fbpx

December 16, 2012

Stopping Asperger’s from Becoming Another Victim in the CT Massacre

I first heard about the Connecticut school tragedy from the TV stations at the gym, and felt like someone had punched me in the stomach. I wanted to hear more about what had happened but couldn't stand to keep listening as the terrible details begin to emerge.

In my mind, I could easily picture the chaotic scene inside the elementary school, with screams over the public address system and teachers locking their doors, and telling their small charges to get into the closets for safety. I could imagine parents feeling the floor drop out under them when they learned that their first-grader had been killed. So utterly horrible and senseless.

I felt another pang of dispair when I read that the gunman, Adam Lanza, had been diagnosed with Asperger’s, sometimes characterized as a mild form of autism with a high degree of social awkwardness. I thought of all the many remarkable teens and young adults with the same diagnosis we have met along our journey with our teenage son who has developmental disabilities.  So many of them are smart, caring people, who just want to be accepted as they are, quirks and all. Would they somehow be blamed for this atrocity? Would there be an immediate leap to brand all people with Asperger’s as prone to violence?

In a widely-circulated AP article, a Los Angeles expert quickly dispelled that notion.

“There really is no clear association between Asperger's and violent behavior,” said psychologist Elizabeth Laugeson, an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

But many people over at WrongPlanet.net, an online community and resource for Autism and Asperger’s, are very worried that with all the media focus and frenzy on Lanza’s diagnosis, it will paint a broad brush of blame for all teens and adults with those developmental disabilities.

One individual with Asperger’s said he is “really worried about the hate now” and another wrote about that he’s been bullied and beat up for most of his life, and fears it will only be harder for him in the future.

A posting from Autism Rights Watch lays out the issue very well:


“The search for answers should not be a search for a scapegoat. Autism is no excuse or explanation to evil. Being “autistic”, “odd”, “awkward”, “camera shy”, a “nerd” and “uncomfortable with others” does not cause a person to become a mass murderer. Autistic persons are more likely to be victims, rather than perpetrators of violence. “

Please, let's all work together to prevent another victim of this terrible tragedy.

Stopping Asperger’s from Becoming Another Victim in the CT Massacre Read More »

December 16, 2012

In-depth

The Brothers and the Gulf

Writing in Foreign Policy, Sultan al Qassemi explores the reasons for the Gulf states' suspicion of the Muslim Brotherhood.

By the early 1990s, the UAE's judicial and education sector was effectively a state within a state: The Brotherhood would make sure that those who qualified for educational scholarships and grants were either Brotherhood members, affiliates, or sympathizers. Within a short period, the student councils and professional associations — such as the jurist and teachers union — were turned into Muslim Brotherhood outposts dedicated to advancing their interests.

 

What Should U.S. Policy Be in Syria?

In the wake of American recognition of the Syrian opposition coalition, the Council on Foreign Relations asks experts for their opinion on what the U.S.  should do next. 

It is high time for the United States to get off the sidelines as allies such as Turkey and Israel, Britain and France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been urging it to do. As a first step, Washington should assemble a coalition to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. The United States would have to take the lead in dismantling Syrian air defenses, but could then hand off the enforcement of the NFZ to allies, as was the case in Libya.

 

Daily Digest

 

Follow Shmuel Rosner on Twitter and Facebook for facts and figures, analysis and opinion on Israel and the U.S., the Jewish World and the Middle East

December 16, 2012 Read More »

The Real Desecraters of God’s Name at Jerusalem’s Western Wall

As the new Egyptian Constitution passed its first go-around yesterday in a national referendum that non-Islamist parties acknowledge threatens civil liberties and the rights of women and minorities, we Jews have our own conflict with the encroaching influence of fundamentalist religion against the rights of Jewish women to pray at the holiest site in Judaism, the Kotel (i.e. Western Wall).

Two years ago I attended a prayer service at the Kotel with “Women of the Wall” on Rosh Hodesh (The new Hebrew month), which this group of religious women have been doing for a number of years. I reported on that event then which can be read here – http://womenofthewall.org.il/2010/11/praying-with-the-women-of-the-wall/.

That constitutes among the ugliest experiences in my Jewish religious life.

The issue of Jewish women’s religious rights at the Kotel has only intensified in this time. Media Line reported fully on the events of the past week at the Kotel

WOMEN DETAINED AT JERUSALEM'S WESTERN WALL FOR DONNING RELIGIOUS ITEMS http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=36697

The ultra-Orthodox claim that these women are desecrating God’s name by donning tallitot and t’filin and praying quietly at the Western Wall in a group. But who is the real desecrater of the Holy Name? Certainly not these women!

The Real Desecraters of God’s Name at Jerusalem’s Western Wall Read More »

The Greenberg hurdle

Irving (“Yitz”) Greenberg is an American orthodox rabbi, known for critical thinking and reaching across denominational lines.  In 1977, writing about the Shoah (the Holocaust), Greenberg argued that in the future, “no statement, theological or otherwise, should be made that would not be credible in the presence of burning children.” A few years later, Greenberg repeated that proposition in a seminal essay entitled “The Third Great Cycle in Jewish History.”

Let’s call this principle the Greenberg Hurdle. It is, and perhaps should be, an obstacle that is hard to overcome. And while it may be construed to suggest, if not require, silence on certain fundamental issues, we should reject that temptation. Conversation should not cease just because it is difficult.

When he announced his principle, Greenberg did not do so in the context of a discussion of science and he does not appear to have had any general or specific concern about science in mind. Nevertheless, the Greenberg Hurdle does seem applicable to issues at the heart of the interface of science and faith.

Religion in general and God in particular once functioned, among other things, to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and our place in the scheme of things. Today what once was totally mysterious and inexplicable, can, though still wonderous, be described to a reasonable degree of certitude, without primary or, for some, any reference to a supernatural force.

As University of Michigan astrophysicist Fred Adams discloses in detail in Origins of Existence, the evolution of the universe can be described from the age of 10-43 seconds.  If 10-1 is a tenth of a second and 10-3 is a thousandth of a second, then Professor Adams can bring us back to less than a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the birth of the known universe, that is, after what most of us think of as the Big Bang.

And, based on several independent methods, Vanderbilt astronomy professor David Weintraub places the age of the known universe, however it began, at 13.7 billion years old, give or take. (See, How Old is the Universe?)

Further, with mathematical theory now confirmed by experimental observation, we also know, among other things, the relative abundance of the lightest elements, the nature of the radiation footprint from the time of creation and the rate of expansion of the universe.  We can understand how galaxies coalesced and organized, and how stars formed and died, in the process spewing into space those heavy elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen which formed the building blocks of life.

The Greenberg Hurdle presents a challenge to those who talk, especially in traditional terms, about God as the creator of light and life. What kind of deity had what kind of role in the universe described by Adams and Weintraub and others? And how do we address or relate to it?

Of course, faith, by definition, is not dependent on a fully confirmed factual foundation. One does not need faith to hold to that which is proven. Rather, faith concerns the unknown. But if a faith is to be worth living for, worth dying for, it should at least account for and be consistent with what we do know.

At the same time, while mathematical models and recent observations have taken us on quite a journey, we have not yet reached the end of the inquiry. Scientists have not discovered what existed or occurred prior to 10-43 seconds, nor, importantly, how it existed or why it occurred. And this failure, while understandable, is, nevertheless, crucial.

As Columbia University physics professor Brian Greene acknowledges, the standard Big Bang theory tells us “nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really ever banged at all.” (See, The Fabric of the Cosmos (at 272).) A model with a pre-existing inflation field provides an explanation for a repulsive push, a bang if you will, but raises other troublesome issues. (Id. at 272-303.)  Without more knowledge, to claim that as does Professor Adams (at 3) that “(i)n the stark simplicity of the beginning, there was only physics” (emphasis supplied), may not be quite accurate. 

Moreover, while there is convincing evidence that Earth is close to 4.5 billion years old (Weintraub, supra, at 16-39), and further evidence that primitive  biological life arose within the first billion years after Earth was formed, how living cells emerged from the chemical stew remains a puzzlement. 

For over fifty years we have known how to synthesize amino acids, which are key to the formation of proteins, from basic inert chemicals. And we have identified possible environments that might have been conducive to the emergence of biological life. But science has not yet been able to create autonomous, self-replicating organisms.

To the extent that science seeks to explore and explain root causes, it, too, must confront the Greenberg Hurdle. It, too, must be credible. In recent years, astrophysicists have attempted to resolve some of the remaining questions identified by Greene with reference to string theory and membranes and spatial dimensions more than the three we know well. But strings and membranes and multiple dimensions, however elegantly they may be justified by mathematics, have not yet reached the required level of credibility.

From their different perspectives, science and faith can react with amazement at the universe we know and our place in it. And whether the universe burst forth by some quantum fluctuation or by the word of God, humility, as well as awe and wonder, is in order.


             

Note: Another version of this post appeared previously at www.judaismandscience.com.

The Greenberg hurdle Read More »

‘American Jews are much more than an ATM to Israel’

Naftali Bennett is the newly elected leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party. He was Benjamin Netanyahu's chief of staff between 2006-2008, and ran Netanyahu's successful 2007 campaign to lead the Likud party. He also served as as Director General of the Yesha Council of Settlers for two years. The third in a series of conversations with Israeli politicians leading up to the January elections. Part I, with Nitzan Horowitz of Meretz can be found here, and Part II, with Meir Sheetrit of The Movement, is here.

 

What is the main topic or theme of the upcoming elections? Is it Iran? The peace process? The economy? What do you think is the real worry of the Israeli public today?

Values. Restoring Israel's Jewish identity. More than half of Israel's new soldiers have never visited the Kotel! How can we expect to beat our enemies, if our kids don't know who King David or Yoni Netanyahu is? We must return to our basic values of caring for others, respecting teachers, being strong against our enemies. It all starts from within.

 

In this context, what is the markedly unique message that your party has to offer to the public?

Overall our party presents a patriotic proud Jewish message. We will restore Jewish identity into the public education system. Children will have the opportunity to connect with their proud and heroic history, to visit the Western Wall, learn of Jewish Heroes past and present, understand the struggles and sacrifices of Jewish yesteryear and ultimately, when our modern Maccabees join the IDF, understand who they are defending and what they are a part of as Jews in the Jewish State.

From a security standpoint, we have already differentiated ourselves from other parties in our refusal to negotiate with terror. During Operation Pillar of Defense, we were the only party who opposed a temporary ceasefire and pushed for decisive action. There was widespread consensus amongst Israelis that the IDF needed to deal a more powerful blow to Hamas and that simply did not happen. We have the best armed forces in the Middle East, but at the end of the day, both in Gaza and Lebanon they were constrained by the decision makers which did not allow them to fully accomplish their goals on the ground. 

Economically, we are the only party who can and will stand against the monopolies and unions which currently protect their own interest groups at the expense of greater Israeli society. Ninety-nine percent of businesses in Israel are small businesses, and the unions don't protect them, but raise the overall price of living. Meanwhile, Israel has a growing housing bubble with rental prices continuing to rise. To alleviate this, government land holdings must be privatized and we can no longer afford to limit building in the major suburbs of Israel's commercial centers, including Judea and Samaria.

 

What would be the best coalition for Israel after the election, and do you think your party should consider joining a coalition headed by someone other than Benjamin Netanyahu, such as Shelly Yacimovich or Tzipi Livni?

This election is unique in its essence, as the projected winner is clear, but the overall outcome is still up in the air. Undoubtedly, Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister of Israel, as he is poised to win by a landslide. The only question is: who will influence him, and what'll be the government's DNA? Our preference is for a strong patriotic coalition which will recognize that, religious or secular, Tel Aviv or Maaleh Adumim, we are One Israel and that we must act in our own interests to further Israel's economy, security and restore its Jewish identity. As of now, it's still too early to comment on specific coalition configurations.

 

What kind of relationship would you expect the next prime minister to have with President Obama? How would you improve U.S.-Israel relations during President Obama's second term?

President Obama is the US President and on January 23rd, the day after elections, Benjamin Netanyahu will still be the Prime Minister of Israel, so I don’t foresee the relationship changing drastically. Overall, the US and Israel share many vital interests and common goals, so undoubtedly our two countries will continue to work closely together in a spirit of steadfast friendship.

US-Israel relations are not solely encompassed by the working relationship of the Prime Minister with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Israel, and the Knesset, has strong allies on both sides of the aisle in Congress and the Senate and we must continue to further enhance these relationships.

Over the last four years there have been differences between the two administrations and in recent days, we heard escalatory comments from President Obama's former Chief of Staff regarding proposed construction in E-1. But how can we expect a better reaction to building in Judea and Samaria when we continue to call it “disputed territories”? As long as we continue to send the US administration mixed messages about our policies regarding the PA, Judea & Samaria, and the peace process, we cannot sincerely expect a more coordinated or constructive response. 

 

Do you think American Jews should take sides in Israeli elections, or just support the winning coalition after the event? If you do think American Jewry should have a voice, what kind of involvement and support do you have in mind?

I think all Jews have the right to care about Israel's future, including its political future. I wouldn't suggest to get too involved, but rather to just support Israel itself, regardless of its leadership. It's time re-think this special relationship. I think American Jews are much more than an ATM. Israel has a responsibility towards all Jews in the world, and we haven't really stepped up to the plate on this. This will be a central focus for me.

‘American Jews are much more than an ATM to Israel’ Read More »

The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has the blood of Connecticut students on his hands

Looking for ways to explain America’s epidemic of mass shootings — including Friday’s murder of 27 people, including 20 children, at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school – many pundits are blaming the country’s “culture of violence” and its preference for “protecting guns over children.” But the majority of Americans favor strict gun control laws.  No, let's not burden Americans with collective guilt.  The problem is more narrow — and more fixable — than that.

The U.S. leads the world in gun-related deaths primarily because of the political influence of the National Rifle Association and, in particular, Wayne LaPierre, who for the past 21 years has been the NRA's CEO and chief political strategist, orchestrating its opposition to any kind of gun control.

The blood of the victims of the Connecticut shooting is on LaPierre's hands. Of course, LaPierre didn't pull the trigger, but he's the NRA's hit man when it comes to intimidating elected officials.

Although LaPierre likes to portray the NRA as representing grassroots gun owners, the bulk of its money comes from gun manufacturers.  LaPierre is a corporate lobbyist.  He doesn’t speak for most gun owners, a majority of whom favor stricter gun laws, according to surveys.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2011 there were 15,953 murders in the United States and 11,101 (30 a day) were caused by firearms. Suicides and unintentional shootings account for another 20,000 deaths by guns each year. Of course, many more people are injured—some seriously and permanently—by gun violence.

Most gun-related deaths are committed by people who purchase their weapons legally. Others purchase or steal them illegally, but their ability to get access to guns is due to our lax laws on gun ownership. LaPierre's job is to make it easier for people to buy and use guns. And so far he's been very successful. Since the 1994 assault-weapon ban expired in 2004, Congress hasn't enacted any major gun regulations.

LaPierre likes to fulminate about gun owners' rights. But so far he's has been silent about the nation's most recent gun massacre.  LaPierre and the NRA are bullies and, like most bullies, they will cower if confronted.  It is now time for an outraged and mobilized public  to put pressure Congress and President Obama to put strong limits on guns and beat the NRA.

Adam Lanza—the 20-year old man who walked into the Connecticut school with two firearms (a Glock and a Sig Saurer) and had another gun (a 223 Bushmaster) in his car—is no doubt deranged. He's not alone. There are lots of crazy people around. But if we make it easy for them to obtain guns, they are more likely to translate their psychological problems into dangerous and deadly anti-social behavior.

The shooting in the Connecticut school was not an isolated incident. We've almost become used to a regular diet of gun-toting rampages. The most visible of them—like Columbine, the Virginia Tech killings, the murders in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater, and the Arizona shooting that nearly claimed the life of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and left six others dead—stick in our minds, but there are many others.  It was only a matter of good luck that Buford Furrow – the mentally ill white supremicist who entered the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills in August 1999 and opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon, wounding five people – didn’t kill anyone.

The NRA has two knee-jerk responses to these and other gun massacres. The first is that the Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to possess guns of all kinds—not just hunting rifles but machine guns and semi-automatics. Efforts to restrict gun sales and ownership is, according to the NRA, an assault on our constitutional freedoms.

The second is the cliché that “guns don't kill people, people kill people.” To the NRA, gun laws have nothing to do with the epidemic of gun-related killings.

Both of these arguments are bogus, but the NRA has the money and membership (4 million) to translate these idiot ideas into political clout to thwart even reasonable gun-control laws. The NRA not only lobbies on behalf of “stand your ground” laws, but also offers insurance to members to pay for the legal costs of shooting people in “self-defense.” The NRA also defends the right of Americans to carry concealed weapons, including handguns.

It is no accident that the United States ranks first in the world—by a wide margin—in gun-related civilian deaths and injuries. Compared with every other democracy, we have the most guns per capita and the weakest gun laws. But the danger isn't simply the number of guns; it is the type of guns we allow people to legally purchase. Other countries permit hunting rifles. But many Americans believe it is their right to own an assault weapon.

Even in countries with strong gun-control laws, some people will get their hands on a weapon and destroy others' lives. The tragic killing in Norway last year is testament to this reality. (Although let's recall that Anders Breivik bought $550 worth of 30-round ammunition clips from an American gun supplier for the rifle he used to kill 69 Norwegian kids at a summer camp. Thanks to American laws, it was a legal online purchase.) But the shooting in Norway was an infrequent occurrence; it is, in fact, one of the safest countries in the world. In contrast, the U.S. is off the charts in terms of murder rates.   America's murder rate is more than eight times greater than Norway's.

The news media will spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to figure out what was in Adam Lanza's head before he put on his protective gear, carried two guns into the Connecticut school, and began his shooting rampage. Although the psychology and motives of the murderer may be fascinating, it should not be the major focus. There are plenty of deranged people in the world, but in most well-off countries they can't easily get their hands on a firearm.

Here's where the NRA comes in. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, since 1990, the gun rights lobby, led by the NRA, has contributed $29.2 million to candidates for Congress and the White House, 87% of it to Republicans. In the most recent election cycle, gun rights groups donated $3.1 million to political candidates and spent another $5.5 million in lobbying.

In contrast, since 1990 gun control groups have donated only $1.9 million to politicians, 94% to Democrats. In the most recent election cycle, these groups contributed only $4,000 to candidates and spent only $420,00 on lobbying.

Of course, Democrats are not immune from the NRA's influence. This summer, 17 House Democrats recently voted in favor of criminal contempt for Attorney General Eric Holder for his oversight of 'Operation Fast and Furious'. Not surprisingly, each of them received campaign contributions from the NRA in the previous two election cycles.

At the top of the gun rights food-chain is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre. It is hard to know if he's mentally unstable but he's certainly crazy like a fox (and Fox News).  Under LaPierre’s leadership, the NRA has aligned itself with the most reactionary forces in American politics. For example, LaPierre gave a speech earlier this year to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington in which he said that President Obama was part of a “conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep.”

LaPierre added: “All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term.” He also warned that everything that “gun owners across America have fought to achieve over the past three decades could be lost” if Obama won a second term.

Well, Obama did win a second term. In a statement soon after the Connecticut massacre, Obama called for “meaningful action” to curb gun violence. “Meaningful action” does not mean educating young people about bullying and violence. It does not mean instructing gun owners to be more responsible. It does not mean, as Mike Huckabee suggested on Friday, restoring God in our schools. It means pushing for strong gun control laws.

If Obama does take this kind of leadership, he will have the backing of an overwhelming proportion of Americans who support stricter guns laws. For example, 82% of Americans support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons. Also, 87% of Americans support background checks on private sales of guns, including sales at gun shows. And 79% support requiring a police permit before the purchase of a gun. A majority of Americans oppose the NRA's top federal legislative priority—national reciprocity for concealed carry permits—which would allow people to enter any state with a concealed, loaded gun even if they fail to meet local permitting requirements. Not surprising, almost all (94%) police chiefs favor requiring criminal background checks for all handgun sales.

Every American grieves for the families and friends of the people killed and injured in the Connecticut shooting. But until we tame the power of the NRA, we can expect more killings like this, as well as the deadly daily diet of murders throughout America committed by angry and in some cases crazy gun-toting people whose “freedom” to own weapons of mass destruction that  LaPierre and the NRA defends.

Peter Dreier is E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics, and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program, at Occidental College. His most recent book is The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame (2012, Nation Books).

The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre has the blood of Connecticut students on his hands Read More »

Sandy Hook: Beyond gun control

When something happens that overwhelms our emotions — as when a shooter murders 20 schoolchildren in cold blood — we get dizzy and out of balance. The shock and horror are too much to take.

So we look for something we can hold on to — something that will stabilize us and channel our grief, rage and horror into a concrete, actionable place.

For many of us, that something is gun control.

Ever since last Friday's murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the primal scream of “We need tougher gun control laws!” has been heard throughout much of the blogosphere, social networks and mainstream media.

If it weren't so easy to obtain lethal weapons, the argument goes, it wouldn't be so easy to commit these horrific crimes.

This is a powerful argument, so powerful that it can blind us to a deeper argument- that mass violence is often due to severe mental health issues, and until we address this deeper problem, gun control and law enforcement can only do so much.

In a seminal study published in 2000 by The New York Times that examined 100 rampage attacks over 50 years, the authors noted that, “We have overlooked a critical issue, which is that at least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems.”

The study adds: “Society has turned to law enforcement to resolve the rampage killings that have become almost a staple of the nightly news. There has been an increasing call for greater security in schools and in the workplace. But a closer look shows that these cases may have more to do with society's lack of knowledge of mental health issues, rather than a lack of security.

“In case after case, family members, teachers and mental health professionals missed or dismissed signs of deterioration.”

The Times found “much evidence of mental illness in its subjects. More than half had histories of serious mental health problems — either a hospitalization, a prescription for psychiatric drugs, a suicide attempt or evidence of psychosis.”

An examination by the progressive magazine Mother Jones, reported in a piece last month titled “Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental Health Policy,” showed similar results. They analyzed 61 mass shootings over the past 30 years and found that “acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them” and that in the majority of cases, the killers “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.”

Does this mean that more sensible gun control laws shouldn't play a role? No, they should, but they must be part of a larger solution. Let’s not fool ourselves: People intent on killing have this nasty habit of disregarding laws. The Sandy Hook killer tried to buy a rifle a few days before his murders and was denied. That didn't stop him.

The point is, we can’t stop at gun control, because the deeper and most thorny issue is mental health.

We need a national debate on whether potential killers with severe mental health issues can be stopped before they commit their crimes. This is a complicated and delicate question that touches on things like civil liberties and patient rights.

As a starting point, we can go back to a finding in The Times report: “In case after case, family members, teachers and mental health professionals missed or dismissed signs of deterioration.”

It wouldn’t hurt to start paying more attention to these signs of deterioration, and approach the problem of mass violence as a national public health concern — which it is.

It's not a coincidence that the invitation I received last Saturday for a Vigil for Action in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre came from the Department of Public Health at UCLA, and was co-sponsored by the Violence Prevention Coalition, an organization that advocates for seeing violence as a public health concern.

There's growing evidence that the Sandy Hook killer, Adam Lanza, had serious mental health issues and signs of deterioration. Did any family members, teachers or mental health professionals notice these signs, and if so, could they have taken more safety precautions without violating Lanza’s rights?

What should they have done to protect Lanza against himself and the world against Lanza?

These questions must be asked.

It’s in our interest to treat mass violence as a public health concern, but we must do so with extreme care and sensitivity, not least for the sake of the millions of people with mental health issues who have no violent tendencies.

In the long run, while this delicate approach is not as clear-cut as crying out for tougher gun laws, it may save even more lives.

Sandy Hook: Beyond gun control Read More »

Sandy Hook, Sandy and the politics of learned helplessness

“We have got to get Michelle to make this her priority.”

It was my friend Judith, a wise woman, a mother and grandmother, on the phone from across the country, the evening of the day of the Newtown massacre, trying to figure out how to enlist the first lady in a campaign against gun violence.

From the email Judith wrote her: “Unless from the top with unyielding outrage we rein in and destroy the gun lobby – unless we stigmatize the NRA as we stigmatized the Ku Klux Klan – we will be robbed of any claim we have to our children's and grandchildren's respect.”

She was calling to get my help to get Michelle Obama's attention. I was appalled by how effortlessly cynical was the response that came out of my mouth.

This one is different, I said. That's what everyone is saying, and it's true. Mowing down first-graders with a ” target=”_hplink”>Associated Press-Gfk poll was released; it found that 4 out of 5 Americans say global warming will be a serious U.S. problem unless action is taken to reduce it. “Belief and worry about climate change,” said the AP, “are inching up among Americans in general, but concern is growing faster among people who don't often trust scientists on the environment. In follow-up interviews, some of those doubters said they believe their own eyes as they've watched thermometers rise, New York City subway tunnels flood, polar ice melt and Midwestern farm fields dry up.”

” target=”_hplink”>350.org will continue to gain traction on college campuses. I have no doubt that the more stories about climate change that Americans hear and see, the more they will demand action from their representatives.

But as things stand, it is virtually inconceivable to me that our lawmakers will rise to the challenge. The petroleum industry swings as big a bat in Washington as the gun lobby. Even if the president has the second-term courage to propose it, our corrupt campaign finance system won't make an enlightened exception for a cap-and-trade bill. The fear of losing a race exceeds the fear of losing a planet.

Are special interests invincible? No, and each counter-example is a ray of hope, something we could all use this season. Last August, in the heat of the campaign, President Obama courageously doubled ” target=”_hplink”>it was called “a blow to the credibility and power of the nation's gun lobby,” proof that the “NRA is no longer bullet proof.” Still, I can't help noting that the CAFE standards were raised by executive action, and didn't require the assent of the Tea Party Congress. Or that the 1994 assault weapons ban was able to pass the House (by a razor-thin margin of 216 votes) because the NRA suffered 38 Republican defections, led by GOP leader Bob Michel of Illinois, who arguably was able to reverse his previous opposition to the ban because he – like several NRA-friendly Democrats who also voted for it – was about to retire from Congress. That fall, when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over the House, the narrative was born, and persists to this day, that bucking the NRA is political suicide.

This time around, I'd love my pessimism to be proven wrong. I'd be thrilled if Michelle Obama were the answer. I'd be grateful to rekindle my confidence in democracy. Learned helplessness is the status quo's most pernicious enabler, and I welcome any ladder out of this pit. But whether it's guns or climate change, poverty or plutocracy, war or water: whatever problem most troubles any of us, I'm convinced that the way forward requires a transformational solution to the power of money and fear to determine our national fate.


Marty Kaplan is the ” target=”_hplink”> USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Reach him at martyk@jewishjournal.com.

Sandy Hook, Sandy and the politics of learned helplessness Read More »

Israeli leaders send condolence messages in Newtown massacre

Israeli leaders sent letters of condolence to President Barack Obama over the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“On behalf of the people of Israel, as friends and as parents, we stand with you today in contemplation and grief over the atrocious, incomprehensible massacre of 20 children and six adults — educators — at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Israeli President Shimon Peres wrote. “No experience with death can be likened to that of a parents’ loss of their child. No crime is more heinous than the killing of a child.”

Twenty children, including a Jewish boy — 6-year-old Noah Pozner — and six school employees, were killed Friday when Adam Lanza, 20, forced his way into the building and opened fire. Lanza, who had attended the Sandy Hook school, also killed his mother, Nancy, in the home they shared.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in a letter sent Friday that he was “shocked and horrified by today's savage massacre of innocent children and adults” at the school.

“We in Israel have experienced such cruel acts of slaughter and we know the shock and agony they bring,” Netanyahu wrote. “I want to express my profound grief, and that of all the people in Israel, to the families that lost their loved ones. May you and the American people find the strength to overcome this unspeakable tragedy.”

In a video message posted on YouTube, Netanyahu addressed the American people, saying, “The people of Israel grieve with you. I can only pray that God will give you the strength, as he has given us, to overcome the tragedy and go on living.”

Israeli leaders send condolence messages in Newtown massacre Read More »

Friday Night Services Video Blog

We've been doing this daily redemption blog for over a month now.  We hope the experience has been as gratifying for you as it has been for us.  If, by some chance, you are still confused on what redemption really is, than we implore you to watch this video of our Services from Friday night.  At the core of our mission is the principle that nobody is un-redeemable.  If one person can be helped from that mission than we have done our job.  Enjoy!

Friday Night Services Video Blog Read More »