fbpx

July 13, 2007

GOOD AS (Jonathan) GOLD

“The plov is great.”

Jonathan Gold, the LA Weekly’s restaurant critic and the 2007 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, e-mailed me the above about Uzbekistan (the restaurant on La Brea, not the country), where we were planning to meet.

He assumed, of course, that I knew what plov is — I didn’t then, but I do now; it’s a rice dish, like pilaf, usually made with lamb and cooked in a pot. It’s common in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, but not in Los Angeles. Gold has described it as “the grandfather of all pilafs, dense and slightly oily, more like dried rice than ordinary pilaf, spiked with long-cooked carrots and crisp-edged chunks of lamb, flavored with a peculiar brand of Uzbek cumin seed that is halfway between cumin and caraway.”

The Pulitzer judges noted Gold’s knowledge of and enthusiasm for dishes that might seem obscure, praising his “zestful, wide-ranging restaurant reviews, which express the delight of an erudite eater.” He is the first food critic to be awarded a Pulitzer, and his was the first won by the LA Weekly, an alternative newspaper edited by Laurie Ochoa, who is also Gold’s wife. That must have been a good week in their home.

Gold has been writing about food for more than two decades — his column, “Counter Intelligence,” began appearing in the LA Weekly in 1986, moved to the Los Angeles Times in the early 1990s and then returned to the Weekly. (When I first moved to L.A. more than a decade ago, I was given two essential items: a Thomas guide and a copy of his book, “Counter Intelligence.”) He has single-handedly expanded where and what Los Angelenos will eat — educating our palates about food high and low, dear and cheap, comforting and downright scary.

Jonathan Gold’s writing brims with wit and flair and is fun to read, whether you ever eat a dish he describes or not. He is the Walt Whitman of L.A. food: His reviews contain the multitudes of our cuisines; he is our West Coast Calvin Trillin, intrepid in his exploration and reportage; an S.J. Perelman of food writing, threading his work with pop culture references that crackle with gusto.

Gold describes himself as “an L.A. guy through and through.”

As we ripped into some Uzbek bread, which resembled a bialy the size of a plate, Gold recounted that until his family moved to the Westside when he was 10, he lived south of Baldwin Hills.

“My dad loved to eat,” Gold recalled, saying that his parents “went to every restaurant,” including such long-forgotten haunts as Edna Earle’s Fog Cutter Restaurant on La Brea and Perino’s on Wilshire. Their shul was Wilshire Boulevard Temple, and in keeping with reform tradition, Sunday nights were reserved for Chinese food. “Our local was Café de Chine on Fairfax” and, after that closed, Twin Dragon on Pico. “When I was in sixth grade, I won all kinds of contests for writing poems about food.” Given that Gold’s work was once posted on the bulletin board at Culver Elementary, you could say the writing was already on the wall, but early on it was music, not food, that drove Gold.

Gold studied composition and conducting at UCLA. He played the cello. However, when, as he puts it, “adolescence hit late and it hit hard,” Gold became obsessed with punk rock. He began spending his time in bands, going to clubs — for a while he even ran the Anti-Club in Hollywood (which the LA Weekly listed in its 20th anniversary issue as one of their readers’ top 20 L.A. clubs of the last decades).

One benefit of the musician’s schedule (sound check at 6 p.m., on stage at 11) was that there was always loads of time to kill, and Gold spent it going to restaurants.

In his senior year in high school, he had a girlfriend whose mother was a physics professor and, in his estimation, “a fantastic, fantastic, Chinese cook.” He arranged to have dinner at their house as often as possible. He began exploring new places in Chinatown and Monterey Park. “It was just incredible, the freshness of the food,” he recalls. “You could go to the same place 30 times in a row and never get the same dish.”

He became obsessive in his eating habits. “As a lark, when I was 20, I decided to eat at every restaurant on Pico Boulevard.” Nonetheless, he says he still “never thought of myself as a food person.”

Gold supported himself by proofreading, working first at a law firm in Century City and then at the LA Weekly, but he still thought of himself as a music person. When he first wrote for the Weekly it was about opera and classical music.

One day, however, Jay Levin, then the Weekly’s editor, asked Gold if he wanted to edit the biannual restaurant issue. “I turned out to be good at it,” Gold said.

Nonetheless, Gold continued to write about music — for Rolling Stone, Spin, Vanity Fair and Details (where he was a contributing editor). During the 1990s, he got to spend time with Nirvana but was often the go-to-guy for pieces on West Coast rap, writing about NWA , Eazy E, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, and Young MC.

At one point, Gold spent so much time around Snoop Dog that he “felt like Boswell to his Dr. Johnson.” Would that have made him the Dizzle to Fo Shizzle?

Gold also wrote about heavy metal for the L.A. Times. However, late one night in the 1990s, when the lead singer of a band told Gold that he’d passed on going to Columbia to move to New York’s Chinatown to pursue his rock-and-roll dreams, Gold’s reaction was, “Your poor parents!” He knew then it was “time to stop writing about bands.” Besides, by then Gold was in demand as a food writer.

Over the years, Gold has written about food for California magazine (under the legendary Harold Hayes), the L.A. Times and Gourmet (both under Ruth Reichl). Despite a brief sojourn in New York for Gourmet, Gold has lived (and fressed) in Los Angeles for most his life, which puts Gold in a great position to discuss how the restaurant scene in Los Angeles became so vibrant, particularly as regards ethnic food.

Gold attributes great importance to the 1984 L.A. Olympics. “There was a sense around the time of the Olympics in 1984 that suddenly Los Angeles was this international city,” he says. “I don’t think anyone had thought of it that way before.”

Gold also believes the growth of California’s ethnic cuisines are directly related to the global political events of the 1980s and 1990s: the wars in Central America which led substantial numbers of El Salvadorans, Ecuadorians, Hondurans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans to make Los Angeles home; the fall of the shah in Iran, which led to the establishment of the Persian community here; and the concerns over Hong Kong coming under mainland control, which spurred a new wave of emigration. Each new community brought its cooking with it, and new restaurants began to bloom.

At the same time, Los Angeles’ Mexican restaurants, many of which were run by second-generation Americans, found themselves challenged by new establishments specializing in specific regional cooking. Beyond that, Los Angeles’ Armenian, Thai and Korean restaurants continued to thrive, each offering their distinctive cuisines for Gold to sample on our behalf.

However, unlike other American cites, Los Angeles is so spread out and the communities are so insular that restaurants can serve the food of a particular region, or a particular city, for an audience that is almost entirely their own and never even have an English language menu.

“In L.A.’s Koreatown,” Gold gave as an example, a Korean restaurant “may never see a non-Korean customer.”

How, you may wonder, can Gold even write about these various cuisines with any authority?

“I do my homework,” he said. He owns more than 3,000 cookbooks, and he reads them. “By the time I write about a cuisine, I will have read most of what there is to read about it in English,” he said.

“I don’t go to a restaurant once, I go many times.” The anecdote, which he has told several times since winning the Pulitzer, is of the Taiwanese restaurant that he hated, whose dishes he found repulsive, but that he kept going back to because he knew, in his words, that there was “intelligence at work in the kitchen.”

As for his writing, Gold says: “Something that I’ve worked really, really hard at over the years [is] to be able to describe a dish [in a way] that makes you able to taste it.”

Here’s his description of the house-special crab at Macau Street restaurant in Monterey Park: “a plump, honestly sized crustacean dipped in thin batter, dusted with spices and fried to a glorious crackle, a pile of salty dismembered parts sprinkled with a handful of pulverized fried garlic and just enough chili slices to set your mouth aglow.” Hungry yet? I’m willing to bet that even if you keep kosher, and never have and never will taste crab, you know what he means.

Gold also enjoys working pop culture references into his reviews “because food isn’t the only world, it’s part of the world, and I think one of the most important things is to put it into perspective. When I write about a place, I try almost every time … to show where it might fit into your life.”

Here’s a recent example, from a review of A-Won restaurant in his recent “99 essential L.A. restaurants”: “Good hwe dup bap — and A-won’s is very good — is as alive and vivid and evanescent as a wildflower, the taste of the spring’s first asparagus, or the throwaway line in a Lilly Allen song that breaks your heart.”

Makes you wonder: Who’s iPod is he playing?

Midway into our meal, we had done justice to the samsa, a puff pastry with ground meat — sort of a meat patty on steroids — that Gold judged to be “the bomb”; paid homage to the chuchvara, fried meat dumplings; had a degustation of an assortment of Tashkent-style salads; and had started to tuck into the plov.

As Gold remarked: “It’s a grand thing to be a restaurant critic in the age of lipitor.”

Gold is tall, with rock-and-roll long hair that was once blond (he could pass for the manager of the band in “Spinal Tap”) — and although he works out regularly, he would not be mistaken for an ironman competitor. Still, as he noted, given that his cholesterol is lower than it’s ever been, “I’m still a fat guy. But I’m a healthier fat guy.”

The Pulitzer was “completely unexpected,” Gold says. “The Pulitzer traditionally goes to architecture writers and classical musical writers — you know: grown-ups.” He is particularly happy for the recognition it brings to the Weekly. “My wife is the editor-in-chief and she works so hard, she puts out such great work…. It’s not like the family tailor shop, but it’s mostly like the family tailor shop.”

Asked to assess his contribution to Los Angeles, Gold says, “If I’ve done one thing in my 25 years, I hope I’ve let Angelenos know to not be quite so afraid of their neighborhoods — that you can drive to Bell Gardens and have a great meal and a great experience.”

You might think that a meal with Gold is an exercise in excess or a CSI-type analysis of trace elements. But to the contrary, Gold is affable, friendly, relaxed. At lunch, he is not so much a food critic, as a restaurant enthusiast — he’s just happy to be eating.

I asked Gold how he maintains his enthusiasm, given how long he’s been reviewing restaurants. “It’s strange,” he admitted. “I still get excited every time I go into a new restaurant. I keep hoping that I’m going to have something that blows me away. Like today with this plov….” Gold’s face lit up:

“The plov,” he said, “is so good, really good.”

GOOD AS (Jonathan) GOLD Read More »

Bush’s ‘neocons’: far from the best and the brightest

A significant shift in American political history occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s when a group of “Cold War intellectuals,” a number of whom were Jewish, defected from the liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party.

Alienated by the anti-war movement and by what they saw as ambivalence on the Democratic left about Israel’s security, they first coalesced around the presidential candidacy of centrist Democrat Henry “Scoop” Jackson in 1972.

Most eventually moved over to the Republican Party under President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy alter ego, Henry Kissinger. Among them were Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Ben Wattenberg. Some of today’s neocons, including Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams and Douglas Feith got their start with the Jackson team.

While they were small in number, their intellectual influence was substantial. Their defection from the Democrats helped stamp the post-Vietnam Democratic Party as “soft on defense” and added heft to Nixon’s administration. (This came despite Nixon’s known antipathy to Jews, so vividly revealed later in the White House tapes.) Nixon’s highly pragmatic foreign policy led to major agreements with the Soviet Union and a historic opening to the People’s Republic of China. He was supportive of Israel during the traumatic 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Cold War intellectuals felt vindicated.

Fast forward to 2007, and we see what has happened to this neoconservative movement. We find Bill Kristol, Irving Kristol’s son and editor of the Weekly Standard; Paul Wolfowitz, just ousted from the World Bank and safely landed at the American Enterprise Institute; Eliot Abrams, back in government after his deep involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal; and Douglas Feith, one of the architects of the Iraq war. Scooter Libby, just released from his prison destiny by an indulgent president, is a member in good standing. They have a friend and ally in Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).

Today’s neocons are far from the best and the brightest.

They are largely amateur armchair warriors given to cheap rhetoric and bombast. They toss around “regime change” as if governments will fall when they snap their fingers. While the Cold War intellectuals may have been arrogant, they were right about some important things. In particular, they championed the restoration of a bipartisan Cold War consensus that had fractured under the strain of the Vietnam War and challenged Democrats to avoid turning opposition to the war into opposition to a strong national defense. Today’s neocons, by contrast, have managed to be wrong about, basically, everything: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, that the war would cost American taxpayers not a dime and that the struggle would be over in months.

Unlike the proudly realistic Cold War intellectuals, the neocons are idealists, scorning those who question their ideas as “reality based.” They see Israel as a key part of their global plan, both helping America in the Middle East (where, conveniently, oil is plentiful), and guaranteeing Israel’s security under an umbrella of unchecked, unilateral American power. They ignore Israel’s need to negotiate complex arrangements to survive in a very tough neighborhood, while leaning on its big brother in Washington.

Undeterred by the failure of the Iraq war they helped create, the neocons are now trying to drag the United States and Israel into a war with Iran, and potentially into a global war with much of the Islamic world. Sen. Lieberman says that Iran has already started the war with the United States by funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and by allegedly supporting insurgents in Iraq, all the while proclaiming — against all evidence — the success of the surge in Iraq. Lieberman is talking up the value of bombing Iran. The hallmarks of the contemporary neocons are an indifference to the facts on the ground combined with a belligerent and bellicose stance toward the world. How did it come to this?

The strength of the original neoconservative movement was pragmatism in contrast to what they perceived as the idealistic thinking of the peace movement. They called Democrats naive on foreign policy and charged that they neither appreciated the balance of power in world affairs nor understood the threat of force as an alternative to the use of force. They admired Nixon’s ability to play Russia against China and to project enough force to convince adversaries to negotiate. This was a lesson that Democratic president Bill Clinton applied successfully in stopping the genocide in Bosnia.

But while the Democrats moved back toward the center on foreign policy, the neocons became more radical. Even in the beginning, some were devoted to blocking détente with the Soviet Union and ratcheting up the Soviet threat beyond what the facts warranted. Some joined the first Bush administration, where they argued that at the conclusion of the Gulf War, the president should have taken Baghdad and overthrown Saddam Hussein. Unlike the first President Bush, they refused to consider the impact on regional stability or the balance of power of the ouster of Saddam’s regime. It never mattered to them that the United States was using Saddam to contain Iran. On the outs with the president, who did not favor their aggressive views, they bided their time in conservative think tanks during the Clinton years. They became even more adept at exaggerating global threats, from Iraq to the Islamic world as a whole.

Their ideas grew more and more expansive, until their Project for a New American Century unveiled a grand vision of a dominant America astride a passive world, dictating terms to one and all, taking resources as it wished. All they needed was a president who would back their plan, despite its obvious and near-lunatic flaws. With the accession of George W. Bush, and more importantly, Dick Cheney, in 2001, they finally had leaders whose arrogance matched their vision.

And so they remain in the good graces of Bush and Cheney, despite the tatters they have all made of American foreign policy. As long as Cheney remains the dominant force in the administration, the neocons can survive the political implosion of the White House. In fact, the president risked substantial political fallout to short-circuit the legal process and keep Cheney’s aide Libby out of jail.

Bush’s ‘neocons’: far from the best and the brightest Read More »

Hamas’ Gaza takeover spurs new thinking on ‘two-state solution’

For years the “two-state solution,” envisioning Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace, has been the almost exclusive formula for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the Hamas takeover of Gaza last month is challenging conventional wisdom. Following the coup, politicians and pundits are expressing grave doubts about the viability of the two-state concept and are floating new alternatives.

The problem is simple: With Hamas in control in Gaza and the rival Fatah ruling the West Bank, how can a unified Palestinian state be established in the West Bank and Gaza?

In other words, with Hamas’ growing strength and Fatah’s weakness reflected in the Gaza takeover, how can Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah make a two-state deal with Israel that would stick?

The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan are due in Israel this week, representing the Arab League in its first visit to the country. The delegation will discuss the threat posed by Hamas and Islamic extremism, as well as the 22-nation league’s peace proposal. The plan offers full Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for its full withdrawal from lands captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, repatriation of Palestinian refugees and the creation of a Palestinian state.

But the Arab League plan is unlikely to provide a framework to circumvent the Hamas-Fatah split. Indeed, it will likely only get off the ground if there is significant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track.

Following are some of the new ideas that would circumvent the changes on the Palestinian side of the equation:

The Return of the Jordanian Option:

For many years the Labor Party in Israel advocated solving the Palestinian problem in a deal with Jordan, which would take back most of the West Bank, annex Gaza and establish a Jordanian-Palestinian federation or confederation. This idea, without the Gaza element, is now enjoying something of revival. A number of conservative American think tanks are suggesting some form of political connection between Jordan and the West Bank as the most practical option in the new circumstances.

The Palestinian radicals in Gaza would be circumvented, and the moderates in the West Bank would be buttressed by a union with the pro-Western Hashemite monarchy. Privately, some senior Fatah people, once mortal enemies of the Hashemites, claim to be interested. Former Jordanian Prime Minister Abdel Salam Majali, who reportedly backs the confederation idea, maintains that it has significant grassroots support.

Palestinian research seems to bear him out. A recent poll conducted by Khalil Shikaki of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that as many as 42 percent of Palestinians would back a union with Jordan.

But here’s the problem: The Jordanian king and current prime minister are dead-set against the federation-confederation proposal.

“We reject the formula of confederation and federation, and we believe that proposing this issue at this specific point in time is a conspiracy against both Palestine and Jordan,” King Abdullah declared in early July.

The non-Palestinian East Bank elite around Abdullah have no interest in co-opting more than 2 million West Bank Palestinians into the kingdom and significantly worsening the demographic balance against them. Nor do they relish the prospect of taking Israel’s place in policing radical hot spots like Nablus or Hebron.

The Regional Solution:

For the Israeli right, the Hamas takeover in Gaza illustrates what it sees as the inherent frailty of the two-state approach.

“The Oslo process is predicated on the need for a Palestinian state,” says Benny Elon, chairman of the hawkish National Union, “but everything that has happened since shows that it would destabilize the entire region.”

Elon proposes using the current West Bank-Gaza divide to solve the West Bank question with Jordan and the Gaza problem with Egypt, even though neither Arab state has shown the slightest inclination to be involved in this way.

In Elon’s scheme, Israel and Jordan would negotiate over sharing functional responsibilities for the West Bank, West Bank Palestinians would become citizens of Jordan and vote there, Jewish settlers would be Israeli citizens and vote for the Knesset. In Gaza, the main thrust would be to put an end to Palestinian “refugeehood” by offering refugees a choice between a lump sum and relocation abroad or rehousing in Gaza.

“The goal,” Elon says, “should be to get rid of the Gaza refugee camps over a 10-year period.”

Two States in Stages:

The idea here, favored by the Israeli government, the Israeli left and the U.S. administration, is to maintain the two-state approach but defer its implementation. Israel and the Palestinian moderates under Abbas would negotiate the contours of a final peace deal, with the understanding that any agreements would become operational only when circumstances permitted.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls this a “shelf deal” — a deal to be negotiated, shelved and only used when conditions are ripe. The most outspoken advocate of this approach on the Israeli side is Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who argues that once Palestinian moderates are reassured about the kind of final peace deal being offered, they will have a strong incentive to take the steps they need to get there.

Under this scenario, the boycott on Hamas in Gaza would continue and everyday life in the West Bank would significantly improve, with credit for the change going to the moderates. The problem is that Hamas is unlikely to allow any of this to happen without a major fight. And that could mean more terror rather than less.

Long-Term Cease-Fire With Hamas:

Some Israelis, such as former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi and former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, advocate negotiating a long-term cease-fire, or hudna, with Hamas. They conclude that any serious Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking will have to find a way to include Hamas and allow for its input in the process. Hamas and Fatah would be encouraged to settle their differences, so the Palestinians can present a united front in negotiations with Israel. The goal would be to draw Hamas into an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, which it might not like but would accept for want of a better choice.

Clearly the Hamas takeover in Gaza has led to a shake-up in political thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian track. But just one month after everything changed, it is too early to say whether any of this new thinking will take root or have a significant impact on the conflict.

Hamas’ Gaza takeover spurs new thinking on ‘two-state solution’ Read More »

Another reporter freed? Nothing new under the Palestinian sun

After almost four months, a BBC correspondent in Gaza, Alan Johnston, has been freed.

Johnston was kidnapped at gunpoint in Gaza City on March 12. His captors — members of a radical, shadowy Palestinian group called the Army of Islam — threatened days before his release “to slaughter him like sheep,” and released a video clip in which he appeared with an explosive belt strapped to his body, to be detonated, his captors warned, if there was an attempt to rescue him by force.

Covering Gaza has become more and more dangerous. On Aug. 14, 2006, two journalists working for Fox News — Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig — were abducted by a group nobody had heard of before: the Holy Jihad Brigades. While Johnston’s kidnappers demanded the release of prisoners associated with al Qaeda held in Jordan and the United Kingdom, the people who had abducted the Fox journalists demanded the release of prisoners held by the United States. For a change, Israel wasn’t involved.

Targeting journalists has long been a common practice in the Arab Middle East. When Thomas Friedman was covering Lebanon for UPI in the early 1980s, Western reporters knew that at any given moment they could be either abducted or killed by one of the armed militias of Beirut. “Your newspaper would name a scholarship after you, and that would be the end of it. Any reporter who tells you he wasn’t intimidated or affected by this environment is either crazy or a liar,” wrote Friedman in his book, “From Beirut to Jerusalem.”

After the Israeli pullout from Gaza two years ago, instead of a Palestinian nation-building thrust, the place has become a Beirut-like scene, with a weak (Fatah) central authority and armed militias calling the shots. With Hamas taking over Gaza by force recently, it seems as if some order has been restored. Indeed, by forcing the Army of Islam to release Johnston, Hamas has demonstrated that it is in charge — or at least, the strongest militia in Gaza.

That is precisely the point. The Palestinians don’t have a civil society — they have a web of armed militias fighting each other, sometimes for ideological or religious reasons, and sometimes just for power and even greed. Every Palestinian in Gaza will tell you that the so-called Army of Islam is none other than the Doghmush clan, which simply makes a living out of kidnapping people for ransom.

Furthermore, Hamas itself is an armed militia that has toppled, by force, the lawful government in Gaza. Not to mention the fact that the Palestinian Authority has so many security services in the first place, sometimes conflicting with each other, and definitely not working together to maintain law and order.

Indeed, the Palestinians did go to the ballots, but it was only a facade of democracy: it was actually a contest between armed militias disguised as political parties, with few people really intending to peacefully accept the results of the elections.

When asked this week how the Palestinians could possibly have developed a civil society under Israeli rule, Shlomo Avineri, a world-renowned political scientist from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, borrowed a page from the Palestinian history.

Following World War I, he said, when the British established the Mandate over Palestine, they allowed both the Jewish and the Arab (Palestinian) communities to establish their own respective institutions, under the British rule. The Jews right away created a nascent parliament, held elections and started building agencies that handled most public affairs, like education, settlement, etc.

The Arabs, on the other hand, appointed an assembly of notables, who were never elected and who did almost nothing for their public’s good. And, during the Great Arab Revolt (1936-1939), more Arabs were killed by Arabs in the feud between the two Palestinian clans — the Husseinis and the Nashashibis — than in the fight against the British or the Jews. It seems that nothing is really new under the Palestinian sun.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is coming to the Middle East with an ambitious plan to revive the derailed peace process. We are told that his main focus will be the promotion of civil society among the Palestinians. We all keep our fingers crossed.

I only hope that there will still be foreign journalists around to report on accomplishments.

Uri Dromi is director of international outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem.

This article originally appeared in the Miami Herald.

Another reporter freed? Nothing new under the Palestinian sun Read More »

Berries, Pizza and a Smile

I walked into Trader Joe’s last Sunday and spent $54 on a gallon of milk. Truth be told, it was the strawberries, frozen pizza, extra dog treats, new kind of low-fat cheese and that tempting bottle of Prosecco wine that drove up the bill — none of which I’d intended to buy, and all of which I’ll use … someday. In other words, on this trip, like so many others, I turned a big chunk of disposable income over to Trader Joe’s — and not to Ralphs, Vons or Albertsons.

From October 2003 to February 2004, workers at those three supermarket chains went out on strike to ensure affordable health care, as well as to protect their pensions and job security. It was the longest strike in the history of the supermarket industry, according to the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Web site, and the first major strike of the 21st century. At the end of 141 days, estimates say that the Big Three chains lost more than $2 billion. And in addition to lost wages during the strike, the workers lost a great deal more, having agreed to a two-tier system that allowed stores to bring in new hires at significantly lower wages and benefits.

As we read about the increasingly heated fight brewing now between 65,000 workers and management at those same chains, where union members last month authorized another strike, we’re once again told that it’s all about keeping costs low to prepare for the influx of the big-box stores like Wal-Mart. But the greater threat to the Big Three might be the better service we get at smaller neighborhood haunts, many of them locally owned. My family’s buying habits changed dramatically — and enduringly — as a result of the last strike.

Before 2004, I was a regular Ralphs shopper. We spent as much as $600 to $700 per month there for food and other household supplies. Now, if we spend one-tenth of that per month at the Big Three combined, it’s unusual. That’s because I became comfortable dividing my shopping among places that serve the customer by providing goods efficiently and still at a good price.

This often means several stops during the week — at Trader Joe’s, where we can get most of our staples, and Western Kosher on Fairfax Avenue (great hummus!), Smart & Final (cleaning supplies), the Sunday Hollywood Farmer’s Market (fruit and vegetables) and Mayfair (my favorite salad dressing).

It’s not hard to get over the convenience of the big stores when you get much better service in the smaller venues. I find, too, that it’s often a matter of stopping for a quick drop-in while making my other rounds, without going out of my way.

The issue for me came down to dealing as much as possible with businesses that care. At Mayfair there was no strike because a vow was made from the start to respect the new contract, whatever it might bring. At Trader Joe’s, workers like their jobs because it’s a fun place to work and the company offers benefits and good salaries.

The Big Three are continuing to look for ways to cut costs on their workers’ backs. Not satisfied with the two-tier system they established with the last contract, the owners want to create a third tier, which would even further pinch new hires.

At my favorite Trader Joe’s the other day, the woman ringing me up noticed that I’d picked up some items from the display at the store entrance.

“I guess it’s working,” she said, with evident pride in her voice.

She’d come in at 6 a.m. to set up a strawberry and wine display, and it was clearing out quickly. The day before, she said, the same space had been occupied by basil plants. She was happy with the job and that it made a difference. It was good marketing, but also attractive and seasonal. I fell under her spell.

But there was more to it than that — her sense of the fun of it. I asked her how long she’d been working for the company, and when she told me 13 years, I asked for her take on what was happening with the Big Three; she looked chagrined.

“No comparison,” she said, shaking her head and not wanting to elaborate.

I’m carefully watching the progress in the supermarket negotiations, but I’ve already moved on. The last strike broke my loyalty to the chains and my heart. Many of the employees I’d gotten to know at Ralphs, which I’d patronized for years, left my neighborhood store during their months on the picket lines. Perhaps they couldn’t afford to wait it out, perhaps they found other employment. When the strike was over, I tried to talk with a few clerks in the checkout lines, but they were reticent — working hard to keep the long lines flowing. No eye contact, no time to make a connection. I understand their pain, and I do care, so I’m not boycotting entirely. I still root for the union workers, but the fact is, the ones I know are mostly gone. Those who stayed have always seemed unsettled, insecure — and I hope their lot improves.

In stores where employees are happy, people can be people, and everyone wins. Workers take a moment to ask or answer a question, to engage the customer. That extra second to stop and smile comes easier, and if it’s not too prolonged, even those waiting in lines don’t seem to mind.

The Talmud teaches that we should respect those who work for us, even at our own expense. It makes good business sense. Because that extra smile of satisfaction often leads to the extra dollar spent — on that bottle of wine that wasn’t needed in the first place.

The funny thing is, shopping around has proved not only pleasant, but also just as economical. Because I totaled it up the other day, just to see how much that gallon of milk really cost me. And when I looked at my month’s bills, two years later, even with the extras, even though my money has gone elsewhere, my family’s monthly bill hadn’t really changed.

Rob Eshman is on assignment.

Berries, Pizza and a Smile Read More »

The wrong Zionist response to refugees

It’s hard to escape the impression that the Olmert government is being humane to the refugees from Sudan’s Darfur region for appearance’s sake only. I say this because the government is being amazingly cruel to the refugees from southern Sudan, who are far more numerous than the Darfurians, and who escaped a genocide that took many, many more lives than the one going on in Darfur.

The genocide in Darfur is just better known. The genocide in Darfur has also been taken up as a cause by American Jewish organizations. If Israel expelled the few hundred refugees here from Darfur, it would be a public relations catastrophe. But if Israel expels the 1,000 or so refugees here from southern Sudan, who cares?

Like the Darfurians, the refugees from southern Sudan saw their villages burned and their families slaughtered by Arab terrorosts. Like the Darfurians, they escaped north to Egypt, where they endured years of anti-black racism, brutality and feudal exploitation before crossing Sinai and straggling over the border into Israel.

Some don’t make it; they get shot to death by Egyptian soldiers in Sinai or, if they give themselves up, get beaten viciously.

The refugees began arriving here in 2004 and, until now, the government has refrained from sending them back to Egypt because Egypt didn’t want them, and because Egypt might deport them back to Sudan, where they faced death at the hands of the government or its genocidal marauders.

But now everything’s changed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has agreed to take back the Sudanese refugees and pledged not to deport them back home. So the Israeli government is going to take Mubarak up on his offer.

“For the first few days, the Egyptians will give us a big welcome, and then, when no one’s paying attention anymore, the security forces will do whatever they want to us and no one will know. We’ll either be killed or put in jail for the rest of our lives,” says “George,” a young southern Sudanese survivor who spent nearly a year in Israeli prisons before being allowed to work in the Eilat hotels.

There are hundreds of Sudanese refugees working there with him, all technically under house arrest.

“Everybody is really worried,” he says.

Egypt treats black Africans like garbage, like slaves, and shoots them when they try to escape. Now Egypt is considered by Israel a fit destination for these black Africans, all of whom have been through a holocaust of their own.

I’m waiting for the Israel lobby in the United States to tell Olmert he can’t do this. I’m also waiting for the pro-Israel evangelical Christian organizations to pressure Olmert to change his mind. Of the nearly 1,200 Sudanese refugees here, about 700 are Christians, according to Sigal Rozen, head of Hotline for Migrant Workers, the main Israeli NGO helping these people.

All, or virtually all, of the 700 Christians — “George” being one of them — are from southern Sudan, not Darfur, so they’re on the list of deportees. Israel, which gets the most extraordinary support from the multiracial world of evangelical Christianity, is now going to send 700 Christians back to a Muslim country that persecuted them because they’re black, and that might even send them back to another Muslim country that committed genocide against them because they’re black and Christian.

There’s no debate that something has to be done to stop the increasing flow of refugees, Sudanese and others, crossing the border into Israel. We obviously can’t have an “open door” policy — there are millions of Sudanese refugees living miserably in Egypt.

But the question is: Can we afford to take in more than the estimated 200-400 who originate in Darfur, and I think the answer is yes. I think we can afford to take in at least a few-thousand Sudanese refugees – southerners and Darfurians, Christians and Muslims. The Israeli hotel operators in Eilat say they’re the finest people, hard-working and extremely eager to improve their education, which was stunted by the genocide(s) in their homeland. These people risked their lives to come to this country, they’re grateful as can be to Israel for taking them in, and in the Israeli-Arab conflict, they’re about as pro-Israel (and anti-Arab) as anyone anywhere.

But I know I’m in a very small minority on this issue. Israelis think this country should only be for Jews, that Israel should worry about Jewish refugees only, except for maybe a few Vietnamese boat people and Darfurians. Otherwise, the overwhelming consensus is that there are too many non-Jews in this country already, the demographic bogeyman is going to get us, and besides, these Sudanese will never be more than the wretched of the Israeli earth, they’ll never be accepted, they’re better off somewhere else.

This is a distortion of Zionism, this is turning the ideology of a Jewish state into the ideology of a Jewish separatist state. The Law of Return says any Jew can become an Israeli citizen, but Israelis think it also says that no non-Jew can become an Israeli citizen, and the Law of Return says no such thing. If the Sudanese could never hope to be accepted in Israel, never allowed to become more than menial laborers on the furthest margins of society, whose fault is that — theirs or ours? Instead of “protecting” them from our xenophobia, why don’t we just become less xenophobic?

If Israel goes ahead and sends 1,000 southern Sudanese refugees back to live under the Pharaoh, after what they went through in Sudan, then once and for all we Jews ought to get off our high horse about how “the world stood silent” when we needed help.

The wrong Zionist response to refugees Read More »

Laughing for Unity

It was one of the stranger events I’ve attended since I moved to the hood.

A friend sent me an e-mail telling me I “can’t miss” this Jerusalem rabbi’s one-man show Sunday night at Beth Jacob Congregation. I opened the e-mail a few minutes before show time, so, on a whim, I ran over to catch “The Four Faces of Israel,” starring Rabbi Benji Levene. After two hours of Benji, my head was spinning.

The show was a mock interview of four Jewish characters — a Charedi rabbi from Mea Shearim, a secular bus driver from Zichon Yaacov, a French artist living in Safed married to a non-Jew, and an American Zionist philanthropist living in Los Angeles — all played by Rabbi Levene. On this night, the interviewer was played by the evening’s master of ceremonies, one of the leaders of the Beth Jacob Congregation.

The characters were more like caricatures, and sometimes they were buffoons. The Charedi rabbi gave a little slurp and a burp, and proceeded to reinforce every possible Yiddish stereotype one might have about the insular Charedi world, with one caveat: Occasionally, out of the blue, he’d get up and give an impassioned defense of Charedim. We don’t do the army? Hey, Ben Gurion himself understood that “the Torah kept the Jews alive.” That’s why he gave us an exemption.

We don’t stand for a minute of silence to commemorate those who have died fighting for Israel? Why can’t we mourn the way the halacha (Jewish law) tells us to mourn?

After the interview, when the rabbi went backstage to change into his next character, the interviewer read a list of prepared questions for the audience: Who’s more likely to be living in Israel 100 years from now, a secular Jew or the rabbi? Who better represents authentic Judaism? Who’s more of a Zionist, the Charedi rabbi who lives in Israel, or the secular Jew who lives in the Diaspora?

It was clear that the questions had a pro-religion agenda — which was an omen of things to come.

The next three characters were also buffoons, but they were secular. The bus driver was an ultra-Zionist who fought in all the wars, and who wouldn’t mind “doing Kippur,” as long as nobody tells him when to do it. The French artist who had a non-Jewish wife and a non-Jewish son was a “cosmopolitan” who celebrates art, beauty and morality, and who thinks there can’t be another Holocaust because “all the artists of the world would get together and write a song.”

And the American philanthropist, who wore 100 pins and medals and said he visited Israel 226 times — this year — kept reminding us that he “doesn’t need the world to know that [he] gave $4.5 million to Israel this year, not to mention what [he] gave last year.”

It’s with these three secular characters that the show lost some credibility. After their interviews, instead of asking the audience questions that would encourage them to look at “the other side of the stereotype” — like they did with the Charedi character — the show continued to ask leading questions with a pro-religion agenda: Who’s more committed to living in Israel, the Charedi or the secular Jew? Who’s more committed to Judaism? Who will be more Jewish in the future?

This had a jarring effect.

Ostensibly, the idea of the show was to confront us with the exaggerations and unfairness of stereotypes, so that we could get beyond them and build mutual respect and unity among Jews. But the pro-religion bias kept interfering. It’s like the show was saying: “We respect every Jew, but we’d respect you so much more if you were more Torah-observant like us, and the Jewish nation would be so much better off.”

That may be true, but that kind of patronizing usually works only when you preach to the choir. If the show’s creators have designs on the wider Jewish world, they might consider taking a more even-handed and respectful approach to the secular characters.

Imagine, for example, if the show played up the idea that secular Jews already have a certain level of “Torah observance,” like when they visit sick people in the hospital, help the needy, protect the environment, resist gossip, fight for their country, donate money to charity, take care of their health, respect their parents and so on. In other words, instead of telling secular Jews that their lives are devoid of Jewish content, the show would invite them into a much bigger “Torah Tent,” one where they feel they already belong, and where they’d be more open to learn more about their Judaism. In this bigger tent, the charedis might even learn a thing or two.

In any event, when Rabbi Levene showed up as himself at the end of the show and poured out his soul in favor of loving every Jew, it was hard not to fall for him. This rabbi — grandson of the renowned Rabbi Aryeh Levin, known as the “Tzadik of Jerusalem” — is so passionate in his desire to bring Jews together, all you can do is root for him to succeed.

Maybe the reason my head was spinning after the show is that while I didn’t connect with the rabbi’s comedy, or even his strategy for unity, I fell for him anyway. I felt the love he had for everyone in the room, and I wanted to love him back.

The face that will stay with me in “The Four Faces of Judaism” was the fifth one, the one of the rabbi without make-up or costume.

On that face, one could see a simpler message: Sometimes it’s more important just to love, than to be funny or smart.

David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine and Meals4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org.

Laughing for Unity Read More »

Books: Reimagining the future of the Jewish People

After the destruction of the Second Temple two millennia ago, a group of scholars came together to discuss the nature of Judaism in a post-Temple world.

Their discussions, which make up the Talmud, set forth a path for the future of Judaism to come.

“Now, once again, a group of gifted scholars gather to reinterpret the Jewish project, to reassert its meaning, re-envision its institutions and reimagine its future,” asserts the introduction of the new book: “Jews and Judaism in the 21st Century: Human Responsibility, the Presence of God and the Future of the Covenant,” edited by Valley Beth Shalom’s (VBS) Rabbi Edward Feinstein (Jewish Lights Publishing, $24.99).

The conversation of reimagining the Jewish people took place in March 2005 at VBS in Encino on the occasion of Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis’ 80th birthday, when five scholars gathered “to grapple with the deepest issues that face the Jewish people as we face the new century,” Feinstein wrote.

The book presents the best of the four days of lectures and dialogues by the Reform Rabbi David Ellenson, president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; two Modern Orthodox rabbis — professor David Hartman, founder and director of the Shalom Hartman Institute of Religion in Jerusalem; and Irving “Yitz” Greenberg, president of Jewish Life Network/Steinhardt Foundation, and two Conservative rabbis — Schulweis and Harold Kushner, author of “When Bad Things Happen to Good People.”

These learned rabbis together try to answer the question “How Have You Changed — How Have We changed?” using Jewish sources, personal anecdotes and Jewish history to discuss the next steps for the Jewish people.

If it’s true that Judaism had to be rethought after the destruction of the Second Temple so long ago, then it’s equally true that this new millennium — especially after the 20th century — demands a rethinking of the meaning of Judaism. Who is God? What is our relationship to God? How can we believe in the God after the Holocaust? What is the role of the Jewish people? How much should the Jewish people be engaged in the outside world?

These sometimes personal, sometimes lofty, sometimes didactic essays talk about subjects like globalization, pluralism, the Holocaust, the founding of the State of Israel, the Jewish conscience and responsibilities and, of course, God.

While there have been many, many books written about Jewish thought and Jewish life (especially by those present in the book), it is rare to find such great thinkers coming together and, more importantly, focused forward, rather than on the past.

“While history is irreversible, we have the power to decide what of our past belongs in our future,” Schulweis writes in “Globalism and the Jewish Conscience.” As founder of the Jewish World Watch, a response to genocide in the Sudan, the Jews’ past means also taking responsibility for what happens to the rest of the world, not just to ourselves.

“We gave the world conscience,” he writes, and that’s why we cannot close the newspaper, close our eyes, close our ears. With globalization comes global responsibility, a global God and a global conscience because “at stake is humanity.”

For Ellenson, pluralism is the key to dealing with the modern world.

“There is something of value in virtually every sector of the Jewish world — no group has the monopoly on truth,” he writes. “If a religion does not instruct you to embrace others, then it has to be, by definition, of limited or no utility.” Like Schulweis, he says the challenge of Judaism is action: “How do we treat our own people, and how do we treat others?”

Kushner provides a historical perspective on what has happened to Judaism in the last century. He wants to see assimilation “as a doorway into the Jewish community, not as a doorway out.”

The two Modern Orthodox rabbis have more nuanced approaches to modernity — which, Greenberg writes, brought on the Holocaust, which, he believes, taught Jews they cannot wait for God to save them.

“Taking power is the fundamental transformation of our religion now,” he writes. “God’s own message is that you have to take responsibility.”

Although all the rabbis discuss our relationship with God, in “A Covenant of Love,” Hartman investigates the changing relationship with God, from Abraham and the sacrifice, to his bargaining with God for Sodom to the talmudic era and Spinoza, till today. He sees the Jewish people in a partnership with God.

“God doesn’t bring about anything,” he writes. “What you seek from God now is not some teaching or some sort of liberation. What you seek from God is not that God will solve any problems, but that God should be with you.”

The essays, although sometimes erudite, counter many assumptions about Judaism, assumptions learned in childhood or study or more traditional sources — such as about a demanding, cruel God. The book’s discussions of the role of denominations, speaking to the non-Jewish community, the role of the synagogue and the rabbi all are rich catalysts for further thought.

Feinstein sums it all up in a sentence that gets to both the essence of the Jewish character, and the challenge facing the Jewish people: “We have this hope, a dream of a perfect world. But our hope is backed up by our commitment and our lives and our religions and our community and our desire to make it a reality.”

Books: Reimagining the future of the Jewish People Read More »

Brotherly Advice

In the last year, my younger brother has been asking for and taking my dating advice on an almost daily basis. It’s a fact that continues to astound me. This isn’t to say I don’t have anything worthwhile to say on the topic, despite the fact that I’m married now and raising two kids. It’s more that I’ve simply never had this kind of relationship with him before.

My brother and I were born two years apart. We shared a room growing up, played with “Star Wars” action figures together and coordinated plans to torture our younger sister, but around high school our paths split. He was into extreme sports and living life on a razor’s edge, whereas I was content lounging around the house reading and going with friends to places like Gorky’s to get into philosophical conversations.

The one thing we still had in common was our appreciation for women, but even there we differed. He liked the adventurous party girl, while I was drawn to the moody intellectual type. He ended up converting at age 16 to Catholicism after dating a Catholic girl, while one of my love interests led me to get serious about my Judaism and attend Shabbat services at CSUN Hillel.

My brother and I eventually found ourselves in completely different cities, and our phone calls went from weekly to monthly. As time went on, I was surprised if I heard from him more than a few times a year. We saw each other for the first time in eight years when I flew out to the Midwest to be a groomsman at his wedding in 1999. And I realized how far our paths had diverged when he proudly showed off the printed wedding blessing his in-laws secured from Pope John Paul II.

Like many men, my brother and I relied too much on our spouses, and we willingly sacrificed our male friendships on the pyre of our turbulent marriages. I was left with one close friend when my first marriage crumbled three years later. In 2004, when my brother’s marriage and business were falling apart, he couldn’t name any guy whom he could count as a reliable friend.

Throughout his contentious divorce, we still barely talked. I wasn’t sure what help I could offer him or whether he’d want it. But when he finally opened up to me a few months later about how he wanted to find love again, I couldn’t hold my tongue.

I told him to focus his time and energy on rebuilding his life and his self-esteem. He couldn’t offer stability to anyone, and he needed time to find himself outside of the context of a relationship.

“Date,” I said, “there’s no reason to get serious about anyone.”

Naturally, he didn’t listen. He moved in with a new girlfriend who had a tattoo emblazoned provocatively across her chest and observed a three-drink minimum when she visited with our family.

It wasn’t long before my brother started calling me with his doubts and anxieties. She was still chummy with her ex, he said. After he found multiple calls on her cell phone to her former beau, he wasn’t convinced everything was kosher, especially because their love life had hit a rough patch.

“She must have girlfriends to run to for advice,” I said. “Assume she isn’t just ‘talking,’ and tell her to drop him as a friend or you’re moving out.”

And to my surprise he did it. He moved out.

When he got his own place, I told him not to invite women over. He didn’t believe me at first. When he found two women he’d dated staking out his home at different times to see if he was bringing anyone else over, it dawned on him the advice might exist to protect him.

When he blew some first dates by talking too much, my advice was to keep his mouth shut, start listening and asking questions, but without turning it into an interview.

“Women want men to be enigmatic,” I said. “They’ll project what they want onto you. Don’t let your reality interfere with their fantasy.”

The guy who almost always wanted to talk about himself suddenly started taking the back seat in our conversations and shocked me by asking about my life.

After months of living on his own, my brother eventually reached a point where he told me he didn’t want or need a relationship. It amused him to no end that even though he was forward with women about not wanting a commitment, they still pursued him with a dream of getting to see his home — and with the hope of eventually moving in.

My brother has since been called a player — as well as many other names that can’t be printed in a family newspaper — but he learned quickly that many women will keep calling even after they’ve sworn off of him for good. It was a liberating revelation for him, because he saw that he didn’t have to become someone he wasn’t in order to attract a woman.

He’s even started to explore his Jewish heritage. He calls me frequently from the road as he’s on his way to use the gym at his local JCC, asking my advice about how he should handle his evening. And after joining a Jewish dating site, he asked me to recommend a synagogue for him to try on for size. Needless to say, Mom is kvelling.

I’m just excited that he’s also sought out his old friends, reserving a few days each month to play poker or get together for dinner. He tells me that they trade dating advice as they sit around the table, sharing what works and what doesn’t.

Although I’m about 1,600 miles away from him, I’m always by the phone, ready with some advice when my brother needs me. And I’m glad to know that even if I can’t join him at the table with his buddies, at least he’s regularly offering me a seat as one of the important men in his life.

Brotherly Advice Read More »

Hooker to the stars is a saucy satirist

Svetlana Maksimovsrskaya is a Russian prostitute whose high-profile clients include George Clooney, Rick Santorum and Al Gore.

Featured on KCRW-FM 89.9 every Monday at 4:44 p.m., she comments on whatever comes to mind — movies, politics, popular culture, her clients.

During the first segment, on June 18, she said, “Paper is killing tree, plastic does not decompose, using a Mexican boy is exploiting labor, I give up, hand me my produce and my Milano cookies and I will carry everything to my car in installments; I will make 14 trips back and forth, just so I don’t feel guilty. It’s Al’s fault for all this nonsense. I told him, Gorki — he likes it when I call him Gorki — what you lack in charisma you are making up with your slide shows and guilt trips.”

She recently recapped her ” target = “_blank”>”Social Studies” is also available online as a live stream, a podcast and a transcript.

Hooker to the stars is a saucy satirist Read More »