21 November 2010
Garlic and Remembrance
I had just been summarily dismissed by a girlfriend, with a memorably long kiss, who had found her ultimate life partner in another town. My previous year’s college roommate probably took pity on me and invited me to help him prepare and partake of an unusual dinner. It was one or two whole chickens roasted and stuffed with garlic cloves. I don’t remember whether he roasted them in the oven or in a pan, but I was reminded of the dish by Calvin Trillin’s article in the November 22, 2010, New Yorker about a New Orleans roadhouse restaurant, “No Daily Specials.”
The two of us diligently peeled many heads of the fragrant herb, apparently without knowing the simpler way to free each clove from its papery shell was by smashing it under the flat side of a carving knife. There were probably many more lessons that my friend learned in culinary arts, not the least of which was an affirmation of the roadhouse-owner John Mosca’s admonition to talk someone who did you wrong into going into the restaurant business in order to “get even with him for the rest of his life.”
I’m sure my friend’s wife and daughters have always been thankful they avoided that argument.
I had just been summarily dismissed by a girlfriend, with a memorably long kiss, who had found her ultimate life partner in another town. My previous year’s college roommate probably took pity on me and invited me to help him prepare and partake of an unusual dinner. It was one or two whole chickens roasted and stuffed with garlic cloves. I don’t remember whether he roasted them in the oven or in a pan, but I was reminded of the dish by Calvin Trillin’s article in the November 22, 2010, New Yorker about a New Orleans roadhouse restaurant, “No Daily Specials.”
The two of us diligently peeled many heads of the fragrant herb, apparently without knowing the simpler way to free each clove from its papery shell was by smashing it under the flat side of a carving knife. There were probably many more lessons that my friend learned in culinary arts, not the least of which was an affirmation of the roadhouse-owner John Mosca’s admonition to talk someone who did you wrong into going into the restaurant business in order to “get even with him for the rest of his life.”
I’m sure my friend’s wife and daughters have always been thankful they avoided that argument.
04 November 2010
Politics Is Not a Zero-Sum Game
Both political parties were trounced by the voters in the November 2, 2010 election. What choice did they have for announcing their displeasure with Washington’s performance over the last two years—Stay at home or “Kick the bums out?”
Neither the President nor the leaders of Congress were elected to enact any “mandate;” they were elected to make government work. The way to accomplish that is not to adopt any ideologically pure agenda, at the expense of opposing ideologues. Fred Barnes’ OpEd in the November 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal wrongly assesses the effectiveness of President Obama’s response to Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat last year by its effect on the Democratic Party. While I agree that moving his policies rightward would have been a wise step for the President, its importance would have come from achieving better results for citizens from government measures. Both parties would have come out of that adjustment with a better record of doing what benefits their constituents.
Once he’s elected, the President’s responsibility is to draw policy results from the factious Congress that advance the general welfare. The objective of the Republican Party should be to help Obama succeed in achieving that goal and not to limit him to one term. The same goes for the Democrats. Voters may decide they prefer the policies advocated by one party, the other one, or another source. But regardless, they should entrust their representatives with positions in Congress not as much because of their ideologies as because of their ability to get beneficial things done there.
Both political parties were trounced by the voters in the November 2, 2010 election. What choice did they have for announcing their displeasure with Washington’s performance over the last two years—Stay at home or “Kick the bums out?”
Neither the President nor the leaders of Congress were elected to enact any “mandate;” they were elected to make government work. The way to accomplish that is not to adopt any ideologically pure agenda, at the expense of opposing ideologues. Fred Barnes’ OpEd in the November 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal wrongly assesses the effectiveness of President Obama’s response to Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat last year by its effect on the Democratic Party. While I agree that moving his policies rightward would have been a wise step for the President, its importance would have come from achieving better results for citizens from government measures. Both parties would have come out of that adjustment with a better record of doing what benefits their constituents.
Once he’s elected, the President’s responsibility is to draw policy results from the factious Congress that advance the general welfare. The objective of the Republican Party should be to help Obama succeed in achieving that goal and not to limit him to one term. The same goes for the Democrats. Voters may decide they prefer the policies advocated by one party, the other one, or another source. But regardless, they should entrust their representatives with positions in Congress not as much because of their ideologies as because of their ability to get beneficial things done there.
01 November 2010
Baha’i Tradeoff Play
Because of their world headquarters and sacred shrines in Haifa, the community of five million Baha’i around the world has considerable economic impact on the welfare not only of that city, but arguably on the whole of Israel. It is also under continual persecution by the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, which is a professed enemy of Israel as well as a financial and ideological supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
Exerting political pressure is supposedly prohibited by the tenets of the Baha’i faith. However, the very survival of its adherents in the land of its greatest prevalence may justify an exception to that rule. Perhaps the Baha’i should form a directed alliance with religiously moderate groups in Israel who are opposed to the hard-line ideologues in that society who have obstructed a resolution of its territorial dispute with the Palestinian people. A Baha’i committee could mobilize the community’s financial resources and international social network to influence business backers (IT, agricultural, and travel industries are vulnerable candidates) of the conservative Jewish segment of Israel’s ruling class. Their objective would be to draw Israel into a peaceful two-state settlement with the Palestinian Authority.
The ultimate advantage for the Baha’i would be to provide them with leverage in restoring their human, civil and cultural rights in Iran. To the extent that they are successful in influencing the Israeli government to reconcile with its neighboring Arab state, they will improve their political stature even in an Iran governed by a fundamentalist Shiite regime.
Because of their world headquarters and sacred shrines in Haifa, the community of five million Baha’i around the world has considerable economic impact on the welfare not only of that city, but arguably on the whole of Israel. It is also under continual persecution by the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, which is a professed enemy of Israel as well as a financial and ideological supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
Exerting political pressure is supposedly prohibited by the tenets of the Baha’i faith. However, the very survival of its adherents in the land of its greatest prevalence may justify an exception to that rule. Perhaps the Baha’i should form a directed alliance with religiously moderate groups in Israel who are opposed to the hard-line ideologues in that society who have obstructed a resolution of its territorial dispute with the Palestinian people. A Baha’i committee could mobilize the community’s financial resources and international social network to influence business backers (IT, agricultural, and travel industries are vulnerable candidates) of the conservative Jewish segment of Israel’s ruling class. Their objective would be to draw Israel into a peaceful two-state settlement with the Palestinian Authority.
The ultimate advantage for the Baha’i would be to provide them with leverage in restoring their human, civil and cultural rights in Iran. To the extent that they are successful in influencing the Israeli government to reconcile with its neighboring Arab state, they will improve their political stature even in an Iran governed by a fundamentalist Shiite regime.
