit to smear a progressive leader. True, Mr. Spitzer knows Ms. Dupré. But then it is alleged that Ms. Dupré knows a certain Mr. Scibelli (note that there is no proof that she does), and it's also alleged that Mr. Scibelli "is an associate of organized crime" (no proof of that either). But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Dupré is indeed acquainted with Mr. Scibelli, and let's assume further, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Scibelli is a Mafioso. But how does that affect Spitzer ? Mr. Spitzer has had dealings with Ms. Dupré and Ms. Dupré knows Mr. Scibelli. How can that make Mr. Spitzer a Mafioso, except by the fallacious, reactionary, malicious reasoning known as Guilt by Association. Outrageous.

Ambiguities of "Guilt"

This argument in defense of Spitzer -- "You Say Guilt by Association" (YSGBA) -- seems to have validity, at least on the surface. But it will not stand closer examination. The problem lies in what is formally known as the fallacy of equivocation, that is "the misleading use of a word [or words] with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)" (Wikipedia). Both "guilt" and "association" are deeply ambiguous.

Let us start with "guilt."

In the context of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence, a criminal defendant cannot be found "guilty" except by "proof beyond reasonable doubt." This standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, helps to define the very meaning of "guilt" in this context. It is a very high standard for the prosecution, and in effect allows the defendant to benefit from all (reasonable) doubts in the case.

In going about our business in matters not related to crime, in the courts or elsewhere, we do not and cannot be guided by this very rigid, one-sided standard. In civil law cases, for instance, the ordinary standard is much lower, viz. ""balance of probabilities," sometimes termed "preponderance of evidence." (In certain cases an issue is decided by "clear and convincing evidence," which is more demanding than "balance of probabilities," but not as stringent as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt.") So it is clear that whatever "guilt" or wrongdoing may mean outside the realm of the criminal law, it is something quite different from criminal guilt.

Moreover, there is yet another standard that is particularly relevant to a discussion of the behavior of politicians and public servants. If a judge appears to have a conflict of interest, for example, he must recuse himself from the case. Justice not only needs to be done, it must also seen, or appear, to be done. An appearance of impropriety by a public official, whether or not there is a substance of impropriety, cannot be tolerated. Professor Deborah Hellman, among others, has shown that there are good reasons indeed for this rule.

It would certainly appear that Spitzer's second-hand relationship with organized crime is of legitimate interest to the public, as, indeed, is Obama's second-hand relationship with organized anti-Semitism. In either case, there is at least the appearance of something gone awry. This something, absent a criminal prosecution, need not be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt."

The YSGBA defense, then, must fall because of the ambiguity of its use of "guilt." It alleges that those who accuse Obama (or Spitzer) do not use the strict standards of criminal guilt-finding when, in fact, the accusations are not related to crime (Of course there may also be criminal aspects to the Spitzer case, but that is not the issue here.)

The other term of the YSGBA defense, "association," is similarly vague.

Ambiguities of "Association"

We may be "associated" with others in a great variety of ways. When I take a subway train to the Borough of Manhattan, I sit with many others in a subway car, associated with them for the duration of my trip. Some of these fellow-travelers may be felons, but, obviously, this does not make me a felon. The proponents of the YSBGA defense suggest that since some types of association are totally innocent in this way, all association is innocent.

We know, of course, that some association is far from innocent. The criminal law itself recognizes criminal association of various sorts. In addition to provisions dealing with aiding and abetting, there is also the law of conspiracy, which holds a conspirator in a crime to be as guilty as the actual perpetrator.

But beyond the domain of law, our ordinary experience teaches us that the company we keep helps to define who we are. A person who habitually associates with known criminals, for example, is rightfully suspect. My Jewish prayer book enjoins me to ask God every morning to "deliver me this day, and every day, from arrogant men and from arrogance, from a bad man, from a bad companion and from a bad neighbor..." [My thanks to my nephew Butchie for pointing me to this]. The Mishna (Kelim 12,12) tells us that "Who consorts with the unclean becomes himself unclean." The New Testament concurs: "Bad company corrupts good morals" (I Corinthians 15:33).

Conclusion

When we complain about Obama's associations, we do not allege that these associations make him a criminal. We are not bound by a standard of "truth beyond a reasonable doubt." Nor is all association innocent. Some is deeply troubling. We are right in scrutinizing the associations of those who would be President. And Barack Obama's associations are not reassuring.

The Reverend Wright Endorses Hamas

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency today reports that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., long-time pastor of Barak Obama, published an op-ed piece signed by a Hamas leader. The item appeared in the July 22, 2007 edition of his Trinity United Church newspaper on the "Pastor's Page." The op-ed piece justifies attacks on Israeli civilians, and carries a supporting introduction by Mr. Wright.

(The New York Times of April 1, 2008, carries a revealing, front-page report on the virulent anti-Semitism of Hamas.)

Barak Obama issued a statement strongly condemning these views of his pastor. "I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong [Hamas] piece was re-printed in the bulletin,” Obama added.


Obama is a long-time member of Trinity United, and his financial contributions to his church are reported to be substantial ("All told, the [Obama] couple gave $27,500 to [Trinity United] in 2005 and 2006," according to the New York Times of March 26). His moral support to the church has been unwavering. As more and more and more details of the extremist political positions of the church are revealed, Obama's response has been to distance himself from these, but also to repeat, over and over, that he didn't know, that he wasn't there.

I find it very difficult to believe that an intelligent, energetic, and very political man like Obama is perpetually ignorant about what goes on in the church to which he devotes so many of his resources. If he does get to the White House, will he be in similar ignorance about the goings on of his administration ?