Many centuries ago, contentiousness among the followers of two great Jewish rabbinic leaders became so toxic and destructive to the community that God felt the need to personally intervene.
Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai were great sages who disagreed constantly and had very different views regarding how Jews should behave in almost every situation. Then, according to Rabbi Michelle Missagheih:
"So the students of Hillel and Shammai, two schools of thought concerning Jewish law, continue debating for three years and then the Talmud says, “A bat kol – a voice from God – came forth and said "eilu v’eilu divray elohim chaim hen,” meaning “both these and these are the words of the living God.” This is amazing. God is the one who gets fed up with the fight! God can’t take it any more and says “enough is enough. Both of you are right. You both have legitimate approaches to law and life.”
Another implication is that if we take what the Talmud says seriously, and I do, then there is no “truth” with a capital “T.” Being “right” is not the goal. Rather the goal is remaining engaged in the discussion."
I watched the opening session of the AIPAC Conference in Washington this morning--a conference I have attended in person in the past. It reminded me of why that organization is so compelling to so many Americans who care about Israel.
The AIPAC conference has sufficient political clout and gravitas to attract government leaders such as Shimon Peres and Barack Obama to appear at its opening session. And no booster club in the world does a better job than AIPAC of producing multi-media introductions and choreographing events to elicit the maximum positive effect. I cried during the video introduction to Shimon Peres. It made me feel proud to be a Jew.
In a couple of weeks, Kristen and I will again attend the J Street Conference in Washington (in the same room in which Peres and Obama spoke today) to hear former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert talk about the critical bonds that connect the U.S. and Israel and to praise J Street for the important role it plays in furthering that process.
As an American Jew who cares deeply about Israel and our Jewish community here at home, It seems both logical and obvious that fellow Jews who share those feelings should rejoice that we have two powerful organizations supporting Israel and trying to secure and promote its future.
And yet, none of my many Jewish friends who support AIPAC can understand how in the world I can be involved in a leadership position at J Street. Most of them read and .forward emails (and, in Tucson, have listened to Yom Kippur sermons) which demonize J Street as being anti-Israel and committed to a Palestinian triumph over the critical interests Jewish people and our homeland. Although those friends have strong negative feelings about J Street, I have yet to meet one that has ever visited the J Street website or attended a J Street event.
Conversely, many of my J Street friends are surprised to learn that I am chairing my second Federation annual campaign and believe that AIPAC is an important and valuable part of the Jewish mosaic in our country. They believe that AIPAC is a tool of the Right wing government leaders in Israel and the U.S. who are committed to an Israeli triumph over legitimate interests of the Palestinians, Jewish values, and the need for a two-state solution to the problems in Israel and the West Bank.
I respect the concerns of all those friends--each of whom I sincerely believe cares deeply about the future of Judaism and our community. But they have apparently bought into the mantra of American politics that if we disagree about anything, then for me to be right, you have to be wrong. To them I recommend Rabbi Brad Hirschfield's important book which clearly states the opposite--"You Don't Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right." It provides a different and much needed perspective.
But the truth of the matter is that J Street and AIPAC are not competitors. They are separate organizations with the common agenda of supporting Israel in very different ways.
AIPAC is a pro-Israel booster club--an advocacy and marketing organization. Its stated mission is to lobby U.S. citizens and our political representatives to support whatever actions the Israeli government chooses to take. It is an important job and they do it with passion. Its leaders and followers tend to be Americans (more and more of whom are not Jewish) who view Israel and Jews as the perpetual victims and underdogs facing constant existential threats from hostile neighbors who was determined to destroy Israel and the Jewish people.
Although the AIPAC Conference is just underway, I am confident that all of the conversation and presentations will focus--accurately--on Israel's many accomplishments against overwhelming odds and on the threats to that country's very existence that it faces on a daily basis from hostile neighbors. There will be no mention of Operation Price Tag or illegal confiscation of Palestinian land to build settlements or the occupation of the Palestinians that is now in its 45th year. That's not what a booster club does.
J Street is a pro-Israel group whose core belief is that a peaceful two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian situation is the only way that Israel can continue to exist as both a democracy and a Jewish state. Its leaders and followers tend to be American Jews (including a majority of our county's young Conservative and Reform rabbis and cantors) who view the 45-year occupation of West Bank Palestinians by Israeli Jews as a demographic time bomb and a test of whether the Jewish values, ethics, and wisdom that have guided us through centuries of powerless exile can survive in an unprecedented environment where Jews actually have power.
What an amazing testimonial to the power and wisdom of our Jewish community that we have two such organizations--each with thousands of donors and tens of thousands of supporters and followers here and Israel co-existing in a country where just a few decades ago Jews suffered from widespread discrimination and few were willing to raise their voices in support of Israel in a public setting.
Sadly, politics and passion have prevailed and I seem to be among the very few who are actually celebrating this victory for Jewish community and pluralism. Instead, the voices of angry demonizers seem to be the only background music.
As he was introducing Barack Obama this morning, AIPAC president Lee Rosenberg emphasized that Obama was speaking at AIPAC, "THE central address of the pro-Israel community." In my opinion, Rosy didn't need to say that, but I would have really been upset if he said AIPAC is the ONLY address of the pro-Israel community which I regret to report than many of my friends believe.
On the flip side, I have J Street friends who can't believe that I still find AIPAC to be an important and positive piece of the pro-Israel mosaic and not just a tool of the pro-Israel and Republican Right.
According to the Jewish wisdom and values that have sustained us for millenia, they are missing the whole point. What matters is that we recognized what God felt compelled to remind us during a similar time--that these and these are both acting out God's will and it is the acknowledgement and rejoicing in that facts that makes us truly holy.
J Street and AIPAC--these and these--are what being pro-Israel is all about.
Those who don't get and understand that are desecrating God's words and our glorious pluralistic tradition in a fruitless effort to achieve short term political gain.
May the same God who blessed us with the insight of "eihu v'eilu" give those well-meaning people the insight to understand the error of their ways and the great harm they are doing to the Jewish community, Israel, and the United States. For the sake of us all.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Investment Outlook for 2012--The More Things Change...
I believe that 2012 will be the fourth straight rewarding year for investors who can sleep at night and deal with the very real headline risks that will whip the markets around on a daily basis. I further believe it is an excellent time to be invested in outstanding American companies that are earning record profits, some of which selling at levels we have not seen since I first got into the business more than three decades ago.
More about where we are headed and why in a minute. First, let’s look back on the year just ended and see what we have learned.
On one level, 2011 was an extremely volatile period for the investment markets. It seemed that every day the focus would shift from one economic “crisis” to the next with the headlines of the moment combining with the steroids of high-frequency computer trading to whip the market up, down and around on an hourly basis.
We went from periods of angst about the budget deficits to concerns about the U.S. unemployment rate to fears of the effect of tax increases to the catastrophic implications of a downgrade to the U.S. credit rating to worries about a double-dip recession to the Congressionally-created threats of a U.S. default to the grim speculation over the impact of a Chinese slowdown to the current doomsday scenarios regarding the future of European Union and the economic and financial disruptions that are still being touted as a likely outcome of a full-blown crisis in that part of the world.
Each of these looming disasters was labeled a crisis by the disaster-addicted media—at least until they completely dropped the story the next day—and the ebb and flow of hourly headlines had the ability to create “risk-on” euphoria or “risk-off” despair—sometimes with several of each taking place during the same trading day. And, for the most part, the accompanying frenzies disappeared as quickly as they had appeared and the media spotlight and obsession moved on to the next disaster du jour.
And yet if someone went to sleep on January 1, 2011 and woke up on New Year’s Eve, he would think that things had been pretty calm since all the stock market averages ended the year about where they started. So who were the real experts—those who told us we needed to make daily adjustments to our holdings or face calamity or the guy who slept through it all and didn’t change a thing?
This obvious attempt at sarcasm should not suggest that there aren’t serious issues that hang like a cloud over the future of our economy and that there aren’t real problems out there. Far from it.
Our media’s addiction to crises has distracted investors from the real underlying story. After a real cataclysmic, system-threatening financial meltdown in 2008 followed by three years of rehab, high unemployment and slow economic activity, there seems to be evidence that things are getting better across a whole variety of data points and the slow steady economic recovery of the last two years is finally gaining some real traction. More jobs are being created every month, fewer people are submitting new claims for unemployment, and consumer confidence is rising.
At a time when stock prices across a broad swath of companies ranging from Apple to McDonald’s to IBM to Union Pacific to Nike to Philip Morris trading at or near all-time highs in revenues, earnings, and stock prices and most market averages up almost 100 percent over the last three years, many investors still fear the market and have been steering their purchases to so-called safe havens such as gold and U.S. treasuries.
My plan for 2012 is similar to my approach in 2011. Investors should be positioned in quality companies which are showing outstanding growth in revenues and profits, solid management, a history of raising dividends and distributions in industry sectors that seem likely to benefit from an improving economy and rising confidence. In summary, I believe 2012 should be very much like 2011 in a number of respects—only better.
Those sectors that were favored in 2011 (energy, agriculture, oil and gas pipelines, and life-changing technology) should continue to do well. If the economy and sentiment continue to improve, sectors such as industrials, banks, and home builders could end their multi-year bear markets and finally make a turn to the upside. Even though the headlines remained bad during the fourth quarter, some of the largest gains were registered by housing related investments. Many of the bank stocks have spiked sharply in recent weeks as well. It is an area we will continue to watch.
The headlines will be far different in 2012 as the presidential campaign kicks into full swing. The Republicans will certainly continue to convince Americans that we have been suffering mightily from the policies of President Obama while Democrats will try to focus on all of the many hopeful signs I have mentioned above. As usual, the pundits will do their best to stir the pot and create controversy and confusion.
Meanwhile, I will continue to keep my eye on the data which, at least recently, have shown signs of significant and hopefully sustainable improvement.
Buy good stocks and live a long time. That has been my mantra for more than 30 years. For the first 20 years, it worked like a charm. Not much has worked for anyone during the last 10 years. Now the whole idea of long-term investing has been thoroughly rejected by luminaries such as Jim Cramer and a broad range of high-speed hedge fund traders (many of whom lost quite a bit of their clients’ money last year).
Hopefully, this will be the year that we are all fully rewarded for our belief and confidence in some of our country’s premier companies. Obviously, there are event risks, but I believe there are greater risks to losing both money and/or buying power to those who load up on cash, bonds and gold in the name of safety than to those who buy quality companies at reasonable prices.
More about where we are headed and why in a minute. First, let’s look back on the year just ended and see what we have learned.
On one level, 2011 was an extremely volatile period for the investment markets. It seemed that every day the focus would shift from one economic “crisis” to the next with the headlines of the moment combining with the steroids of high-frequency computer trading to whip the market up, down and around on an hourly basis.
We went from periods of angst about the budget deficits to concerns about the U.S. unemployment rate to fears of the effect of tax increases to the catastrophic implications of a downgrade to the U.S. credit rating to worries about a double-dip recession to the Congressionally-created threats of a U.S. default to the grim speculation over the impact of a Chinese slowdown to the current doomsday scenarios regarding the future of European Union and the economic and financial disruptions that are still being touted as a likely outcome of a full-blown crisis in that part of the world.
Each of these looming disasters was labeled a crisis by the disaster-addicted media—at least until they completely dropped the story the next day—and the ebb and flow of hourly headlines had the ability to create “risk-on” euphoria or “risk-off” despair—sometimes with several of each taking place during the same trading day. And, for the most part, the accompanying frenzies disappeared as quickly as they had appeared and the media spotlight and obsession moved on to the next disaster du jour.
And yet if someone went to sleep on January 1, 2011 and woke up on New Year’s Eve, he would think that things had been pretty calm since all the stock market averages ended the year about where they started. So who were the real experts—those who told us we needed to make daily adjustments to our holdings or face calamity or the guy who slept through it all and didn’t change a thing?
This obvious attempt at sarcasm should not suggest that there aren’t serious issues that hang like a cloud over the future of our economy and that there aren’t real problems out there. Far from it.
Our media’s addiction to crises has distracted investors from the real underlying story. After a real cataclysmic, system-threatening financial meltdown in 2008 followed by three years of rehab, high unemployment and slow economic activity, there seems to be evidence that things are getting better across a whole variety of data points and the slow steady economic recovery of the last two years is finally gaining some real traction. More jobs are being created every month, fewer people are submitting new claims for unemployment, and consumer confidence is rising.
At a time when stock prices across a broad swath of companies ranging from Apple to McDonald’s to IBM to Union Pacific to Nike to Philip Morris trading at or near all-time highs in revenues, earnings, and stock prices and most market averages up almost 100 percent over the last three years, many investors still fear the market and have been steering their purchases to so-called safe havens such as gold and U.S. treasuries.
My plan for 2012 is similar to my approach in 2011. Investors should be positioned in quality companies which are showing outstanding growth in revenues and profits, solid management, a history of raising dividends and distributions in industry sectors that seem likely to benefit from an improving economy and rising confidence. In summary, I believe 2012 should be very much like 2011 in a number of respects—only better.
Those sectors that were favored in 2011 (energy, agriculture, oil and gas pipelines, and life-changing technology) should continue to do well. If the economy and sentiment continue to improve, sectors such as industrials, banks, and home builders could end their multi-year bear markets and finally make a turn to the upside. Even though the headlines remained bad during the fourth quarter, some of the largest gains were registered by housing related investments. Many of the bank stocks have spiked sharply in recent weeks as well. It is an area we will continue to watch.
The headlines will be far different in 2012 as the presidential campaign kicks into full swing. The Republicans will certainly continue to convince Americans that we have been suffering mightily from the policies of President Obama while Democrats will try to focus on all of the many hopeful signs I have mentioned above. As usual, the pundits will do their best to stir the pot and create controversy and confusion.
Meanwhile, I will continue to keep my eye on the data which, at least recently, have shown signs of significant and hopefully sustainable improvement.
Buy good stocks and live a long time. That has been my mantra for more than 30 years. For the first 20 years, it worked like a charm. Not much has worked for anyone during the last 10 years. Now the whole idea of long-term investing has been thoroughly rejected by luminaries such as Jim Cramer and a broad range of high-speed hedge fund traders (many of whom lost quite a bit of their clients’ money last year).
Hopefully, this will be the year that we are all fully rewarded for our belief and confidence in some of our country’s premier companies. Obviously, there are event risks, but I believe there are greater risks to losing both money and/or buying power to those who load up on cash, bonds and gold in the name of safety than to those who buy quality companies at reasonable prices.
Monday, October 3, 2011
The Rick Perry Mezuzah --Update
I guess I'm behind the curve on this story but I have to admit that it continues to grow on me.
In late June, Governor Perry signed into law a bill that prevents Texas homeowner's associations or condo boards from outlawing the placement of mezuzot no longer than 25 inches on the doorposts of their houses and, presumably upon their gates. The bill was introduced by a state representative after two his constitutents moved out of their apartment after being told they had to remove a mezuzah from their door frame. The couple said they pushed for the new law to protect the rights of other Jews in the future.
Perry, whose credentials as a friend of Israel and the Jewish people are now carved in Jerusalem stone as far as I'm concerned (see previous article), signed it into law immediately.
Within weeks, Tablet Magazine reported The Mezuzah Store had commissioned a strictly limited edition Rick Perry 26 inch Texas-Sized Mezuzah. The work of art is non-compliant under Texas law but was clearly designed to be a priceless collector's item which pushes the legal limits yet another inch further.
The last time I looked, this one-of-a-kind masterpiece was still available for only $999.99 although the inclusion of scroll upgrades ranging from Kosher to Superior to Alter Rebbe could jack the price up to $1,100.
Among the responses received to this article was one from a gentleman who thought a mezuzah was "one of those obnoxious horns that people blow at soccer matches" and thought 25 inches sounded about right to him. Another was from a more knowledgeable respondant who expressed the oft-repeated opinion that "anything over 8 inches is just showing off."
I hope to hear from my rabbinic scholar friends on the halacha regarding whether size matters and to what extent.
In late June, Governor Perry signed into law a bill that prevents Texas homeowner's associations or condo boards from outlawing the placement of mezuzot no longer than 25 inches on the doorposts of their houses and, presumably upon their gates. The bill was introduced by a state representative after two his constitutents moved out of their apartment after being told they had to remove a mezuzah from their door frame. The couple said they pushed for the new law to protect the rights of other Jews in the future.
Perry, whose credentials as a friend of Israel and the Jewish people are now carved in Jerusalem stone as far as I'm concerned (see previous article), signed it into law immediately.
Within weeks, Tablet Magazine reported The Mezuzah Store had commissioned a strictly limited edition Rick Perry 26 inch Texas-Sized Mezuzah. The work of art is non-compliant under Texas law but was clearly designed to be a priceless collector's item which pushes the legal limits yet another inch further.
The last time I looked, this one-of-a-kind masterpiece was still available for only $999.99 although the inclusion of scroll upgrades ranging from Kosher to Superior to Alter Rebbe could jack the price up to $1,100.
Among the responses received to this article was one from a gentleman who thought a mezuzah was "one of those obnoxious horns that people blow at soccer matches" and thought 25 inches sounded about right to him. Another was from a more knowledgeable respondant who expressed the oft-repeated opinion that "anything over 8 inches is just showing off."
I hope to hear from my rabbinic scholar friends on the halacha regarding whether size matters and to what extent.
Rick Perry's Two-Foot Mezuzah Sealed the Deal For This Jew
Ever since I met Rick Perry in Aspen a couple months ago (before he was an official candidate) I have been convinced that he had a combination of attributes that would likely win him the Republican presidential nomination. (Actually, now I'm not so sure but I digress).
That was before I knew about all his close Jewish friends and his great, unshakable support for Israel. But he truly became my BCF (Best Chaver Forever) when I learned from this article in today's Jewish Daily Forward that Perry changed Texas law to allow gonga mezuzahs of more than two feet in length (batteries optional) to be installed on condominium door frames. We all know that size matters--particularly when it comes to mezuzot--and it's nice to see that Perry believes in taking care of his friends and co-religionists who share his refutation of the theory of evolution.
That and more can be found in the article which is a treasure trove of good news for Jewish voters and which also features a picture that is suitable for framing.
Perry's obvious love for Israel and the Jewish people as well as his astute diplomatic skills have also been on display during the last month. Prior to the U.N. speeches by Netanyahu, Abbas, and Obama, Perry held a news conference with Likud Knesset leader Danny Danon who is bringing a bill to a vote next week calling for Israel to annex the entire West Bank and end all this foolish talk about a Palestinian state once and for all.
Perry honed in on President Obama's "arrogant" attitudes toward Israel and repeatedly criticized Obama's tactics of "appeasement" toward the Palestinians--a subtle yet skillful attempt to conjure up illusions of Neville Chamberlain appeasing that bad guy in Germany a few decades ago.
Of course this news conference was taking place as Obama was infuriating the Palestinians with his strong speech supporting Israeli rights, Netanyahu was praising Obama and stating that our president deserved a "medal of honor" for his strong and instantaneous efforts to save those trapped in the Israeli embassy in Cairo, and Obama was yet again using up huge amounts of political capital to bail the Israelis out in the U.N. But when have trivial facts like that made a difference?
We already know that Perry is a real man with real baytzim who can handle a 25-inch mezuzah. He's as tough as they come. He has already made it clear to the Chairman of Federal Reserve that the chairman has "almost" committed treason ("almost treason" is probably still a capital offense) and will be shown the door as soon as Perry takes over. In addition, he has warned Chairman Bernanke not to show his face in Texas unless he wants the kind of "ugly (violent) reception" normally reserved for gay men, terrorists, traitors, and almost traitors in that patriotic state.
If the Tea Party and its tactics are the wave of the American political present and future and Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Danon are the same in Israel, then the ties and similarities between our governments, level of discourse, and commitment to Jewish and democratic values have, in fact, never been more clearly aligned. And none of the other candidates can hold a candle (Havdolah, Yahrtzeit, Shabbat, Chanukah, or otherwise) to Perry when it comes to being a perfect American partner for the Right wing coalition that now governs Israel and the Jewish religious leaders there.
For some of my fellow Jews, that might a cause for celebration.
For the rest of us, not so much.
That was before I knew about all his close Jewish friends and his great, unshakable support for Israel. But he truly became my BCF (Best Chaver Forever) when I learned from this article in today's Jewish Daily Forward that Perry changed Texas law to allow gonga mezuzahs of more than two feet in length (batteries optional) to be installed on condominium door frames. We all know that size matters--particularly when it comes to mezuzot--and it's nice to see that Perry believes in taking care of his friends and co-religionists who share his refutation of the theory of evolution.
That and more can be found in the article which is a treasure trove of good news for Jewish voters and which also features a picture that is suitable for framing.
Perry's obvious love for Israel and the Jewish people as well as his astute diplomatic skills have also been on display during the last month. Prior to the U.N. speeches by Netanyahu, Abbas, and Obama, Perry held a news conference with Likud Knesset leader Danny Danon who is bringing a bill to a vote next week calling for Israel to annex the entire West Bank and end all this foolish talk about a Palestinian state once and for all.
Perry honed in on President Obama's "arrogant" attitudes toward Israel and repeatedly criticized Obama's tactics of "appeasement" toward the Palestinians--a subtle yet skillful attempt to conjure up illusions of Neville Chamberlain appeasing that bad guy in Germany a few decades ago.
Of course this news conference was taking place as Obama was infuriating the Palestinians with his strong speech supporting Israeli rights, Netanyahu was praising Obama and stating that our president deserved a "medal of honor" for his strong and instantaneous efforts to save those trapped in the Israeli embassy in Cairo, and Obama was yet again using up huge amounts of political capital to bail the Israelis out in the U.N. But when have trivial facts like that made a difference?
We already know that Perry is a real man with real baytzim who can handle a 25-inch mezuzah. He's as tough as they come. He has already made it clear to the Chairman of Federal Reserve that the chairman has "almost" committed treason ("almost treason" is probably still a capital offense) and will be shown the door as soon as Perry takes over. In addition, he has warned Chairman Bernanke not to show his face in Texas unless he wants the kind of "ugly (violent) reception" normally reserved for gay men, terrorists, traitors, and almost traitors in that patriotic state.
If the Tea Party and its tactics are the wave of the American political present and future and Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Danon are the same in Israel, then the ties and similarities between our governments, level of discourse, and commitment to Jewish and democratic values have, in fact, never been more clearly aligned. And none of the other candidates can hold a candle (Havdolah, Yahrtzeit, Shabbat, Chanukah, or otherwise) to Perry when it comes to being a perfect American partner for the Right wing coalition that now governs Israel and the Jewish religious leaders there.
For some of my fellow Jews, that might a cause for celebration.
For the rest of us, not so much.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Buy Good Stocks and Live a Long Time--Lessons Learned From Irene, the Debt Crisis, and TV
For reasons discussed in a series of emails (available upon request), Kristen and I left Aspen last Friday to fly directly into the teeth of Hurricane Irene where we were repeatedly assured by the news media we would face certain death. It was a case of choosing between staying alive, or missing her father's 70th birthday party, and Kristen made it pretty clear that life would not be worth living for me going forward if we missed the party (which was canceled as soon as we landed).
But I digress. This piece is about the stock market and lessons learned.
First let's talk about what we have learned about the news media in general and TV news in particular.
On a broad range of issues, it is clear that given their huge investment in 24-7 coverage, news media's top priority is no longer keeping us better informed. It is now about keeping all of us as frightened and/or angry as possible all the time. It is a lesson that they learned from politicians over the years. Going negative works if your goal is to attract attention.
Let's start with our widely reported debt crisis. Actually, the U.S. doesn't have a debt crisis. A debt crisis is when you owe a lot of money and can't get anyone to lend you any more. The U.S. owes a ton of money, but a whole variety of investors are lined up to loan us more at lower and lower rates. That is despite the threat of the Tea Party Congressmen to make the U.S. default on its debts and promises, the equally irresponsible decision of Obama to cave in to those tactics, and the subsequent downgrade of our credit rating. The net effect of all that was to cause buyers of our debt to loan us even more money at even lower rates.
What we do have is a structural problem, well known to millions of Americans from their personal lives, of spending way more money than we are taking in. That needs to be addressed by finding ways to take in more money and spend less. But the U.S. is not bankrupt by any definition nor are we out of money.
Yet the media treated it as an "end of days" scenario that would kill the stock market and life as we know it as well as causing our borrowing costs to immediately go through the roof.
Without missing a beat, the media obsession transitioned to the European debt crisis and the pending implosion of all their banks.
Then focus shifted to the Middle East and the Arab Spring. We were told that the overthrow of murderous dictators (and our longtime allies) like Mubarak and Assad and Qaddafi would destroy stability and oil supplies in that part of the world and it would kill the stock market and life as we know it. Apparently, the theory is that freedom and democracy are just too messy when they come too suddenly and we were better off when the thieving and vicious despots ran that part of the world.
Just when the Libya story was reaching a climax, reporting from the entire region stopped for a solid week as Hurricane Irene became the only story worth reporting. We were told that the entire eastern seaboard was going to be washed away and life as we know it would never be the same.
I know because I'm still here in Connecticut since all the flights were preemptively canceled for days to accommodate the end of the world which never happened—again.
Do you notice a trend here?
It seems as though whatever happens and wherever it happens in the world today, the story line is always the same. This is really scary and the end of life as we know it. You should be very afraid and sell all your stocks.
The other trend, again because of the desire to keep us glued to our TVs and computers nonstop, is to make investors believe that it is no longer a good idea to buy good companies and hold them for a long time. We are told that we have to be proactive and trading in and out of the markets constantly in order to protect ourselves. And, of course, watch the markets like a hawk every minute of the day to know what and when to buy and sell and buy and sell.
I couldn't disagree more in general and particularly right now.
It is true that our country and much of the world has behaved irresponsibly over the last decade. Spending needs to be cut and tax revenues need to be raised. It is true that high levels of unemployment and underemployment in the U.S. are a huge problem. It is true that the slash and burn ideology-driven political tone in Washington is making it difficult to enact constructive policies. It is true that there are financial crises in Europe and elsewhere that are very frightening. There are and have been real challenges that are worthy of concern.
Like my clients, I want to invest long-term money in assets that offer the best chance for preservation of buying power, future income, and capital appreciation.
But unlike most of the pundits and a lot of investors, I believe that buying gold at $1,900 an ounce and loaning money to the government for 10 years at 2 percent interest or putting it in the bank at zero percent interest is not the way to be safe and prudent.
Unlike CNBC (whose most popular shows are now called "Mad Money" and "Fast Money" (which should speak volumes about their priorities), I continue encourage investors NOT to be very proactive in their trading and check the value of their accounts six times a day (or six times an hour for some).
What is getting lost in the popular discussion is the fact that in the face of all that has happened during the last few years, hundreds of companies are now making record profits, sitting on record amounts of cash, have little debt, and are paying ever-rising dividends that are far higher than the returns available from "safe" alternatives.
Several of my clients contacted me over the last month and asked what I was doing to protect their accounts. I told them I was keeping them invested in what I believe to be profitable, high yielding and/or potentially fast growing companies that are projecting good earnings going forward and are benefiting from macro-world trends that are not changing. I honestly believe that those are not only the best places to be going forward, but are also the safest places to be if your goal is to maintain or grow your net worth and buying power during a period of unprecedented deficits and political dysfunction.
Yes, August was a terrible month for the stock market. Most averages dropped 15 percent or more during just a few weeks. It happens. On average, in normal times, the market suffers a 20 percent or greater correction once every two years. When that occurs, it is not a "crash." It is simply the market being the market.
And when that happens, it is generally an opportunity to pick up great companies at good valuations —not the last chance to get out before the end of the world and life as we know it.
But I digress. This piece is about the stock market and lessons learned.
First let's talk about what we have learned about the news media in general and TV news in particular.
On a broad range of issues, it is clear that given their huge investment in 24-7 coverage, news media's top priority is no longer keeping us better informed. It is now about keeping all of us as frightened and/or angry as possible all the time. It is a lesson that they learned from politicians over the years. Going negative works if your goal is to attract attention.
Let's start with our widely reported debt crisis. Actually, the U.S. doesn't have a debt crisis. A debt crisis is when you owe a lot of money and can't get anyone to lend you any more. The U.S. owes a ton of money, but a whole variety of investors are lined up to loan us more at lower and lower rates. That is despite the threat of the Tea Party Congressmen to make the U.S. default on its debts and promises, the equally irresponsible decision of Obama to cave in to those tactics, and the subsequent downgrade of our credit rating. The net effect of all that was to cause buyers of our debt to loan us even more money at even lower rates.
What we do have is a structural problem, well known to millions of Americans from their personal lives, of spending way more money than we are taking in. That needs to be addressed by finding ways to take in more money and spend less. But the U.S. is not bankrupt by any definition nor are we out of money.
Yet the media treated it as an "end of days" scenario that would kill the stock market and life as we know it as well as causing our borrowing costs to immediately go through the roof.
Without missing a beat, the media obsession transitioned to the European debt crisis and the pending implosion of all their banks.
Then focus shifted to the Middle East and the Arab Spring. We were told that the overthrow of murderous dictators (and our longtime allies) like Mubarak and Assad and Qaddafi would destroy stability and oil supplies in that part of the world and it would kill the stock market and life as we know it. Apparently, the theory is that freedom and democracy are just too messy when they come too suddenly and we were better off when the thieving and vicious despots ran that part of the world.
Just when the Libya story was reaching a climax, reporting from the entire region stopped for a solid week as Hurricane Irene became the only story worth reporting. We were told that the entire eastern seaboard was going to be washed away and life as we know it would never be the same.
I know because I'm still here in Connecticut since all the flights were preemptively canceled for days to accommodate the end of the world which never happened—again.
Do you notice a trend here?
It seems as though whatever happens and wherever it happens in the world today, the story line is always the same. This is really scary and the end of life as we know it. You should be very afraid and sell all your stocks.
The other trend, again because of the desire to keep us glued to our TVs and computers nonstop, is to make investors believe that it is no longer a good idea to buy good companies and hold them for a long time. We are told that we have to be proactive and trading in and out of the markets constantly in order to protect ourselves. And, of course, watch the markets like a hawk every minute of the day to know what and when to buy and sell and buy and sell.
I couldn't disagree more in general and particularly right now.
It is true that our country and much of the world has behaved irresponsibly over the last decade. Spending needs to be cut and tax revenues need to be raised. It is true that high levels of unemployment and underemployment in the U.S. are a huge problem. It is true that the slash and burn ideology-driven political tone in Washington is making it difficult to enact constructive policies. It is true that there are financial crises in Europe and elsewhere that are very frightening. There are and have been real challenges that are worthy of concern.
Like my clients, I want to invest long-term money in assets that offer the best chance for preservation of buying power, future income, and capital appreciation.
But unlike most of the pundits and a lot of investors, I believe that buying gold at $1,900 an ounce and loaning money to the government for 10 years at 2 percent interest or putting it in the bank at zero percent interest is not the way to be safe and prudent.
Unlike CNBC (whose most popular shows are now called "Mad Money" and "Fast Money" (which should speak volumes about their priorities), I continue encourage investors NOT to be very proactive in their trading and check the value of their accounts six times a day (or six times an hour for some).
What is getting lost in the popular discussion is the fact that in the face of all that has happened during the last few years, hundreds of companies are now making record profits, sitting on record amounts of cash, have little debt, and are paying ever-rising dividends that are far higher than the returns available from "safe" alternatives.
Several of my clients contacted me over the last month and asked what I was doing to protect their accounts. I told them I was keeping them invested in what I believe to be profitable, high yielding and/or potentially fast growing companies that are projecting good earnings going forward and are benefiting from macro-world trends that are not changing. I honestly believe that those are not only the best places to be going forward, but are also the safest places to be if your goal is to maintain or grow your net worth and buying power during a period of unprecedented deficits and political dysfunction.
Yes, August was a terrible month for the stock market. Most averages dropped 15 percent or more during just a few weeks. It happens. On average, in normal times, the market suffers a 20 percent or greater correction once every two years. When that occurs, it is not a "crash." It is simply the market being the market.
And when that happens, it is generally an opportunity to pick up great companies at good valuations —not the last chance to get out before the end of the world and life as we know it.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Barack Obama--Our Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, and Pro-America President
As an American Jew who cares deeply about my religion and the State of Israel, the last few days have been the best of times and the worst of times.
The good news is that President Barack Obama has once again gone out of his way to show his grasp of the complex issues in the Middle East and his strong commitment to the safety and security of Israel as America's greatest ally in the region.
In both his speech at the State Department a few days ago and his address to AIPAC two days later, he stated (as he did in front of a Muslim audience in Cairo two years ago) his unshakeable commitment to Israel's safety and security.
He also made it clear in no uncertain terms that his support for a Palestinian state was contingent upon their abandonment of terrorist tactics and their willingness to recognize Israel's right to exist. He made it clear that he will strongly oppose Palestinian efforts to be recognized as a state by the U.N. and all efforts to delegitimize Israel.
Here is what our President actually said:
"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
His speech at the State Department seemed to be great news for Israel and horrible news for those who would like to see the views and tactics of Hamas become the dominant culture if the proposed reconciliation betwen that terrorist group and Fatah actually comes to fruition.
The only suggestion he had for Israel was to pick up where former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert left off and to use the 1967 borders as a starting point for boundary discussion with mutually agreed upon land swaps that reflect the changes that have taken place since Israel took control of the West Bank 44 years ago.
This was not a new or shocking suggestion. Olmert made the identical statement just two years ago.
"On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years.
I repeat (for emphasis) that the above quote is from then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert detailing what he offered the Palestinians two years ago. Whether one thinks his approach was ill-advised or not, there is no doubt that Obama was simply repeating a stated position of the Israeli government--not coming up with some radical new game changing idea.
Obama's speech at AIPAC put an exclamation point on all those sentiments and should have been reassuring to all of us who care deeply about Israel and long for peace in that region.
That assessment was clearly shared by many others who care deeply about Israel and the Jewish people.
The American Jewish Committee came out with a strong statement praising Obama's comments. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League called Obama's speech strongly pro-Israel and said it showed that Obama has a good understanding of the issue in the Middle East. Atlantic Magazine columnist Jeff Goldberg, a strong supporter of Israel and former soldier in the Israeli army, concurred. Tzipi Livni, the member of Knesset who heads Israel's largest political party, praised Obama's comments in the strongest terms. J Street added its approval as well.
But, as we all know, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Obama by throwing what several analysts referred to as a "hissy fit" and just one day before he was to privately meet with our president he felt the need to publicly state that he "expected" Obama to take back what he had said. Then, the very next day, he openly lectured Obama in a way that suggested that our president was naive and needed a history lesson.
I will have more to say about Netanyahu (this article is the first in a trilogy) after his speeches to AIPAC and Congress but I will simply add now that one has to question the wisdom, common sense, and motivations of a national leader who would go out of his way to publicly admonish and distort the statements of the leader of his country's best and only friend and benefactor in the world.
But Netanyahu's remarks and attitude opened the floodgates for a numbers of Republicans and many Jews who care deeply about Israel to go "birther" and "Tea Party" on our president.
Mitt Romney was first--claiming that Obama had "thrown Israel under the bus" without stating how or why. He was followed by the rest of the opportunistic Republicans who sensed (falsely I hope) that this distortion of our president's comments could be exploited as a wedge and used to lure our president's massive Jewish support away.
Zionist Organization of America head Morton Klein went the furthest, issuing a vitriolic statement in which he called Obama all sorts of nasty names and called on AIPAC to rescind their invitation for the president to address their conference. ZOA members also led an anti-Obama rally outside the Israeli embassy in New York.
I just heard Rush Limbaugh's cogent assessment of Obama's speeches as he told millions of listeners that "Obama has clearly chosen the Palestinians over the Israelis. He has told Israel to go commit suicide." Many other Right wing and pro-Israel bloggers have piled on in an effort to outdo themselves creating adjectives and invectives describing Obama's efforts to destroy Israel.
Equally disappointing was the way the mainstream media promoted the distortion of Obama's comments instead of providing truth and clarity. Headlines and sound bites repeatedly gave the false impression that our president had ordered Israel to return to the 1967 borders. None mentioned the other 98 percent of his speech, including the many criteria and guidelines he set for the Palestinians. It was all about reacting to the distortion that had been angrily invented by the Israeli prime minister.
Never mind that Obama has done nothing of the sort. Never mind that Obama in his words and actions has done just the opposite. Never mind that this is the same Barack Obama whom Israeli ambassador Michael Oren--a man who has actually been in the room during each of the meetings between our president and Netanyahu--has repeatedly and effusively praised as a strong and steadfast friend of the Jewish state.
I find all this confusing and depressing. Not so much the fact that other Americans and Jewish figures disagree with my assessment of Obama's performance but the fact that the smearing and vitriol and lies and distortions that have characterized one-issue fact-free hate campaigns against our president by the birthers (Obama was born in Kenya) and the Tea Party (Obama wants to destroy America) and the NRA (Obama wants to take away your guns) and the Right to Lifers (Obama wants to kill the unborn) are now being employed by Jews and others who claim to care so deeply about the future of Israel (Obama wants to destroy the Jewish homeland).
I believe that many of these people do mean well but it is sad beyond my ability to express that so-called Jewish leaders have resorted to slash-and-burn tactics in their inexplicable zeal to demonize our president. The tactics of distortion and fabrication have apparently replaced the respectful and nuanced, fact-based conversation that has always been the hallmark of Jewish debate.
It is both sad and disappointing that they are targeting a man whom I believe has acted and spoken more honestly and courageously in his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and generate the best outcome for Israel and the U.S. than any president in my lifetime.
It is even more tragic what this tone and attitude is doing to our efforts to build community and have a civil, productive conversation as committed American Jews. Jeff Goldberg has shared some of the hatemail he has received from fellow Jews after he stated that he believes Obama is pro-Israel and made a wonderful speech. But that too is a topic for another day.
The good news is that President Barack Obama has once again gone out of his way to show his grasp of the complex issues in the Middle East and his strong commitment to the safety and security of Israel as America's greatest ally in the region.
In both his speech at the State Department a few days ago and his address to AIPAC two days later, he stated (as he did in front of a Muslim audience in Cairo two years ago) his unshakeable commitment to Israel's safety and security.
He also made it clear in no uncertain terms that his support for a Palestinian state was contingent upon their abandonment of terrorist tactics and their willingness to recognize Israel's right to exist. He made it clear that he will strongly oppose Palestinian efforts to be recognized as a state by the U.N. and all efforts to delegitimize Israel.
Here is what our President actually said:
"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
His speech at the State Department seemed to be great news for Israel and horrible news for those who would like to see the views and tactics of Hamas become the dominant culture if the proposed reconciliation betwen that terrorist group and Fatah actually comes to fruition.
The only suggestion he had for Israel was to pick up where former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert left off and to use the 1967 borders as a starting point for boundary discussion with mutually agreed upon land swaps that reflect the changes that have taken place since Israel took control of the West Bank 44 years ago.
This was not a new or shocking suggestion. Olmert made the identical statement just two years ago.
"On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years.
I repeat (for emphasis) that the above quote is from then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert detailing what he offered the Palestinians two years ago. Whether one thinks his approach was ill-advised or not, there is no doubt that Obama was simply repeating a stated position of the Israeli government--not coming up with some radical new game changing idea.
Obama's speech at AIPAC put an exclamation point on all those sentiments and should have been reassuring to all of us who care deeply about Israel and long for peace in that region.
That assessment was clearly shared by many others who care deeply about Israel and the Jewish people.
The American Jewish Committee came out with a strong statement praising Obama's comments. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League called Obama's speech strongly pro-Israel and said it showed that Obama has a good understanding of the issue in the Middle East. Atlantic Magazine columnist Jeff Goldberg, a strong supporter of Israel and former soldier in the Israeli army, concurred. Tzipi Livni, the member of Knesset who heads Israel's largest political party, praised Obama's comments in the strongest terms. J Street added its approval as well.
But, as we all know, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Obama by throwing what several analysts referred to as a "hissy fit" and just one day before he was to privately meet with our president he felt the need to publicly state that he "expected" Obama to take back what he had said. Then, the very next day, he openly lectured Obama in a way that suggested that our president was naive and needed a history lesson.
I will have more to say about Netanyahu (this article is the first in a trilogy) after his speeches to AIPAC and Congress but I will simply add now that one has to question the wisdom, common sense, and motivations of a national leader who would go out of his way to publicly admonish and distort the statements of the leader of his country's best and only friend and benefactor in the world.
But Netanyahu's remarks and attitude opened the floodgates for a numbers of Republicans and many Jews who care deeply about Israel to go "birther" and "Tea Party" on our president.
Mitt Romney was first--claiming that Obama had "thrown Israel under the bus" without stating how or why. He was followed by the rest of the opportunistic Republicans who sensed (falsely I hope) that this distortion of our president's comments could be exploited as a wedge and used to lure our president's massive Jewish support away.
Zionist Organization of America head Morton Klein went the furthest, issuing a vitriolic statement in which he called Obama all sorts of nasty names and called on AIPAC to rescind their invitation for the president to address their conference. ZOA members also led an anti-Obama rally outside the Israeli embassy in New York.
I just heard Rush Limbaugh's cogent assessment of Obama's speeches as he told millions of listeners that "Obama has clearly chosen the Palestinians over the Israelis. He has told Israel to go commit suicide." Many other Right wing and pro-Israel bloggers have piled on in an effort to outdo themselves creating adjectives and invectives describing Obama's efforts to destroy Israel.
Equally disappointing was the way the mainstream media promoted the distortion of Obama's comments instead of providing truth and clarity. Headlines and sound bites repeatedly gave the false impression that our president had ordered Israel to return to the 1967 borders. None mentioned the other 98 percent of his speech, including the many criteria and guidelines he set for the Palestinians. It was all about reacting to the distortion that had been angrily invented by the Israeli prime minister.
Never mind that Obama has done nothing of the sort. Never mind that Obama in his words and actions has done just the opposite. Never mind that this is the same Barack Obama whom Israeli ambassador Michael Oren--a man who has actually been in the room during each of the meetings between our president and Netanyahu--has repeatedly and effusively praised as a strong and steadfast friend of the Jewish state.
I find all this confusing and depressing. Not so much the fact that other Americans and Jewish figures disagree with my assessment of Obama's performance but the fact that the smearing and vitriol and lies and distortions that have characterized one-issue fact-free hate campaigns against our president by the birthers (Obama was born in Kenya) and the Tea Party (Obama wants to destroy America) and the NRA (Obama wants to take away your guns) and the Right to Lifers (Obama wants to kill the unborn) are now being employed by Jews and others who claim to care so deeply about the future of Israel (Obama wants to destroy the Jewish homeland).
I believe that many of these people do mean well but it is sad beyond my ability to express that so-called Jewish leaders have resorted to slash-and-burn tactics in their inexplicable zeal to demonize our president. The tactics of distortion and fabrication have apparently replaced the respectful and nuanced, fact-based conversation that has always been the hallmark of Jewish debate.
It is both sad and disappointing that they are targeting a man whom I believe has acted and spoken more honestly and courageously in his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and generate the best outcome for Israel and the U.S. than any president in my lifetime.
It is even more tragic what this tone and attitude is doing to our efforts to build community and have a civil, productive conversation as committed American Jews. Jeff Goldberg has shared some of the hatemail he has received from fellow Jews after he stated that he believes Obama is pro-Israel and made a wonderful speech. But that too is a topic for another day.
Monday, February 28, 2011
J Street--A Breath of Fresh Air
I am in my third day of the J Street annual conference here in Washington. What I have seen in person on the ground here is an energized and committed group of people--almost all Jews--who care deeply about Israel and the Jewish people and who are very concerned that the policies of the current Israeli government and religious leadership are doing a great deal of harm. I have always been taught and believe that acting and speaking out on those kinds of concerns are the highest form of patriotism and Jewish responsibility.
The sessions have featured amazing speakers, including former AIPAC execs Tom Dine and Doug Bloomfield, Dennis Ross, Rabbi David Saperstein, Imam Faisal Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative, Peter Beinart, Steven Cohen, Daniel Levy, many members of Congress, and five members of the Knesset representing different parties who are here to both express their views and to show their support for J Street and what it represents.
Although J Street is barely two years old, the conference has attracted more than 2,000 attendees including 500 students. More than 11,000 people have attended J Street events during the last year and the are now 38 local chapters in 26 states and J Street U chapters on 182 campuses.
The conference has featured a number of plenaries and dozens of breakout sessions. I haven't heard a single comment from anyone who doesn't care deeply about Israel's future as a Jewish state. As with all healthy organizations, I have heard a lot of introspection and self-criticism.
In Rabbi Saperstein's keynote address, he broadly praised J Street for filling a huge void that existed in the pro-Israel pro-peace conversation but went on to criticize J Street for it's politically questionable decision to urge the U..S. to refrain from vetoing the resolution condemning Israel's settlement policy. It is refreshing to be part a pro-Israel group at a conference where people are encouraged to express their personal opinions, criticisms, and concerns out loud.
I am saddened that so many of my Jewish friends have resorted to the Fox News-like tactics of using lies, partial truths, and distortions in an effort to demonize J Street and smear its donors and professionals. Virtually every viral email I have received was written and/or forwarded by people who are not here at the conference nor have they ever had any first-hand contact with anyone from J Street
What we have now in the Jewish and pro-Israel movement is a healthy alternative. For Jews who believe our top priority--not the only priority but our top priority--is to protect and defend the State of Israel, then AIPAC (I support AIPAC financially and have served on it's local board) provides a great way to leverage that feeling.
For those who believe our top priority is to live out their Jewish values and who are focused on the commandments to work for peace, to improve the world, and to love the stranger then J Street provides a vehicle to leverage that approach. As a serious Jew who cares deeply about both Israel and Jewish values, I am thrilled that both organizations are part of our political and Jewish landscape.
I attended a J Street leadership meeting here a few months ago where Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren congratulated J Street for having "made it" and expressed his desire to work closely with J Street in the future.
I have not heard AIPAC negatively mentioned once here at the conference and yet I read articles and receive frequent emails from my AIPAC friends trying to delegitimize and destroy J Street. It is as though they believe if they say enough bad things, J Street will just go away. They remind me of the Wizard of Oz frantically scurrying around telling Dorothy and her friends to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
As the Wizard found out, that is not an approach that works well or for long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
