Last Week

I have good news (if only for me) and bad news.

First the good news. Nir Barkat is ready to be mayor of Jerusalem as of this Thursday (4.Dec). Ha'artez reported on Thursday that his coalition is in place. For the first time in nearly four decades (!), there isn't a haredi party in the coalition.

The bad news is the events in Mumbai. The senseless deaths of everyone especially those at the Habad House--the Rabbi and his wife--grieves me endlessly. For three days the world waited on the edge of their seats to see how the terrorist standoff would end and who would survive. Only later was it discovered that everyone (who died) at Habad House was murdered Wednesday evening. Their child is now an orphan.

Baruch Dayan Emet.

Sink or bail them out?

The current economic situation has governments reeling to figure out how to "calm the rough waters" of the economic upheavals. Financial institutions--banks, insurance companies and pension funds--are failing, major corporations--including the "Big 3 car makers" (Chrysler, Ford and GM)--are also searching for a way out of their financial morass. And, then, there's the country of Iceland which was on the brink of bankruptcy due to the failure of its larger banks until the international community and the IMF came to its rescue. Some have suggested parallels to The Great Depression.

To extend the nautical metaphor, what's to be done with the "sinking ship"? Do we save those on board (everyone, only the passengers, the crew, the captain, or some combination?), bail out the water (so it continues to float and continue on its journey as before?) or, let it sink (writing off the 'asset' and starting fresh)?

Somehow, the fact that the people most responsible for the current state of affairs, the government officials who pushed for massive deregulation, money mangers (CEO's and other industry leaders) who engaged in risky behavior--lending to the truly credit unworthy, sub-prime lenders, and decision-makers (and those with influence) who refused to engage in prudent thinking and behavior that the "housing bubble" was just that a bubble and an infinite trend -- should profit from their irresponsible behavior irks me. Yes, the companies in trouble are frequently large and their failure could snowball, however, everyone needs to be held accountable for their behavior. Executive pay should reflect actual results (as opposed to stock prices and short-term profits), not just small companies,who frequently lack the lobbying power of the large and multinational corporations, should be 'allowed' (forced) to declare bankruptcy.

It's truly ironic that the free enterprise, "objectivism" (a la Ayn Rand) of the George W Bush administration has become the lead voice for bailing out the large financial institutions -- pure socialism at its finest. Then, of course, GWB needs to continue protecting and promoting the interests of his friends (or those of Dick Cheney).

Let's protect the interests of the more innocent--since no one is completely innocent or without blame/responsibility--segments of the affected population. The investors, especially those too old to wait around to recoup their "losses", the workers being laid off due to the needed staff cuts retrenchments. Let the CEO's and their ilk face the proverbial drummer.

Let the boats sink while rescuing the passengers and lowly crew.

Gold dust in my eyes ...

Nir Barkat won the Jerusalem mayoral race handily, garnering 51% of the vote to Meir Porush's 41%. While it wasn't the revolution as portrayed by the press, it was a welcome sign that the rule -- or at least the mayor's chair -- has returned to secular (non-haredi) hands. What was truly amazing is the voter turnout -- almost all Jews(the Arabs boycotted the election) -- was 42%. The Barkat campaign workd hard to bring out the secular vote and the haredi communities were split leaving some to not vote (their Rabbis told them nothing) and others like the Ger Hasidim to actually vote for Barkat!


Several days later (though not yet appearing on the City of Jerusalem website), the results of the council elections appeared: UTJ (Ashkenazi Haredi) garnered 8 seats, Barkat's group 6, Shas (Sfardi Haredi) 5, NRP and Meretz each 3, Hitarut Yerushalayim 2 and Likud, Israel Beitaynu, Piskat Ze'ev and L'mayan Yerushalayim all received one seat.

What does all this mean?

1. A non-haredi government/coalition is possible. Excluding UTJ and Shas the coalition would still have 18 seats (out of 31).
2. Should the NRP + another party refuse to join, Barkat will not have a ruling majority. Creating a majority will require enticing a religious party to join at the cost of 'paying their price'.

In the case of 2, I fear a repetition of the governance of the last 20 years (the tail-end of Kolleck until present). Any and all attempts by Barkat to revitalize the city--principally by making Jerusalem a more modern and open city--culturally, commercially will fail. The city will continue its free fall and remain an economically distressed area and the non-haredi populations will continue to flee the city.

He will also need to devise a way to make an end run around the council to achieve his goals.

While it was wonderful that Barkat was able to get out the vote for the election, I'm not sure people are willing to be actively involved as "change agents" for the entire (or even part) of the five year term of office.

Unless Barkat establishes a truly supportive city council coalition, it'll be SOS (same old s*****). It won't even be a reformation, never mind, a revolution.

Jerusalem Goes to the Polls

Today (Tues 11.11.08) is local election day in Israel, a time for people to complain how poorly the city is run and then stay away from the polls because the choices are so poor and besides, it doesn't really matter who wins.


For me, at least in Jerusalem, it does matter to me who becomes mayor and controls the city council. The status quo can't continue. The haredi control of council has strangled and stifled the growth of Jerusalem for decades--since the reign of Teddy Kolleck. Having a mayor whose eye is not on Kikar Safra (the location of City Hall) but somewhere else--the Knesset (Olmert) or Kikar Shabbat (the centre of Mea Sharim/Haredi Judaism) has turned Jerusalem into one of the poorest city in Israel.


This time around, four people are running for mayor. Two front runners, Meir Porush (Haredi and currently Member of Knesset) and Nir Barkat ('secular', former high tech entrepreneur and head of the opposition in the Jerusalem city council), and two also-rans, Arcardi Gaydamak and Dan Biron. The latter two, as far as I'm concerned, serve as protest votes and a way to split the non-haredi vote thus, assuring a Porush victory. Whereas, the non-haredi population seems to be concerned by personality, the haredi population tends to vote as a bloc--as dictated by their Rabbi (or "supreme leader"). Thus, haredi candidates (=those supported by the community) are assured of a guaranteed number of votes. (Should the haredi communal leadership refuse to endorse anyone, the haredi vote is negligible. I don't think that'll happen now, the powerful allure of money and power is too strong for all involved to ignore the haredi population.)


While I certainly understand that nether of front runners is "perfect", elections rarely are. They're more often a choice between worse and slightly less bad. If true, then it's a matter of holding your nose and voting for the least offensive choice. To either refuse to vote at all or cast a protest vote only serves to dilute the opportunity to create real change. A number of "leftists" I know are offended by Barkat's pronouncements (anti-Palestinian) and refuse to vote for Porush. Their refusal to 'hold their nose' means that the next five years will stink in Jerusalem.


Whatever political maneuvering Nir Brakat has engaged in, to better assure his election, at least he has his eye on Kikar Safra. He seems genuinely concerned about the welfare of all of Jerusalem and not just a selected few. After losing the last municipal election five years ago, he stuck it out sitting in the opposition of city council (when he could have just said "forget about it the hassle and frustration isn't worth the effort"). I respect that.

Up until a week ago, I had no idea idea who to vote for in the council portion of the election. My worst case scenario was Nir Barkat as mayor with a haredi council as what happened during the reign of Teddy Kolleck (and Ehud Olmert). Both found it necessary to achieve some of their goals--mostly in the cultural area--by organizing a (new) Jerusalem Foundation.

After attending a parlor meeting, I decided to stop worrying based on the assumption that if Barkat wins the mayoral race will also mean a non-haredi council.

The question then became which 'party' to vote for. Since a vote for a group that doesn't pass the vote threshold is considered a "spoiled ballot" and doesn't count a a vote (as does a blank ballot/ piece of paper).

At the meeting were two parties -- Hit'toarut Yerushalyim and Barkat. After listening to both, I realize my best option was to vote for Barkat and not split the non-haredi vote among the smaller parties.

STOP.

According to the telephone poll of Channel 1, Barkat will be the next mayor. YAY and we'll see.

The End is Near...2008 US Elections

After two years, the 2008 US Presidential elections are over. Voting is today. The only sure thing is this election represents the end of the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidency. Whether it represents a new beginning (Obama) or more of the same (McCain) remains to be seen.

While my preference is an Obama win and he is leading in the polls by a significant margin, stranger things have happened. McCain has run a terrible campaign, but that has not stopped him and his (Rove-trained) team from running a personally negative campaign. I'm also not sure if America is really ready for an African-American (a term invented for Barack Obama whose father was African and his mother a white American) President and if the GOP is willing to let ALL voters determine the victor instead of relying on "dirty tricks" (all the while claiming to be concerned about voter fraud.)

As well as Obama has run his campaign; kept his cool throughout a tough Primary campaign against especially Hilliary Clinton and the actual presidential campaign, stayed on message including raising many of the important issues confronting America (and the world) -- health care, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the wider war against terror), the collapsing economy, education ... -- and choosing his team including the VP (Joe Biden) carefully, McCain has appeared tired (and his high energy), impulsive and angry.

The decision to (a) choose Sarah Palin as his VP, (b) temporarily suspend his campaign when the financial crisis broke open, (c) go personally negative where just some of actions that made his campaign poorly run. Despite cultivating the image of being a "maverick" , McCain showed himself to be a Bush want-to-be. His recent voting record, 90% pro-Bush, the number of GW Bush alumni on his staff has shown him to be a closet Bushie.

After eight disastrous years of a GW Bush administration, America is ready for real change. Will they vote for Obama or fall for McCain?

Despite the lack of government experience, Obama has shown himself to be "presidential". His ability to appear (and I believe actually) thoughtful and intelligent will be a vast improvement on the politically manipulative and sloppy management style of the Bush White House. McCain, despite his rhetoric, will be a continuation of the Bush mismanagement -- appointing cronies to sensitive positions (e.g. FEMA), irresponsible government deregulation (which I believe greatly contributed to the economic/financial meltdown), staying in Iraq while ignoring Afghanistan, alienating old-time allies and further aggravating the international standing of America throughout the globe and poor stewardship of the global environment. The only change during the McCain administration would be cosmetic.

Then, there's Sarah Palin. Where the hell did he find her and why if he had four months to vet all his potential VP candidates, did he mess up with her; her pregnant 17 year old daughter (who epitomizes the adage "Abstinence makes the heart go fonder"), the allegations of overstepping her powers as govenor (tryig to fire her ex brother-in-law), her hiring practices as mayor and governor (friends > competence, a la GW Bush) ... Despite seeking to cultivate her image as a simple "hockey mom" the RNC went out and spent $150K on outfitting her (why did they wait until the Republican National Convention to buy clothes). Despite calling for "common values" and cleaning up Washington, she refused to release her financial statement (which shown her income to be far above the average) and health statement until the last minute, in the face of mounting public displeasure.

America doesn't need an average person to lead, -- it tried that with GWB-- it needs someone willing and able to lead with intelligence and forethought. Someone willing and able to excite and motivate others to stretch and make America great. Obama by getting previously apathic and alienated voters to come to the polls and vote, says a great deal about his ability to lead America to even greater things over the next four years.

Hopefully, the rest of America will agree and welcome him as the next President of the United States of America.