

I believe there are some concepts in the world that are absolute and charity is one of them. There is a huge, huge difference between what is legal, what is constitutional and what is right.
Eli and Edythe Broad have not yet met a building they don’t want to see their names on. Do they have the right? Of course. Is it right? Obviously, I think not.
I believe great art museums enrich us all, Jew, non-Jew, atheist, communist, you name it. I am a member of LACMA and my family and I regularly visit area art museums.
But if my enjoyment of art is at the expense of securing the long-term viability of the Jewish people, then I can live without it. I simply can’t equate the two as being morally equivalent.
The Broads have done plenty for the art world. Enough! Time for them to step up and bolster the many worthy Jewish causes.
Some may question whether or not God notes the difference in charitable giving. All I can say is that the God described in the Torah most certainly does—if that matters to the Broads or any other ‘genetic’ Jews.
What, you may ask is a ‘genetic’ Jew? A human whose DNA says s/he is Jewish, but whose behaviors would argue otherwise.
Eli and Edythe Broad are revered among many in the Los Angeles Arts community, as well they should be given all the funds they've donated to support worthy art-related causes.After 8 years of prosperity under President Clinton, we have, in the following 8 years, become bogged down in two wars; we are in a recession brought about by the policies of our lying, incompetent, Republican Administration and supported by a Republican-Controlled Congress; our Constitution has been weakened by the loss of Habeus Corpus, unchecked government spying and torture. For these reason alone the Republicans should not be returned to power. However, John McCain supported all of these Bush Policies, and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, showing that he is largely now inept.
I just read Dean Rotbart's brilliant tongue-in-cheek apology for the Jewish vote for Barack Obama. The tip-off, of course, was his naming of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher as deserving of an apology.
These talking heads -- with Rush Limbaugh -- have committed one of the worst of Jewish sins, i.e., malicious gossip. Rotbart even repeats some of them in his positive take on guilt by association and fear-mongering.
Unfortunately, as Rotbart points out, there are about 22 percent of Jewish voters who will look upon his opinion piece as being serious, which supports President Lincoln's observation that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and gave demagogic credence to the poisonous venom that spews like raw sewage from the convoluted minds and mouths of conservative television and radio hosts.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and embraced hatred, bigotry and fear, while eschewing the traditional Judaic values of love, acceptance and hope.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and want the continuation of the war in Iraq, a war that has left Israel with more enemies and fewer choices and options to chose from.
I apologize for the 22 percent of Jewish voters who voted Republican and abandoned the majority of non-Jews who elected a president that carefully addresses the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio and seeks to end the Wild West shootout that has become the Republican substitute for thoughtful diplomacy.
And finally, I apologize for Rotbart and his ideological cousins at the RJC, who believe that in Orwellian doublespeak, a fact is an epithet and a falsehood is the truth.
I think the definition of spam involves me sending out mass emails to persons I don't know. Obviously, we now know each other. I think the law would say if you don't want email from me, block it or don't open it.<< MORE >>
When I studied law, I seem to recall that if you send me mail and ask me to abide by any "restrictions," I'm under no obligation to do so unless I previously agreed to some such restriction, which I most certainly never did.
I'm a journalist and a blogger. You knew that when you emailed me. If you didn't want me to publish what you write to me, you probably shouldn't have sent it.
Could it be that you are full of yourself when you write one-on-one, but sheepish to stand in public exposed for the shallow intellect that you really are? Just curious.
DEAN
"The fact of the matter is that President Obama is restoring America's reputation among our allies and the cancer that is global terrorism is too large for any one nation to combat," said Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. "The tragedies of Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas and Charlotte should not be politicized," she added.
In the November 19th edition of the paper, three letters to the editor concerning my column were published. A few additional letters are included in the Jewish Journal's online edition. Undoubtedly the paper received many more comments. Mr. Brooks,
I am a Los Angeles-based writer and have a question about your remarks in the Op-Ed titled "Tough Questions about Obama..."
I am planning to comment on your thoughts and hope you can clarify your thinking so I don't inadvertantly misrepresent your remarks.
What most caught my attention was this sentence: "Obama was unable to exceed Bill Clinton or Al Gore, and only slightly improved on John Kerry's support in the Jewish community."
To my eyes, such a result is a huge disgrace. Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry didn't have Obama's long record of associations with anti-Jewish preachers and other hateful leaders. That the Jewish community actually voted Democratic in numbers similar to past Presidential elections sets off five-bell alarms with me.
What am I missing? If the Jewish community didn't abandon the Democratic party in 2008 with Obama at the head of its ticket, what would it take for them to vote Republican?
<< MORE >>
Fox News' Chief Political Correspondent, Carl Cameron, who covered the McCain campaign, breathlessly reported on the O'Reilly Factor about McCain insiders who were now letting out the 'truth' about how dumb, how uncooperative, how greedy and how bitchy Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin really is.To single out a specific example is probably unfair because there are so many worthy examples. But I simply can't let pass unnoticed the incendiary, flagrant television dispatch I witnessed the day after the election.
![]()
Cameron
Early on, they [McCain operatives] began to discover that there were these gaps in her knowledge. I just want to rattle off a couple of the things that insiders say she just simply didn't know. There were real problems with basic civics, government structures; municipal state and federal government responsibilities. She didn't know the nations involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement, we're told. She didn't understand, McCain aides told me today, that Africa was a continent and not a country, and actually asked them -- they argue, they say -- if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent.And this Leona Helmsley-like characterization from Cameron*:
There are stories that say she would look at her press clippings in the morning and throw what has been described to me as "tantrums." .... They have suggested that she's a bit of a shopoholic and that on more than one occasion she would go out and buy clothes that to many seemed unnecessary because the campaign had already provided her with a very large wardrobe, uh, a wardrobe that famously rang up a bill of $150,000, mostly because they bought extra sizes to make sure everything fit.For the sake of argument, let's say that Cameron's reporting is 100% accurate. One does not have to be a fan of the Alaska governor to realize Cameron's unprofessionalism in conveying those "facts' in a vacuum.
Is it acceptable for financial journalists to take their children to special screenings of soon-to-be-released films, when those children don't have a byline and could never get in if mom or pop weren't a journalist?
![]() |
| Medill's Richard Hainey |
It's a businessman's fantasy: Sexy model Diana Dondoe clad only in recent editions of The Wall Street Journal that have been contoured to fit her sumptuous figure by none other than fashion bad-boy designer Roland Mouret. |
| A Chance Encounter: Will and Talya |
| |
| The paparazzi were so focused here... | ...they missed Minnie and her pooch |
![]() | |
![]() | |
"He is still quite handsome, with his patrician cast of features and exceedingly erect carriage; his salient chest suggests military training, and his blond hair is still worn high, though time has thinned it considerably.
He was clad in light tweeds, with white boutonnikre and kerchief in evidence, the note being repeated by white spats, which he always wears. He had a bulldog in leash, smart with its curious clown-like ruff of heavy leather trimmed with monkey fur, and the frantic greetings between it and Mme. Carolus-Duran's dog, one of the same litter, stopped all conversation temporarily and threatened the physical equilibrium of guests and furniture alike."