San Francisco Jewish Film Festival - Part 2

Following up on my earlier comments on the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (7/31), here’s how the second half of the festival went for me.

There were three must sees:

• Under African Skies – A documentary celebrating one of the greatest albums ever recorded, Paul Simon’s “Graceland”. But not merely celebratory, this film delves into the genesis of the album and the controversy surrounding it – specifically Simon’s apparent violation of the U.N.’s cultural boycott of South Africa. Great film, great music, incredible performances, both then and now, but also a great deal to think about as Simon confronts the decisions he made at the time.

• Ameer Got His Gun – An amazing documentary chronicling Ameer, an 18-year old Arab-Israeli who volunteers for duty with the IDF (military service is not compulsory for Arab-Israelis; only a few hundred volunteer each year). How Ameer copes with reactions from both his Arab neighbors and his new IDF mates is a wonder to behold. And the ability of the filmmakers to get access to his IDF training and deployments provide a rare inside view of life in the Israeli Defense Force.

• Roman Polanski: A Film Memoir – Who is Roman Polanski? Gifted filmmaker (“Rosemary’s Baby”, “Chinatown”, “The Pianist”)? Sharon Tate’s husband? Fugitive from U.S. justice for statutory rape? My guess is his fugitive status is what most people think about today. In astonishingly candid interviews, Polanski tells his life story, the whole story. Especially poignant is learning how his own life experiences in Poland informed “The Pianist”, perhaps his greatest film. See this documentary and decide for yourself who Roman Polanski really is.

As in my previous post, if not absolute must sees, what follows are outstanding films that you should see if you can:

• God’s Fiddler – The story of Jascha Heifetz, one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century, who none other than Itzhak Perlman, when describing a conversation with Heifetz said, “I’m talking to God.”

• One Day After Peace – The story of an Israeli mother and activist seeking closure after her son was killed by a Palestinian sniper while on active IDF duty. Originally from South Africa, she travels back there to learn about apartheid forgiveness and whether the South African lessons can be applied to current day Israel.

• Hava Negila (The Movie) – The history of everyone’s favorite wedding and Bar Mitzvah song. Fun.

• Kaddish for a Friend – Combining Jewish/Arab relations, generational differences and the plight of Muslim immigrants in Germany, this is a compelling drama with top-notch performances by the two leads.  

• The Day I Saw Your Heart – A bitter sweet film about family relationships with enough Jewishness, enough Paris and enough Melanie Laurent (“The Round-Up”, “Inglorious Bastards”) to make it good.

• Restoration – Any film starring Sasson Gabai (“The Band’s Visit”) is worth seeing. He is incredible! This film won Best Screenplay at Sundance and 11 Israeli Film Academy Award nominations.

For more information on these films as well as a number of films I didn’t mention go to the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival’s website (www.sfjff.org). 

By the way, one film I didn't mention is Glickman, the story of Marty Glickman the athlete and legendary sportscaster. Unfortunately, my travel schedule is causing me to miss this film. My guess is, based on what I've heard about it as well as my own experiences growing up with Marty Glickman as a New York Football Giants fan in the '50's, this would be on my "must-see" list. Hopefully Netflix or American Experience will come through. 

I’m off on a business assignment starting tomorrow (8/5) for two weeks so might not be posting frequently. Hopefully you’ll miss me.

San Francisco Jewish Film Festival

I often say that the two weeks or so of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival each summer is a special time. So special that I generally arrange my travel schedule so I can be in town during the festival's run. Is every film great? No. In fact a number are either just OK or simply disappointing (I won't comment on films in either of those categories). But on balance, this festival is an absolute winner and one of the highlights of my year. Now at about the half-way point I wanted to provide my take on a number of films.

Two documentaries are absolute must sees :

Follow Me: The Yoni Netanyahu Story - This film documents the life of Benjamin Netanyahu's older brother and the history of the State of Israel in an artfully edited, highly compelling way and;

Besa: The Promise - A little known story of how Albanian Muslims offered asylum to Jews from other countries - there were hardly any Jews in Albania - during World War II. How the "besa", the Albanian concept of "promise" or "pledge" is played out, will leave you emotionally drained.

Find these films somehow and see them. Your efforts will be rewarded.

If not absolute must sees, what follows are outstanding films that you should see if you can:

• Life in Stills - The story of the 96 year-old widow of the official photographer of the Israeli Declaration of Independence as she and her grandson try to save their Tel Aviv studio.
• The Other Son - The Israeli-Palestinian conflict told through a separated at birth story. Powerful, moving and somewhat reminiscent of Incendies a recent Academy Award nominee.
• White: A Memoir in Color - White, Black, Jewish and the notion of identity, this documentary tackles the Jewish/Black relationship in America in a novel, highly personal way.
• The Flat - An Israeli Best Documentary Award winner, The Flat tells the story of the discovery of the little known relationship between a German Jewish couple who emigrated to Palestine and a high-ranking German official and his wife. In so doing, we learn about a different kind of Holocaust denial.
• Sharqiya - A drama about the Bedouin place in Israeli society. Winner of the Best Feature Award at the Jerusalem Film Festival.
• A.K.A Doc Pomus - Do you know the song, "Save the Last Dance for Me"? Or "This Magic Moment"? Or "Viva Las Vegas"? Or so many more? Then you know the work of Doc Pomus (aka Jerome Felder). An amazing documentary about music, talent and courage, you will leave the film humming.
• The Law in These Parts - An often troubling investigation of how Israeli law is applied, or not applied, in the Occupied Territories. No matter which side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you're on, this will provoke thought.
• A Bottle in the Gaza Sea - Romeo and Juliet with a twist; Romeo is Palestinian and Juliet an Israeli Jew. This is a unique and unconventional love story set against the Gaza conflicts of 2007-08.
• Harbour of Hope - This documentary tells the story of the efforts of Red Cross authorities in Malmo Sweden to save inmates of concentration camps in Germany at the end of World War II, focusing on the stories of both the saviors and the saved then and now.
• Broken - What it's like to be a young, Jewish teacher in the slums of Paris, Broken is not your ordinary teacher in a bad school story. It will leave an indelible impression. 

With one more week to go and a lot more films to screen, I'll provide another update next week. 

Mitt, Jet-lag and the Energizer Bunny

I learned today that among the walk-backs, rationalizations and defenses of Mitt Romney's astonishingly bad London visit, the best was this one from a campaign adviser who said Romney had misspoken because he was tired and jet-lagged. "Even the Energizer Bunny needs new batteries once in a while."


Tired and jet-lagged? If he becomes president, what happens when that infamous 3 AM call comes in? "Call back at 8; I need my 9 hours sleep."


Did he invoke the "dog ate my homework" excuse when he failed to hand in assignments at prep school? I guess "too busy bullying gay classmates" wouldn't fly.


Let's think about jet-lag. If we assume Romney was flying from Boston - he does have a couple of residences in New England -typical flight time is about seven hours, with a loss of 5 time zones. (By comparison San Francisco to Boston is about 5-1/2 hours and three time zones). What international business man, let alone major world political figure, is going to feel the effects of jet-lag on a trip like that? I mean he wasn't flying half-way around the world and crossing the International Date Line. And, I'm going to take an educated guess that Romney wasn't flying coach. 


This is truly scary. This man wants to be President of the United States. Critical decisions -- decisions that effect our security and well-being --have to be made without regard to prearranged schedules and sleep patterns. What Romney had to deal with in London wasn't even important; it was banal - no thinking required. And he blew it!


Message to Republicans: You still have time. I hear the Energizer Bunny is available.

Romney's Consequential London Gaffes

In my post yesterday regarding Mitt Romney’s interview with Brian Williams on NBC, I decided to concentrate on three specific areas of the conversation - gun control, tax returns and the economy. I learned today that by focusing on those topics only, I missed what has become today’s kerfuffle, his comments on London’s preparations for the Olympic games. And those comments, importantly, say a lot about the man.

Here’s the transcript:

BRIAN WILLIAMS:

And in the short time you've been here in London, do they look ready to your experienced eye?

MITT ROMNEY:

You know, it's hard to know just how well it were turn out-- will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the-- private security firm not having enough people-- the sup-- supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging. Because in the games, there-- there are three parts that makes games successful.

The response in London was swift and direct.

British Prime Minister David Cameron: "We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities in the world. Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere."

London Mayor Boris Johnson: "I hear there's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready. He wants to know whether we're ready. Are we ready? Are we ready? Yes, we are."

The Sun, Britain’s best-selling newspaper (and owned by Rupert Murdoch) headlined “Mitt the Twit” going on to call him a “wannabe president”.

The Daily Mail slammed him as devoid of charm, offensive and a wazzock. (A wazzock is British slang and is defined as “an idiot; an annoyingly stupid person”)

A Sky News reporter asked: "Is this guy really prepared to be president?"

Even nine-time Olympic gold medal winner Carl Lewis, not a Brit, chimed in: “I swear, sometimes I think some Americans shouldn’t leave the country. Are you kidding me, stay home if you don’t know what to say.”

This bears repeating – a man who has an even chance to be the next president and the leader of the free world being told – STAY HOME IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO SAY!

And this, as Romney’s first trip abroad as a presidential candidate, was intended to show off his strength as a statesman.

Quite a show.

Now Romney, being Mitt, walked back his London readiness comments less than a day later: “After being here a couple of days, it looks to me like London is ready. And, of course, it is hard to put on games in a major metropolitan area.”

So, he was for London’s efforts before he was against it. Or is it the other way around?

In any event, besides the Olympics gaffe Romney apparently didn’t remember the name of the opposition leader, Ed Miliband, and talked openly about his meeting with the head of MI6, Britain’s ultra-secret foreign intelligence unit, a major breech of protocol in London

Tom McCarthy of The Guardian: “For our American readership, this isn’t like bragging you just met David Petraeus. The British take on the national secret intelligence service comes with an extra-heavy dollop of the whole secret thing,”

What’s wrong with this guy? This trip was supposed to be easy. Even conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer of Fox News called Romney's performance in London "unbelievable," and "beyond human understanding".

"All Romney has to do is say nothing," Krauthammer said. "It's like a guy in a 100-meter dash. All he has to do is to finish; he doesn't have to win. And instead, he tackles the guy in the lane next to him and ends up disqualified. I don't get it."

The conventional wisdom is that this is “small ball” stuff; that it will all blow over in a few days; that this election will be all about the economy. The election might well be decided on the economy. But there’s more to being the president than shepherding the economy. As conservative commentator William Kristol wrote in The Weekly Standard, “Yes, the American people are focused on the economy – and understandably so. But Romney isn’t running for treasury secretary – he is running for Commander in Chief. And those responsibilities begin on Day 1 of his presidency."

Romney is running as the experienced business man who can turn our economy around. Given that he’s presented no concrete plans to show how he’ll do that, and there’s no evidence that success in business translates to success in public office (let alone the presidency), what are we left with? We’re left with his public persona of flip-flops, gaffes and fact twisting for political gain. And not only doesn't that inspire confidence, it doesn't even demonstrate competence. Don’t we deserve more?

Romney and Brian Williams - What Do I Know Now That I Didn't Know Before?

I learned today that after Mitt Romney's extended interview with Brian Williams of NBC yesterday, with a few notable exceptions, I know very little more about the man and/or his policies than I did prior to the telecast. What I did learn is that Romney, again with a few exceptions, is seemingly incapable of directly answering questions. Perhaps he should be running for "Obfuscator" in Chief rather than Commander in Chief. 


The interview was conducted in London and was one of the first extended interviews Romney has given to a non-Fox News Channel journalist. It was wide ranging, including a discussion of Romney's heritage (actually his father's heritage), his faith and the Olympics. But I'd like to focus on three areas: gun control, tax returns and the economy, and will include transcripts of Williams' questions and Romney's answers along with my commentary.


Gun Control
BRIAN WILLIAMS:

As governor, you signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. And you said at the time, quote, "These guns are not made for recreation or self defense, they are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Do you still believe that?

MITT ROMNEY:

Well, I actually signed a piece of legislation, as you described, that banned assault weapons in our state. It was a continuation of prior-- legislation. And it was backed both by the Second Amendment advocates like myself, and those that wanted to restrict-- gun rights. Because it was a compromise. Both sides got some things improved in the laws as they existed.

And I happen to think that with regards to the Aurora, Colorado disaster, we're wise to-- continue the time of memorial and-- and think of the comforting the people affected. And-- and political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road. But I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this-- young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening.

Ted Block: Clear, to the point. I know now that as governor, Romney believed that compromise is important to get legislation done. I don't know whether he will take that philosophy forward to the White House, if he has the chance. Certainly, nothing in his recent statements would suggest he will. However, one important point of difference: Just about everything this "young man" did, except for the actual shooting, was legal. And that's the heart of the problem.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:

As a practical matter, do you have a problem with being able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition off the internet?

MITT ROMNEY:

Well, I don't know that I'm gonna be able to find a way to prevent people who want to pro-- provide harm, from being able to purchase things that could carry out that harm. What I wanna do is find the people who represent a danger to America and find them and keep them from having the capacity to use or buy things that could har-- harm-- hurt other people.

Ted Block: I know now that Romney will not commit to a position on gun control. Actually, there are things that he, as president, can do to help prevent people from purchasing things that could carry out harm - an assault weapons ban; a limit on the amount and type of ammunition that can be purchased; closing the gun show background check loophole. He needs to talk to, and compromise with, legislators like Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn Mahoney to find a way. Perhaps the reason that he doesn't think he can find a way to do these things is because of the influence of the N.R.A. Speaking of which...


BRIAN WILLIAMS:

You said a few years back, quote, "I don't line up with the N.R.A." Is that still true?

MITT ROMNEY:

Well, on every single issue-- there are differences between myself and the N.R.A. On many issues, we-- we share a common commitment to the Second Amendment and the right of people to bear arms. But I'm sure from time to time there'll be issues where-- where they and I might part. I-- I don't have one for you right now. But-- but their agenda is not entirely identical with my own. I-- I don't know that I line up 100% with the-- with almost anybody.

Ted Block: I now know that there are either differences between Romney and the N.R.A. on every single issue and/or some issues. I just don't know what those issues are. So which is it - are there differences between Romney and the N.R.A. on every single issue? Or are there only differences from "time to time". And if there are differences, why can't he name one?  Is it possible that he CAN actually name more than one but chooses not to because it is politically inconvenient?

Tax Returns

BRIAN WILLIAMS:

On to another topic-- and that is your taxes. Can you say that your decision is firm that you'll not do a walk-back between now and the convention, now and the fall election? That there will be no returns-- more returns released by Mitt Romney?

MITT ROMNEY:

I'm following the same precedent that was put in place by John McCain. Two years, and by the way, hundreds of pages (LAUGH) of returns for the Democrat operatives to go through and twist and distort and to turn in different directions and try and make a big deal out of. But, you know, the American people are not real concerned about tax returns. They're concerned about who can get this economy going and create good jobs again. And I can. The president hasn't been able to do the job as he had expected to do. And I know how to get it done.

BRIAN WILLIAMS:

But you know-- also know what happens in the real world, governor. People hear, "He's not gonna release the rest of his returns," and they wonder why. They wonder, "Is there a year there where he paid no taxes?" They wonder about expensive horses and houses and what have you. So I'll ask another way. What is it that is preventing you from releasing the rest of your returns?

MITT ROMNEY:

Well one, I’ve released all the information about my financial holdings. That's required by law. And then in addition beyond the law, have released, or will finally release act-- when the last year is complete, two years of full returns. And what we've noted is our Democrat friends, take what's there, twist it, distort it-- dishonestly use it in-- in attack ads. I just don't wanna give 'em more material than is required.

Ted Block: Actually, on this one, I know nothing more than I knew before the interview. I continue to find it interesting that the precedent Romney always invokes is John McCain's, not his own father's  (who released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968). It's also interesting that McCain, in vetting Romney as a potential running mate requested, and received, 23 years of his tax returns. Romney says he's released what's "required by law". Actually, there is no law (although there is a bill in the works which would require presidential candidates to not only release 10 years of tax returns but also make financial disclosures that include the information not currently included on disclosures and not easily discernible from tax returns). His inability to answer what's preventing releasing more returns - actually his non-answer - simply begs the question: What's in there that he's hiding?

The Economy
BRIAN WILLIAMS:

And let's talk about domestic-- the economy before we wrap things up. The major planks of your job plan, lower taxes, both corporate and marginal rates, and reduce regulation. Explain how that would be different from what George W. Bush tried to push through?

MITT ROMNEY:

Well, let me describe-- actually, there are five things that I believe are necessary to get this economy going. One, take advantage of our energy resources, particularly natural gas, but also coal, oil, nuclear, renewables. That's number one. A huge opportunity for us, and doing so is gonna bring manufacturing back, because low-cost, plentiful energy is key to manufacturing, in many industries.

Number two, trade. I want tre-- to dramatically increase trade and particularly with-- with Latin America. Number three, take action to get America on track to have a balanced budget. Now those three things, by the way, are things which we have not been doing over the last few years, which I think are essential to getting this economy going again.

Number four, we've got to show better training and education opportunities for our current re-- workers and for coming workers. And then finally what I call restoring economic freedom. That means keep our taxes as low as possible, have regulations modern and up to date, get health care costs down. These things will restore economic freedom.

So my policies are very different than anything you've seen in the past. They're really designed for an America which has some new resources, energy being one of them, trade with Latin America being another, and the need for a balanced budget now more urgent than ever before.

Ted Block: Again, on this one, I know nothing more than I knew before, which is, that Romney has no concrete plans or policies, only a list of things he would do without indicating how he would do them.

1. Energy - Take advantage of our energy resources: How? At what cost? How would he respond to the point that under President Obama, in 2011 U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level in 8 years and U.S. natural gas production grew in 2011 by the largest volumetric increase in history and easily eclipsed the previous all-time record set in 1973.
2. Trade - Increase trade, particularly with Latin America: How? And how different than Obama? According to the Council on Foreign Relations, "... his (Obama's) administration has also increasingly turned to trade liberalization to boost U.S. economic recovery in the wake of the Great Recession. Late in 2011, the administration ratified stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) negotiated by the Bush administration while placing fresh emphasis on negotiating a multilateral free trade agreement in the Pacific region." In Latin America, the U.S. has agreements, including the one just negotiated with Colombia, with Chile and Peru, and a pending one with Panama. Trade agreements are complex. Saying you want them is easy. Getting them done requires a plan.
3. Balanced Budget: How? What are the specifics? According to the Center on Budget and Priorities, "Governor Mitt Romney’s proposals to cap total federal spending, boost defense spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget would require extraordinarily large cuts in other programs, both entitlements and discretionary programs, according to our revised analysis based on new information and updated projections. For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs." And, when Luke Russert of MSNBC asked  Romney adviser Tara Wall how Romney would offset the lost revenue (from his tax cut proposals), she failed to offer any specifics, telling Americans they could instead “research” his plan to find them. When Russert returned to the subject, Wall again failed to deliver an answer, saying Romney’s business experience is the reason he would balance the budget. Yeah, you know, his business experience at Bain. Which he refuses to talk about.
4. Better Worker Training: OK, good idea. And how exactly does he propose we do that?
5. Restoring Economic Freedom: Which he defines as low taxes, modern regulation, and lower health care costs. These are all noteworthy goals. It would be interesting to learn how, other than the one about lowering taxes, he plans on getting there.

So, what do I know now that I didn't know before this interview? Practically nothing. What was confirmed? That Mitt Romney is long on platitudes, short on specifics and is unwilling to commit to positions that are politically inconvenient or could cause trouble with his base. Can't wait for the debates!

Aurora, Gun Control and the Second Amendment

I learned today that the gun control/2^nd Amendment/assault rifle debate, several days after the horrific events of Aurora, has formed along four basic lines:

1.       We need to do something and do it now

This call is largely from Democrats in relatively safe districts:

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): “It’s time for Congress to act on a ban on high capacity magazines. This is no infringement on right to self-defense. Military type weapons should not be on the streets of America.”

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY): "Large magazines, assault weapons do not need to be on the streets for the ordinary citizen. They are meant for the military. I think that the American people understand that. The problem is, politicians, legislators across this country are intimidated by the NRA and the gun manufacturers who put so much money out there to say that 'we will take you down in an election if you go against us.'" (McCarthy’s husband was killed and son seriously injured in a shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1993.

Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): "Do we think that an individual, any individual needs to purchase 6,000 bullets online? Do we think that any individual really needs a weapon that will shoot 100 rounds at a time? Do you need that to hunt? Do you need that for any practical purpose? Of course not and I think that most Americans actually agree with that. As soon as they introduce anything you get some 300 members of Congress, without even reading the bill voting in favor of the NRA position. It's just ridiculous. It's gone too far,"

Representative Jim Moran (D-VA): “My son went to the airing of Batman at midnight. Don't I have the freedom to know that my son can go to a movie theater without a fear for his life.  This is about freedom. It's the freedom to live securely and safely among our neighbors and friends within an advanced society. It's stunning to me that my colleagues are so soft on crime and domestic terrorism. It's all because legislative bodies across the county have been castrated, politically castrated, by the NRA.”

And, of course, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), of whom I wrote the other day, who has been forcefully calling for the President and Mr. Romney to do something now. Today, he added to his previous statements by saying: “"During the next presidential term, there will be 48,000 Americans killed with illegal guns. It seems to me not unreasonable that whoever wants to be president should tell us what they are going to do about it before we go to the ballot box."

2.      We need to do something, but now’s not the time

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), a strong gun control supporter said: “Weapons of war don't belong on the streets.  We've got to sit down and really come to grips with what is sold to the average citizen in America.” But she also said, Obama and Romney should give considerable consideration to the gun control issue “but now is a 'bad time' to push it.”

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ): “I am a little bit disturbed by politicians who in the immediate aftermath of this type of tragedy, try to grandstand on it, and I’m not going to be one of those people. I feel awful for those families. And this is just not the appropriate time to be grandstanding about gun laws. Can we at least get through the initial grief and tragedy for these families?”

3.      The doubt we can do anything crowd

Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): "This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy's going to find something, right?"

Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “Everything should be looked at. But to think that somehow gun control or increased gun control is the answer, in my view that would have to be proved.”

4.      The NRA sycophants

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI): “ You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick demented individuals who want to cause harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedoms.”

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX): who said the story made him wonder, "With all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?" (Gohmert also tied the tragedy to the "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.") 

So, the tragedy occurs. The talking heads talk. Nothing gets done. And then it happens again.

Of all the things I’ve heard or read over the last few days the most disturbing (Gohmert’s statements not withstanding) is this from Gallup. In polls since 1990, the swing in attitudes towards the sale of firearms has been stunning.  In 1990, 78% of respondents thought the laws should be stricter. In 2010, that number had dropped to 44%.  Do you think the NRA's influence and the fact that most of our elected officials are either mute or equivocal on the issue because of that influence has anything to do with this?

In one defense of the status quo, the argument goes that the problem is not the Constitution and the 2^nd Amendment but the changes in our society. Point well taken. But, if our society has changed shouldn't the response to that change be a re-looking at laws created over 200 years ago; laws that were written to cope with a completely different society? Our founders were brilliant; they created a Constitution that has served, and continues to serve, us well. But every once in a while the Constitution needs to be tweaked. That’s the very purpose of amendments. Perhaps it’s time to do a little tweaking.

Aurora

My thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and loved ones of the victims in Aurora in this time of tragedy and grief.


At solemn times like this, the conventional wisdom is that this is not the time to talk about gun control and the role of guns in our society. Rather, it is a time for prayer and reflection and sympathy. By debating the issue now, the common theme is, we are not showing proper respect for the victims and their loved ones.


But history shows that when we get past this initial stage of sorrow, the debate just moves forward along predictable, intransigent political lines. And nothing gets done. With all due respect, that's simply not acceptable.


According to a list compiled by the Telegraph UK, this is the 29th mass shooting in the United States since Columbine in 1999. Isn't it time that our politicians on both sides of the aisle say enough? Isn't it time for them to end their fear of the NRA and have the courage to do something? Isn't it time for them to follow the lead of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said this morning on WOR radio:

"You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country," continuing, "I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns."

 Isn't it time?

Name Change

I learned today that while readers enjoy my posts, they hate my blog's name. I mean, "Ted Block's Blog" - can you get any more insipid than that?

Background: When I decided a week or so ago to begin blogging I had no idea how to do it. So I did a Google search on starting a blog. One of the top returns was the site blogspot.com, owned by Google (shocking, I know, that a Google-owned site would be at the top of a Google search). When I clicked on blogspot.com I found that I already had a blog called "Ted Block's Blog". Apparently, about four years ago, the last time I had the blogger inspiration,  I did a Google search, came up with the same results, and registered a blog name. Without giving it too much thought I came up with the name as a placeholder. At that time I never wrote a thing, never looked at the blog page again or even gave it any thought, until recently. So when I started posting I just kept the original name. But now that my blog is getting a little traction I needed to rename it.

So starting with this post my blog is now called "Around The Block". I've kept the same web address, www.tedblocksblog.blogspot.com, so there's no confusion for those of you who have that page bookmarked (HaHaHa). Only the name of the blog has changed.

Hope you like the new name, and most important, what I'm saying.

John SuNoNo

I learned today that Mitt Romney and his surrogates have stooped to a new low.

Specifically, John SuNoNo, ur, Sununu, former New Hampshire governor and George H.W. Bush's White House Chief of Staff was sent out to tell America, he wished President Obama "would learn how to be an American."

In addition, Sununu said:

"He has no idea how the American system functions. And we shouldn't be surprised about that because he spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia, and frankly when he came to the U.S. he worked as a community organizer, which is a socialized structure, and then got into politics in Chicago. There has been no experience in his life in which he's earned a private sector pay check that meant anything."

In what has been an all too common occurrence in this campaign, Sununu's statement was quickly followed by the "walk-back", broadcast on CNN.

"Frankly, I made a mistake. I shouldn't have used those words. And I apologize for using those words but I don't apologize for the idea that this president has demonstrated that he does not understand how jobs are created in America." 

Republicans like Sununu, calling him a campaign asset because he's pugnacious and has no fear. But claiming Obama was "wallowing with felons in Chicago" or that he demonizes the rich, even saying the word with a "snarl" is over the top. 

In my opinion, Sununu pulled a No-No.

In a possible tryout for the VP nod, the Romney team trotted out former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty to try to cool things off. Pawlenty, on MSNBC said, Sununu "clarified and walked back his statements by saying he meant that President Obama really doesn't have a familiarity with what it means to be in the American entrepreneurial and private enterprise system. So I think he clarified it." Pawlenty continued, "Obviously, Gov. Sununu has a knack for colorful language and can be very informative and entertaining."

So, in cooling things down, Pawlenty also basically said that Obama doesn't understand an aspect of America. Both were using right wing code for the contention that the president is foreign and "not like us"; even, possibly, another small reminder of the birther issue. 

Sununu's language was not colorful, it was unacceptable. And Pawlenty, in his defense, said the same thing, albeit blandly. Has this ever been done to a sitting president before? Not in my memory. Republicans and the Romney campaign are fueled by the tirades of Limbaugh and Fox News and they should be ashamed of themselves.

By the way, just one more thing about presidents and the American private enterprise system. Presidents have come from a multitude of backgrounds. Many were lawyers, some were in the military and many spent much of their career in politics, with family money and/or business ventures on the side or in between their political posts. But the two who really could claim business credentials, and by virtue of that would seem to have the best "familiarity with what it means to be in the American entrepreneurial and private enterprise system", were Herbert Hoover (made a small fortune as a mining executive) and George W. Bush (the first "MBA" president). Let's see, remind me again how their tenures worked out.

Teresa Didn't, Why Should I?

I learned today that Mitt Romney’s latest defense of not releasing more tax returns is that Teresa Heinz Kerry didn't in 2004 saying on Fox and Friends, Heinz Kerry “has hundreds of millions of dollars, [but] she never released her tax returns. Somehow, that wasn’t an issue.”

Really? Did anyone tell Mr. Romney that John Kerry, not Teresa, was running for president?

Later on, Ed Gillespie, a former RNC Chairman and Romney surrogate, said on Meet the Press and CNN that Romney need only release two years of tax returns, in line with the precedent set by former presidential nominees John McCain and John Kerry. “It’s the standard that Sen. John Kerry as the Democratic nominee said was the standard,” Gillespie said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Really? Did anyone tell Mr. Gillespie that Kerry actually released 20 years of tax returns? “Months ago, the Romney team began making this false and convoluted excuse — the media investigated it and promptly reminded them that as a presidential candidate John Kerry had released 20 years of tax returns,” Kerry spokesperson Jodi Seth told TPM in a statement. “Still, months later they’re falling back on this same disproven excuse. In fact, if the Romney standard was the same as the Kerry standard for disclosure, the media would have the chance to review 20 years of Romney tax returns. Ed Gillespie should know better.”

On CNN, Gillespie also stated,  “It's standard for the last Republican nominee, the last Democratic nominee.”

But according to the Washington Post Fact Checker, “In fact, McCain is really the exception. John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 all released many years of tax returns when they ran for president against the incumbent, either at the time or because they had routinely released tax returns while in public office.  (There was no incumbent in 2000.) Dole, in fact, released tax returns for a whopping 30 years.”

Why is Romney so intransigent on this issue? What is he hiding?

Even Republican politicians and conservative pundits are questioning his position. George Will on ABC’s This Week: “If something’s going to come out, get it out in a hurry”, Will said, adding, “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

And Robert Bentley, Alabama’s Republican governor said Romney would do well to release more tax returns, as Democrats have demanded  in recent weeks. “I think he ought to release everything. I believe in total transparency,” Bentley told reporters.  “You know if you have things to hide, then you may be doing things wrong.”

So, Will wonders that it might be that not releasing the returns might be less risky than releasing them because of what might be in them. And Bentley wonders if there’s something in them that Romney might want to hide.

And Romney? In the National Review today he said, "I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about." Not enthusiastic? Well guess what Mr. Romney, the American people are enthusiastic about learning as much as they can about the man running for President of the United States. If everything's clean, no harm, no foul. If not...