Bob Schwartz

Living under an American Pharaoh: What’s a Jew to do?

It’s almost Passover, so Pharaoh is our minds. Also on our minds because we are living under an American Pharaoh—or at least a wannabe Pharaoh.

Don’t let him fool you. Just because his chief henchman is Jewish, or his son-in-law is Jewish, or some of his rich donors are Jewish, or because he says and does things that make it seem that he understands and cares about Jews and Israel (he doesn’t), he is nothing less than a Pharaoh.

So where does that leave American Jews, particularly at Passover?

It is actually not that surprising that some Jews have joined the Pharaoh’s cause. There are dramatic moments in the exodus story where Jews are willing to throw away freedom and principle for a golden calf and the comfort of the Pharaoh’s harsh protection.

And Aaron said to them, “Take off the golden rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” And all the people took off the golden rings that were on their ears and brought them to Aaron. And he took them from their hand and he fashioned it in a mold and made it into a molten calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” And Aaron saw, and he built an altar before it, and Aaron called out and said, “Tomorrow is a festival to the LORD.” And they rose early on the next day, and they offered up burnt offerings and brought forward communion sacrifices, and the people came back from eating and drinking and they rose up to play.
Exodus 32:2-6

So where does that leave the Jews who do not believe in Pharaoh? We can stay and argue with those who support Pharaoh, though that has so far proven pointless. We can escape to the wilderness in search of a Promised Land of freedom and light, although by many conventions America is already the Promised Land of freedom and light.

Or we can all be tiny Moses, telling fellow Jews at Passover that worshiping Pharaoh and a golden calf and unprincipled conduct is ungodly and unholy. We cannot wait for God to intervene because God leaves it up to us. Let us not disappoint.

You want to know what the 80s were like? Watch St. Elmo’s Fire. (Not!)

It’s hard to know whether to say that St. Elmo’s Fire (1985) reflects the 1980s. On the one hand, it does star the so-called Brat Pack of young stars (real or wannabe) of the era. On the other hand, it is so cheesy and Hollywood-version-of-unreality, starring the so-called Brat Pack of young stars (real or wannabe) of the era:

Emilio Estevez as Kirby “Kirbo” Keager, a law student and waiter at St. Elmo’s Bar.

Rob Lowe as Billy Hicks, a saxophonist “frat boy” and reluctant husband and father.

Andrew McCarthy as Kevin Dolenz, a writer for The Washington Post with a sullen streak, and Kirby’s roommate.

Demi Moore as Julianna “Jules” Van Patten, an international banker and the “party girl” of the group.

Judd Nelson as Alec Newbury, a yuppie pursuing a career in politics.

Ally Sheedy as Leslie Hunter, a budding architect who is reluctant to marry Alec.

Mare Winningham as Wendy Beamish, a welfare clerk from a wealthy family and devoted to helping others.

(Thanks Wikipedia)

If you’ve never seen it, you’ve gotta watch it. And in a twisted, ironic, completely unhistorical way, you’ve gotta love it.

The Mueller Team Champions Truth and Outplays William Barr

“Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials. After Mr. Mueller made no judgment on the obstruction matter, Mr. Barr stepped in to declare that he himself had cleared Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.”
New York Times

Investigators from the special counsel’s office have indicated that that Barr’s four-page summary of the Mueller Report “failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.”

This has led to reports that Attorney General Barr is frustrated that Mueller left the decision on obstruction of justice charges to him. He should be frustrated, because his ongoing attempts to hide the most damaging evidence—something he promised Trump he would do—are being thwarted. He got played.

Here’s how it works. Mueller knew that if he determined the issue, whatever he said would be dismissed. He also knew that there was plenty of evidence that might support indicting Trump or at least naming him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

So he put Barr in a no-win situation. If Barr admitted that there was substantial negative evidence, even if not enough to indict, he would hurt Trump. If Barr downplayed it and aggressively tried to cover up the evidence, and the evidence came out—as, after much wrangling, it will—Barr would look like he was taking part in a cover-up. Which he may be.


See Lesson for Trump Attorneys: The Lawyers of Watergate:

“Congress initiated multiple investigations that exposed the involvement of more than 20 of the most powerful lawyers in the United States.

At the top of the list was Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, who resigned on Aug. 8, 1974, as Congress was gearing up to conduct impeachment proceedings.

But the list also included two U.S. attorneys general, two White House counsels, an assistant attorney general and a chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.”

“Trump wrongly claims his dad was born in Germany — for the third time”

Fred Trump, Born in the U.S.A.

Trump may be the biggest idiot in America. Or he deserves our compassion for his cognitive challenges.

Washington Post:

Trump wrongly claims his dad was born in Germany — for the third time
Trump claims his father was born in Germany

Speaking to reporters April 2, President Trump said his father “was born in a very wonderful place in Germany.” Fred Trump was born in New York.

Of all the odd, counterfactual and conspiratorial claims President Trump has made over the past four years or so, this one may take the cake: He said Tuesday that his father was born in Germany, even though he wasn’t.

It is at least the third time he has said this.

“My father is German — was German,” Trump said. “Born in a very wonderful place in Germany, so I have a great feeling for Germany.”

This is not true. Fred Trump is of German descent, and his father was a German immigrant. But Fred Trump was born in New York.

If you ask most adults—and many children—they can tell you what country their parents were born in. You probably know what country your parents were born in. Maybe there are cases where parents were unclear or unsure, or wanted to hide their origins, but otherwise most people know.

It is possible that given Trump’s predilection to lie, this is just one more. On the other hand, maybe he is cognitively off balance, and he has actually forgotten where his father was born. Either way, every attempt by those who know where their parents were born to escape the Twilight Zone has once again been thwarted. It’s been surreal.

Democrats are looking for a phenom. They may have found one—if they can handle it.

“Phenom” is a fascinating English word. It was first used in 1890, to describe an inordinately talented young baseball player on a trajectory to be a superstar. Short for “phenomenon,” it has mostly passed out of usage, but remains an excellent descriptor.

Democrats have had recent experience with a presidential phenom. Obama was just 43 when he started to go supernova at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. A few years later, his talent and person would take him, against all odds and history, to the presidency, and also against all odds and opposition, keep him there for two terms.

In baseball and elsewhere, everybody knows what can happen with phenoms. Some shine and succeed beyond imagining. Some burn out and never make it past their first season.

Democrats would love to find and run another phenom, but are justifiably skittish about losing a precious, one-time-only opportunity to preserve American democracy. They are ambivalent about a phenom like Pete Buttigieg. He has all the right stuff—young, brilliant, accessible, charismatic, articulate, war veteran, Rhodes Scholar, speaks six languages, plays piano at a symphony level, etc. But will the American people elect a married gay man as president?

If the Democrats were confident the answer was “Yes,” we might be at the early stages of another phenomenon. If they are unsure or have already decided the answer is “no,” then we are in uncharted soul-searching territory. But in politics 2019, uncharted soul-searching territory is the name of the game.

April 2 is April Wise Day

If you didn’t notice, April Fools’ Day this year seemed subdued. I understand that, since I didn’t feel much like making light of lying for fun and making light of foolishness. Living daily with very public lying and foolishness makes joking about it too tragic to be funny.

Maybe today, the day after, can be April Wise Day. It can be a day to appreciate the precious value of even tiny bits of wisdom, the kind you hear and read, the kind that can make your life and the lives of those in your world better and bearable.

So look out for wisdom, speak it, seek it, recognize it when you stumble upon it. It’s out there, more plentiful than the foolishness that may be weighing you down.

Here’s a starter, appropriate for April Fools’ Day or any day. Happy April Wise Day.

Get into the habit of singing
a tune. It will give you
new life and fill you with joy.

Get into the habit of dancing.
It will displace depression and
dispel hardship.

Finding true joy is the hardest of
all spiritual tasks. If the only way
to make yourself happy
is by doing something silly,
do it.

Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav (1772–1810), from The Empty Chair: Finding Hope and Joy—Timeless Wisdom from a Hasidic Master, Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

Marijuana Science: Reasonable Discussion Is Necessary—and Nearly Impossible

People like intoxicants. It’s in the Bible. Even Supreme Court justices such as Brett Kavanaugh like them—a lot: “I like beer! I like beer! I like beer!” People like them for a lot of reasons, including enjoyment and enlightenment. And yes, these include all the substances we may use regularly to change how we act and feel, such as coffee and tobacco.

Nothing is free of consequence, certainly not intoxicants. As individuals we take the good with the bad. The same goes for the society the individuals comprise and affect. Society sometimes like to step in to assert balance on the weight of good and bad.

With alcohol Prohibition, America gave the world the best living laboratory of this balancing, specifically how this balancing could go very wrong. By ascribing social ills to a behavior that few were willing to give up, America turned into a nation of scofflaws enabling and enriching criminals and, ironically, the use of alcohol actually increased.

But the failure of Prohibition as a social tool never meant that alcohol could not be a sinister force. It is an enabler of good times and is complicit in many tragedies. As a society we agree to take the good with the bad, and hope and encourage individuals to maintain their own balance, with the law as a backstop.

Prohibition is also an example of the extremism that has attached to other intoxicants, extremism that always pushes out reasonable discussion in favor absolutes, that is, absolute evils. One reaction to unreasonable extremism is extremism: if something you know is good is incorrectly labelled absolutely bad by others, obviously it is absolutely good.

There is no possibility that marijuana is absolutely good for everybody. There is no possibility that marijuana at certain potencies used in certain frequencies is good for everybody. Research into this topic is ramping up, as in this new study:

Findings

Between May 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015, we obtained data from 901 patients with first-episode psychosis across 11 sites and 1237 population controls from those same sites. Daily cannabis use was associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder compared with never users (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·2, 95% CI 2·2–4·1), increasing to nearly five-times increased odds for daily use of high-potency types of cannabis (4·8, 2·5–6·3). The PAFs calculated indicated that if high-potency cannabis were no longer available, 12·2% (95% CI 3·0–16·1) of cases of first-episode psychosis could be prevented across the 11 sites, rising to 30·3% (15·2–40·0) in London and 50·3% (27·4–66·0) in Amsterdam. The adjusted incident rates for psychotic disorder were positively correlated with the prevalence in controls across the 11 sites of use of high-potency cannabis (r = 0·7; p=0·0286) and daily use (r = 0·8; p=0·0109).

Interpretation

Differences in frequency of daily cannabis use and in use of high-potency cannabis contributed to the striking variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across the 11 studied sites. Given the increasing availability of high-potency cannabis, this has important implications for public health.

Just mentioning this will seem to some a betrayal of the movement to end marijuana prohibition, a truly benighted and thoughtlessly reflexive policy. It is not a betrayal. It is merely a plea for something we have rarely had before: an open and informed public conversation about a widely used and impossible to stop intoxicant.

If we’ve learned nothing else in recent days, it’s that nothing is more harmful than hiding the truth, nothing more valuable than putting all the evidence on the table. If you believe in climate science, then you have to believe in marijuana science. Only then can we try for a reasonable discussion, hard as that may be.

Transforming dead treasure into living treasure

Religious traditions, those I identify with as a home, and those I visit, are treasure houses. But that is different than being a treasure hunter. Every treasure, no matter how alluring or valuable in some marketplace, is inert—dead. The hunting and finding is fun. But each treasure demands work for it to become anything other than a trophy or museum piece. Each treasure asks to be transformed and brought to life.

DSM-5: Antagonism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder

 

DSM-5

This post was first published more than two years ago. It refers to no individual by name, but since it is regularly viewed by dozens of people each week, I am confident the message got through. Now that the issue of this personality disorder is finally at the top of the news, here it is again for those who may have missed it. Still no name mentioned, but there is no doubt what it suggests.

Mental health is a serious matter and mental health practitioners are serious professionals. These are not to be treated lightly and off-handedly.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is the “bible” of the mental health profession: “a classification of mental disorders with associated criteria designed to facilitate more reliable diagnoses of these disorders.” It is not a reference to be thrown around and used casually by non-professionals.

The DSM can nonetheless be fascinating, especially when certain strong behavioral traits observed in others seem to closely match the traits and possible related disorders referenced in the DSM.

With the above caution and caveat, here are selections from DSM-5 about the Personality Trait Domain of Antagonism. More from the DSM about the way this may or may not relate to Narcissistic Personality Disorder will follow in a subsequent post.

Personality trait: A tendency to behave, feel, perceive, and think in relatively consistent ways across time and across situations in which the trait may be manifest.

Personality trait facets: Specific personality components that make up the five broad personality trait domains in the dimensional taxonomy of Section III “Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.” For example, the broad domain Antagonism has the following component facets: Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, Grandiosity, Attention Seeking, Callousness, and Hostility.

Antagonism: Behaviors that put an individual at odds with other people, such as an exaggerated sense of self-importance with a concomitant expectation of special treatment, as well as a callous antipathy toward others, encompassing both unawareness of others’ needs and feelings, and a readiness to use others in the service of self-enhancement. Antagonism is one of the five broad personality trait domains defined in Section III “Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.”

Manipulativeness: Use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one’s ends. Manipulativeness is a facet of the broad personality trait domain Antagonism.

Grandiosity: Believing that one is superior to others and deserves special treatment; self-centeredness; feelings of entitlement; condescension toward others. Grandiosity is a facet of the broad personality trait domain Antagonism.

Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events. Deceitfulness is a facet of the broad personality trait domain Antagonism.

Attention seeking: Engaging in behavior designed to attract notice and to make oneself the focus of others’ attention and admiration. Attention seeking is a facet of the broad personality trait domain Antagonism.

Callousness: Lack of concern for the feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one’s actions on others. Callousness is a facet of the broad personality trait domain Antagonism.

Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior. Hostility is a facet of the broad personality trait domain Antagonism.

Mike Trout Signing 12-Year $426.5 Million Contract

I am rerunning a post from last year about the incomparable and inspirational excellence and humility of Mike Trout. Playing for the Los Angeles Angels, he has been the best player in baseball since he started in 2011, and there is growing consensus that he might finish his career as the best player ever.

He has not yet single-handedly helped the Angels to playoff success, but that may come. In two years, he would be able to be a free agent and accept enormous offers from other teams. Instead, the Angels wisely decided to offer him the biggest contract in sports history.

Big contracts in sports, entertainment, business and other realms are often a sign of nothing more than too much money chasing too little talent. In the case of Mike Trout, the opposite is true. Google Mike Trout and see what thousands are saying–including the thought that the Angels are getting a bargain!


Mike Trout of the Los Angeles Angels is universally considered the best player in Major League Baseball. The only questions remaining are how much better he might get and whether he may be the best to ever play the game. Seriously, and seriously amazing since Trout is only 26 and has been in the majors only since 2011.

I’ll let veteran sportswriter Mike Lupica take over the story. But there is one more point to make about Trout. Along with overwhelming acknowledgment of his once-in-a-generation talent, he is universally regarded for his humility and lack of showmanship. He only wants to do three things: play baseball as well as he can for his team, get better every day at playing baseball, and be known and seen for playing baseball and not for anything else he says or does.

For those of us who are not nearly the best, let alone the best ever, that should be inspiring and aspirational.


Mike Lupica
MLB.com

The question for the Angels’ Mike Scioscia, who has seen it all from Mike Trout from the moment Trout hit the big leagues in 2011, was simple enough. It was about Trout’s capacity, if he has one, to still surprise his own manager, as Trout continues to be the greatest star of his sport and one of the great stars of American sports, even if he is not discussed nearly often enough outside baseball the way he ought to be, which means as baseball’s LeBron….

It doesn’t work that way in baseball, or for Trout, who is the best player of his time, on his way, if he is blessed by good health, to someday being called one of the most complete of all time. To this point, Trout has only played three postseason games in his career. He has just one postseason home run in the books. LeBron always has the postseason stage, and the brightest lights there are. So does someone like Tom Brady, who has played eight Super Bowls in his own career.

Not Trout, at least not so far.

It does not change who Trout is and what he has done in baseball and keeps doing, before his 27th birthday. From the time he played his first full season for the Angels in 2012, the only time he has finished worse than second in the American League’s MVP Award voting was last season, when he got hurt and only played 114 games. Even with all the missed time, Trout finished fourth in the voting. So he has two MVPs already, three seconds, a fourth. As always, his personal stats continue to give off a beam of light.

When I suggested to Reggie Jackson, who lives in southern California and has had his own ringside seat to the way Trout plays the game, that Trout is the superstar who sometimes seems to be hiding in plain sight, Reggie said, “No. We all know that he’s the best player.”

Added Reggie: “You know how we always talk about five-tool players [hitting for average, hitting for power, base running, throwing, and fielding]? You watch Trout play and sometimes you swear he’s got even more than that. He checks boxes that you didn’t even know were boxes.”