fbpx

May 26, 2009

Charles Barkley and North Korea

There is no religion angle to today’s top story that North Korea tested a nuclear missile. In fact, I think religion is officially illegal in the poor, isolated country. But what would Charles Barkley, one of the great philosophers of our time, have to say about the North’s aggression?

The above sketch, one of my favorite impressions from Frank Caliendo, should give you an idea. A choice quote:

“Kim Jong Il is nuts. He’s gonna blow up the world ‘cause he’s a knucklehead … He’s nuttier than a Payday bar.”

Charles Barkley and North Korea Read More »

California Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage ban

Back in November, I was grabbing coffee with a fellow journalist. It was the first time we had met, and when I noticed he was wearing a wedding band, I said, “So you’re married.”

To which he responded: “For now.”

I didn’t know what to say. I just hoped that his wife knew their marriage wasn’t so wonderful. I quickly learned, though, that his spouse was not a woman and that his marital problems were legal, not relational.

When we last checked in on Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that limits marriage to a heterosexual couple, the state Supreme Court was leaning toward upholding the law. Tomorrow the court will issue its ruling, and with it the fate of the 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed during the six months gay marriages were performed in California.

From the NYT:

For those couples who already took the plunge, the idea that their marriage may be allowed while other couples are denied the right is unsettling. “I’d always feel like there was an asterisk,” Mr. French said.

Mr. Lok, his legally recognized spouse, at least for now, was more sanguine.

“The 18,000 marriages will be evidence that California is not going to fall apart if gay people get married,” Mr. Lok said. “It’s not like there’s not going to be an earthquake.”

In related news, Maine legalized gay marriage earlier this month. You know what Miss California thinks about this.

California Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage ban Read More »

No crime to shout ‘Heil Sharon’ and make Nazi salute

In the United States, one of the few limitations on free speech concerns the use of “fighting words”—“those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The doctrine comes from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a 1942 case in which the court unanimously ruled in favor of a police officer who arrested a Jehovah’s Witness for calling him a “damned fascist.”

Israel appears to have something similar to the fighting words doctrine. But it’s application seems a bit convoluted. Case in point:

A Jerusalem magistrate court ruled last week that a Hebron settler who shouted “Heil Sharon” – a reference to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon – at a police officer while making a stiff-armed Nazi salute should not be tried for insulting a public sector worker.

The magistrate judge, Hagit Mac-Kalmanovich, determined that if the settler had used the word “Nazi” or a similar word in referring to the police officers, or if the settler had uttered “Heil Hitler” or a similar statement which implied that the officers are Nazis or resemble Nazis, this would undoubtedly have constituted a crime.

Mac-Kalmanovich acquitted Oren Zer, a resident of Hebron, of insulting a public figure. Zer is the brother of Gilad Zer, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank. The outpost of Havat Gilad was founded in his memory.

(skip)

Zer did not deny making the gesture, though he claimed it was an act of protest and anger against “the expulsion of Jews” from the Gaza Strip. Sharon’s government evacuated some 8,000 Israelis from settlements in the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, a move which touched off massive protests among settlers and their right-wing supporters.

In his statement to police, Zer said his intention was to express “strenuous disgust from the regime of corruption, brutality, and terror that was led by a destroyer of Israel, Ariel Sharon … the criticism was of course about him, about Sharon, and I stand behind it.”

“I believe he carried out crimes against humanity and against the Jewish people in destroying 25 Jewish communities in the Land of Israel,” Zer told police.

Zer should not be confused with Israeli neo-Nazis.

No crime to shout ‘Heil Sharon’ and make Nazi salute Read More »

State Court Upholds Prop. 8

On Tuesday May 26, 2009, we stood in Leimert Park, together with clergy of many faiths, awaiting our fate, awaiting a verdict on our humanity.  Outrage, sorrow and a renewed sense of purpose swept across the crowd as news spread that the California Supreme Court had made a Solomon’s choice – upholding as legal the marriages entered into by same-sex couples last summer while preserving the travesty of justice that is Proposition 8.  In effect, the Court had abandoned its constitutionally designated responsibility to protect a minority from having its most basic civil rights put up for populate vote.
Like the Israelites who received the blessing of Torah at Mount Sinai yet continued to wander in the wilderness before arriving in the Promised Land, LGBT Californians and our struggle for Marriage Equality live on.  Another day of justice delayed, justice denied.
What a difference a day makes.

Last year, on May 15, 2009, the California Supreme Court courageously embraced its legacy as a leader in the pursuit of justice, equality and civil rights.  The Court wisely recognized that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, have the fundamental right to official recognition of their families. The Court proclaimed that any restrictions on access to the civil institution of marriage are impermissible forms of discrimination prohibited by the California Constitution just as they did when, in 1948, California was one of the first states in the nation to overturn laws against interracial marriage. 
It was the first of many historic days last year.

On June 17, 2008, California began issuing marriage licenses free of discrimination.  The two of us stood that day in a long line that snaked in front of West Hollywood City Park. We will forever remember the sights and sounds of that day:  Groups hovered in clusters, LGBT Jews under a Chuppah blowing the Shofar, parents with their children, traditional white wedding dresses dotted the lawn. Couples together for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years became unlikely newlyweds.  One of us, the rabbi, officiated many weddings that beautiful day.  The other and her wife served as witnesses, smiling so hard our faces hurt, singing Mazel Tov and Simin Tov until we grew hoarse.

The days between June 17 and November 4 filled California with a euphoria that transformed millions. 18,000 couples married. 36,000 people, each of us touching wider and wider concentric circles of friends, family, colleagues, neighbors.  We became part of a giant wave of inclusion, justice and most of all hope.  Our families were finally able to protect and honor one another with all of the same rights and responsibilities as loving couples everywhere.

Each day was a gift.

Then came Election Day.  Some angry, some in shock, we went about our lives- walked our dogs, waited in traffic, worked, bought groceries, paid bills –wondering as we met neighbors, co-workers and strangers who among them had used the power of the ballot box to strip us of our civil rights.  Parents struggled to explain to their children how some people, a slim majority, had decided their family did not deserve the rights and recognition as other families.
From then on, we began to count the days to the time when the California Supreme Court would restore our dignity and quality.  If only the counting of those days had yielded the same blessings as the counting of the Omer.

Now that the Court has failed to live up to its Constitutional promise of equality and dignity for all, what can we as Jews do?  We can roll up our sleeves and get to work.  We can reach out to other communities of faith to explain why the calling of b’tzelem elohim requires us to recognize God’s image in all people.  We can speak out from the bimah, in the press and on the streets about how our heterosexual marriages have been unaffected by the loving union of our LGBT friends, family and colleagues.  We can tell the tale of how dangerous it is to give people the absolute power to strip a minority of its civil rights, knowing all too well the dark road down which a society can run if given such authority. 

And we can remember that, although Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the voting public, young people of all races and religions opposed it in overwhelming numbers.  May that generation carry us forward into a time when all people who love and seek to build a life together will have the full and equal legal right to do so. 

Elissa Barrett
Executive Director, Progressive Jewish Alliance

Rabbi Denise Eger
Congregation Kol Ami, President – Southern California Board of Rabbis

State Court Upholds Prop. 8 Read More »

California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, prohibits gay marriage

As expected, the California Supreme Court today ruled to uphold Proposition 8, the amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage.

And what about those 18,000 couples that wed before the Nov. 4 election? They’ll remain married in the eyes of the state.

More from the LA Times:

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

By a 52-48 margin, voters approved the measure reinstating a ban on same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling last May, approved such marriages. Left in limbo were about 18,000 couples who got married in California between May and November of last year.

The case for overturning the initiative was widely viewed as a long shot. Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court’s earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments.

But gay marriage advocates captured a wide array of support in the case, with civil rights groups, legal scholars and even some churches urging the court to overturn the measure. Supporters of the measure included many churches and religious organizations.

On his Twitter feed, Kal Penn, the actor turned Obama community relations liaison, voiced a sentiment I’m sure you’ve heard before:

“So if the CA Supreme Court & voters are so concerned with the “sanctity of marriage”, how about we make divorce illegal too? Any takers?”

Read the 185-page ruling at LAist.

California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, prohibits gay marriage Read More »

Torpedoing Primary Care

For the last few years the future of primary care has been looking bleak.  Fewer and fewer medical students are choosing primary care careers, just as baby-boomers retire and will need more care.  Primary care physicians meanwhile are retiring early or cutting back their practices at record numbers, worsening the coming shortage.

The current issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine publishes a perspective article by Dr. David Norenberg that heaps on the gloom.  Describing himself as closer to the end of his career than the beginning, he mourns the end of the golden age of primary care.  While he was attracted to the close and prolonged relationship with patients that only primary care can provide, he sees young students turned off by the recent trends in medicine – insurance companies dictating care, reimbursement set by arcane algorithms, and a focus on quantity, not quality.

A recent Medical Economics article (link below) lends credence to Dr. Norenberg’s pessimism.  It details the filling of next year’s residency positions by medical school graduates.  Yet again, primary care positions have declined as students stampede into subspecialties.

Dr. Norenberg’s observations are right on the mark.  Then he proceeds to offer a solution that is sure to fail: a single-payer medical system based on Medicare that pays primary care doctors more.  Versions of this general scheme – giving everyone Medicare either as a sole insurer or as a “public option” to private insurance – are being considered as possible overhauls to our healthcare system.  Meanwhile, just this month the General Accounting Office announced that Medicare will run out of money by 2017.

The hull of the ship is leaking.  Time to board more passengers.

Demanding that insurers (either private or government) pay primary care doctors more will only lead to an internecine fight with specialists over who gets a bigger slice of the pie.  We miss the bigger picture that the whole pie will be gone in a decade.  We’re fighting over crumbs.

The case that primary care is valuable must be made to patients, not policy makers.  Patients will vote with their own dollars and decide for themselves the kind of healthcare they prefer.  The insurance model in which we all pay for each other’s care is failing catastrophically, but because of entrenched interests we will stay on that sinking ship until the water is up to our necks.

Eventually, out of the wreckage, patients will build a new system in which they each largely pay for their own care, using insurance only for unforeseen disasters.  How long that takes depends on when we notice the water rising.  Some of us are already heading for the lifeboats.

Learn more:

Annals of Internal Medicine article:  ” target=”_blank”>“Match Day” delivers another blow to primary care

Financial Times article:  ” target=”_blank”>Will Primary Care Survive?

” target=”_blank”>Pay for Performance: Peril for Patients

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor despite the fact that you read or comment on my posts.  Leaving a comment on a post is a wonderful way to enter into a discussion with other readers, but I will not respond to comments (just because of time constraints).

Torpedoing Primary Care Read More »

What happened to the Muslim assassin in ‘Angels & Demons?’

“Angels & Demons” has followed in the controversial tradition of Dan Brown’s first book to be turned into a film, “The Da Vinci Code.” Particularly, we’ve heard that it’s anti-Catholic rubbish. But is it also soft on Muslims terrorists?

I haven’t seen the film yet, but that didn’t stop Debbie Schlussel from condemning it. The anti-Islam crusader and self-styled movie critic claimed the film “has been ‘disinfected’ by Islamopanderers (Director Ron Howard) not wanting to upset our dear friends in the ‘Religion of Peace,’ who might do something ‘peaceful’ if the movie had stayed true to the book.”

What was Howard’s transgression? Well, it appeared to one of Schlussel’s readers that, based on the IMDB cast list, the Hassassin character from the book had been changed from a hashish-smoking Muslim assassin to a Danish hitman.

“And if you look at the credits,” Schlussel wrote, “the ‘Assassin’ character isn’t played by an Ahmed Baba Ganouche or a Mohammed Tabbouli. Nope. It’s played by some dude named Nicolaj Lie Kaas. Yup, just like reader Michelle said, a Scandinavian name. Because everyone knows that those blond Scandinavians are the original Middle Eastern assassins who introduced us to the marvels of hashish and khat.”

To which Patrick Goldstein, who writes the >Los Angeles Times’ Big Picture blog, responded:

This is just part of a prolonged Schlussel shame campaign, often based on the flimsiest of evidence, to belittle Hollywood for not treating Muslims as wild-eyed villains. In one of her classic posts, she attacked Marvel Comics for giving academic internships to Arab students from the United Arab Emirates, using that as evidence to support her outrageous claim that “Spider-Man and the Hulk are embracing the new Nazis.” She also recently ridiculed the Wall Street Journal for allowing one of its reporters (“with a Muslim-sounding first name”) to write admiringly about a Muslim author doing a DC comic book.

I don’t exactly have a direct line to Ron Howard to talk to him about his casting process. But here’s my suggestion: The next time Howard does a Dan Brown thriller, if there’s a good part for a terrorist, I think he oughta make sure Debbie Schlussel gets first crack at the job.

After seeing “Angels & Demons,” Schlussel gave the film “Two Reagans—(Would have been THREE, but One Reagan Deducted for Muslim Whitewashing in Script and Phony Anti-Science Extremism)”

(Hat tip: Holy Weblog!)

What happened to the Muslim assassin in ‘Angels & Demons?’ Read More »