What the Hell is Going on With the Market?

Although the end of the first half of the year now behind us, the volatility in the financial markets in recent weeks warrants an immediate comment.

I continue to believe that, now more than ever, it makes sense for investors to own outstanding American companies for long-term growth.  For several years now my accounts have been fully invested in reasonably-priced quality companies and every quarter my client letter has said the same thing.  “We are seeing a bubble in gold and bonds that will at some point burst in an ugly way and stocks will emerge as the most attractive investment of choice.” 

It had to happen—the only question was when.  For many years, there were net inflows into bond and gold funds which were falsely labeled as “safe havens.”  Most of the money that fueled those bubbles came out of stock funds which suffered two full years of monthly outflows even as the market averages doubled. 

The media ads promoting gold flooded the airwaves and the pitchmen were often the same conservative “news” reporters who had been predicting economic catastrophe as a result of our government’s policies.  Their status as wise people gave them even more credibility with their audience and the ease with which investors could participate in gold and silver through Exchange Traded Funds helped inflate the bubble even more. 

Last month, Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke stated the obvious—that the U.S. economy was steadily improving and if that continued the Fed could and should taper the size of its bond purchases in the open market.  That innocuous announcement served as a wake-up call to investors.  When Bernanke repeated the obvious again last Wednesday, it was apparently the needle that popped the bubble.

During the ten trading sessions since then, 10-year interest rates have soared to over 2.70 percent—up from their lows of 1.60 percent just weeks ago.  Gold has plummeted to its lowest level in years.  Massive mutual fund redemptions are causing the rout to feed on itself.

These developments should have been great news for stocks.  The economy is getting better.  One would think that much of the money suddenly flooding out of bond and gold funds would be reallocated to equities.  Most stocks are trading at valuations that seem quite reasonable by historical standards.  So why are stock averages down by more than 7 percent in recent weeks?  If those of us who have favored stocks have been so right about the fundamentals, why is the stock market going down when it should be going up?

Here are a couple of thoughts. 

First, we are in an environment where the majority of trading in all markets is dominated by huge hedge funds and high frequency traders which has added to short-term volatility.  As a result, in this interconnected world, nothing happens in a vacuum.

For example, one large hedge fund manager reportedly saw his gold holdings drop by almost $200 million in value last Thursday when gold fell by almost $100 an ounce.  When huge leveraged funds suffer big losses, they don’t just sell off their gold—they sell whatever they can to raise the cash to meet margin calls and rebalance their models.

In addition, even as the U.S. markets have held up reasonably well in recent months and are still well ahead for the year, overseas and emerging markets have fared much worse.  The Dow is still up by almost 10 percent for the year while the MSCI Emerging Market Fund (EEM) is down by almost 20 percent.  The Chinese market in particular has been quite weak and fell by 5.6 percent today alone. 

Second, our media have become addicted to crises and do their best to scare investors whenever possible.  It is bad for the country but good for ratings.  By any reasonable measure, the downturn of the last week does not yet qualify as a crisis or a major turning point in the market.  What we have right now is a 7 percent correction in an ongoing bull market.  Last year, the market suffered two 10 percent corrections in what turned out to be a very good year.  This could just be part of the normal volatility that goes along with being a long-term investor in stocks.

The other media mantra is that stock prices have gotten way ahead of themselves and investors are way too exuberant.  But the fact of the matter is that a smaller percentage of Americans own stocks today than ever before in recent history.  On top of that, a recent CNN poll showed that 87 percent of Americans believe this is a bad time to be in the stock market.

During my 33-year career I have learned what a market top looks like.  In 1999, investors were firing their brokers for “only” producing 20 percent annual returns and were losing sleep at night because they didn’t own enough internet stocks and were missing out on the rally.  That is what a top looks and feels like.  It is almost the exact opposite of the sentiment among investors today.

So on balance, we live in a dynamic world where no reasonable person could say that “nothing has changed.”  A lot has changed and more is changing every day.

But our investment outlook remains the same.  Now more than ever, we believe that owning quality, well-run, reasonably priced American companies will prove very rewarding for investors with a medium to long-term investment horizon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israelism Revisited

I have received a number of responses to yesterday's article in which I coined the term "Israelism" to describe the over zealousness on the part of many of my fellow Jews who are loving Israel to death.  Perhaps more damaging are their slanderous accusations of anti-Semitism against dozens of decent people and public figures--many of whom are Jewish themselves.

Some people have thanked me for "hitting the nail right on the head" and "saying what needed to be said."  But others, including many close friends, were annoyed and even angry over my use of the term "Israelism."

Here is part of what my good long-time and very intelligent friend Bruce had to say:

Your use of labels makes you, if not equal, then worse, then those you criticize. You are worse, because by criticizing those who falsely label others as anti-Semites, you admit that you know how wrong it is to label this way, yet you do it anyway.

 
You seek to support the branding of Israelism and Israelists to be a dirty word. Just what we need is a new title to label and brand another Jew. This is what Judaists think will return civil discourse?
 
Imagine if you were successful. We would all learn to hate Israelists. We would root out the ugly Israelists amongt us. Sort of like the new Amalekites. Supporting Israel must make you a dirty Israelist. And Israelism will eat your soul. Hell, if you were successful enough, your term would catch on and the mass media would begin to call any supporter of Israel an Israelist. Now, wouldn't that be wonderful?

 

First and foremost, I do not use "Israelist" to describe the vast majority of Jews who, like myself, feel a strong connection to the land and people of Israel and who take pride in the many accomplishments of the Jewish state.  It is only descriptive of the small but vocal and powerful group that claims to speak for the Jewish community (although it clearly doesn't) and violates most of the key Jewish prohibitions against using slander, distortions, and lies in an overt effort to destroy the reputations and careers of good people.

As always, I fell back on a sports analogy.  I can't help myself.  Before I was God's gift to money management and then the savior of the Jewish people I worked for ten years as a TV news reporter.

I am a big University of Arizona basketball fan. Like all successful programs they have a strong booster club (AIPAC?) which holds pep rallies where they sing the school song (Hatikvah?).and show highlight films which feature the great plays made by our team and the dirty plays made by the other team because the booster club is not there to educate or provide balance. Their goal is to get their fan base whipped up and make them even more devoted to the team. That is all a good thing.  I attend these pep rallies myself.

When I go to the games--which I love--the most vocal and rabid fans sit in a corner the student section--the Zona Zoo. In past years, a small but vocal group of self-described fans have shown their support for the team by spitting on and swearing at members of the other team.  Often these fans (which of course is short for the word "fanatic") did some research and found personal details about opposing players and used personal insults about their families as part of their desire to help the home team.  It got so bad that two opposing coaches said they wouldn't play at Arizona again unless their teams didn't have to walk through the tunnel that is always flanked by the abusive Wildcat fans.

 I don't think it is hateful for me as a fan to speak out against those who are giving the rest of us a bad name. Quite the opposite. I am proud that the University of Arizona revoked the season tickets of several of those fans, publicly apologized to their victims, and made it clear that this kind of "support" is in conflict with the schools values and ethics.  The players and coaches also made it clear that this kind of behavior actually hurts and embarrasses the team that these fans were trying to help. 

As an aside, a strong and healthy team also has radio talk show and blogs where fans like me who have opinions--sometimes positive and sometime critical-- can weigh in and be heard. That was the huge void in the pro-Israel infrastructure that was missing before J Street came along.

 My friend, we have studied Torah and Jewish wisdom together and you have worked with me for years on Federation and Israel Bonds campaigns and you know I was a past board member of AIPAC. I am a bigger fan of Israel than I am of either the Packers or the University of Arizona about which I am borderline fanatic.

The last thing in the world I would do is demonize or perjoratively label people who support the democratic Jewish State of Israel. But I think we need to rise up as a community and police our own ranks and make it clear that those who violate  principals of Jewish values and ethics by unfairly and publicly slandering public officials and fellow Jews and smear them as anti-Semites are crossing the biggest of red lines.

And when their behavior is as shameful and outrageous as those cited in my article from yesterday, they should be stripped of their tickets and asked to leave the stadium. Not because I disagree with their right to express their opinions and certainly not because they consider themselves staunch supporters of Israel but because those who engage obscenity and vulgarity and disregard for Jewish values should not be allowed to claim they speak for our Jewish community and reflect our values.

Israelism--The Religion That is Destroying Our Jewish Community

Last year I wrote about the two new denominations of Judaism that have emerged and made the traditional Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform labels less relevant. 

Now the most meaningful distinction is between Aspirational Jews who look to Judaism as a value-added app that will help them live happier, better, and more productive lives and Tribal Jews whose main goal is to not grant Hitler a posthumous victory and to remain vigilant against the ongoing threats of anti-Semitism and our many enemies who are still out there trying to destroy us.

Most American Jews incorporate some mix of these approaches to Judaism viewing it as encouraging hope for the future while remaining aware of life's harsh realities.  The Book of Proverbs tells us not to "veer too far to the right or the left."  The conversation and tension between the approaches is healthy.

But in recent years, a small but vocal sect of passionate Tribalists have taken the tone of conversation to a new and much uglier place and it is driving a new and deep wedge into our already-fractured community.

These Jews who are damaging our community in the name of saving it have emerged on the scene with a renewed vigor and venom in a way that further threatens our ability to have a civil conversation about Israel and the important challenges we face.  Unlike extremists on the Left, who can be annoying but are far less affluent and organized, this group tends to be wealthy, well positioned, and very influential.

I call this group the Israelists and Israelism has become their religion.  Not just because they feel a deep connection as Jews to the state and land of Israel as we all do but because they have used their passion as license to attack those who do not share that passion with stunning disregard for the clear Jewish prohibitions against slander and negative speech about others.  Their focus and tunnel vision has risen to cult status where it has functionally become their defining connection with their Judaism.

Elevated passions and Tribal views on the part of many older, wealthier American Jewish "leaders" is not a new phenomenon.  Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic wrote about it more than five years ago in his New York Times article entitled "Israel's American Problem."   His words are even more relevant today.

Jewish leaders, who live in Chicago and New York and behind the gates of Boca Raton country clubs, loathe the idea that Mr. Olmert, or a prime minister yet elected, might one day cede the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to the latent state of Palestine. These are neighborhoods — places like Sur Baher, Beit Hanina and Abu Dis — that the Conference of Presidents could not find with a forked stick and Ari Ben Canaan as a guide. And yet many Jewish leaders believe that an Israeli compromise on the boundaries of greater Jerusalem — or on nearly any other point of disagreement — is an axiomatic invitation to catastrophe.








This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that (President Obama) be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state.














The situation that Golberg described back then was serious, but look how things have deteriorated since then. 

In recent months I heard former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams--the featured speaker at AIPAC's annual event in Tucson--accuse award-winning columnists Joe Klein and Thomas Friedman of being "Jewish anti-Semites" because they expressed opinions that were critical of specific actions of AIPAC and the Iseraeli prime minister. 

The Israelist Right--using tactics made popular by Tea Party activists--has smeared caring Jews like Peter Beinart and J Street executive Jeremy Ben Ami as anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, even though each has lived in Israel and has worked tirelessly to promote conditions that will enable it to survive as a Jewish democratic state..

Most recently, the Israelist rhetoric has kicked up to a new level as Islamophobe Pamela Geller's group has taken out ads in New York and Washington subways comparing Muslims to "savages" in the name of the Jewish people and those who support Israel.

The vitriol and accusations of anti-Semitism have expanded well beyond Jews in recent months.  When twice-decorated war hero and former Senator Chuck Hagel was nominated to be the next Secretary of Defense, the Emergency Committee for Israel and other Israelist groups ran an expensive smear campaign against him labelling him an anti-Semite--again in the name of American Jews.  lAnd what was Hagel's sin that qualified him as a Jew hater?  He had complained seven years ago about the heavy-handed tactics of AIPAC--an opinion I have heard from dozens of members of Congress.

Also appalling is the recent campaign against Samantha Power who is nominated to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations.  As soon as she was nominated, the Israelist hit squad ran articles branding her as an anti-Semite in headlines based on a two minute out-of-context snippet culled from an interview she gave on an obscure cable channel eleven years ago.

The email campaign waged hot and heavy until people like Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach chimed in that they thought Power would be an excellent choice based on her past performance and commitment to Israel.

But the crusher came when Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren defied precedent and wrote a passionate endorsement of Power..  The respone from the Israelists who smeared her as an anti-Semite has been deafening silence.

It brought back visions of Goldberg's article about Israelist American Jews who are far to the Right and far more strident than the counterparts in Israel they claim to represent. 

What is most striking (and most troubling)  is that the terms anti-Israel and anti-Semite have become synonymous and are used interchangeably.  Neither Friedman, Klein, Hagel, or Power ever said anything negative about Jews or Judaism.  What few comments they made were about the tactics and/or policies of AIPAC and/or the Israeli government.  Can you imagine if every person who is sincerely critical of the policies of the U.S. government was branded as anti-America or unpatriotic? 

In a recent interview on Jackie Mason made the following telling comment to David Evanier in Tablet Magazine when he asked Mason if he has experienced anti-Semitism in his life


I did 45 years ago, but I haven’t in the last 30 because the Gentiles in America have changed from looking down at a Jew 40 years ago to looking up to a Jew today. They used to condescend to a Jew; now they apologize to me for not being a Jew. They say their sister-in-law is a Jew, they’re married to a Jew, they’re trying to move into a Jewish neighborhood, they want to be a Jew. The only anti-Semitism that I suffer from today is from Jews.


Although they claim to be obsessed with concern about the future and safety of Israel and the Jewish people, much of what they write and forward in emails are criticisms--often laced with lies or distortions--about the evils of Arabs, Palestinians, and Islam.

Many of these Israelists are bright, caring people who are my very good friends.  I have spent the last three decades working along side them as I have chaired Federation and Israel Bonds campaigns, worked to raise and have given money to day schools and synagogues. 

But isn't there a risk that the Jews who cry "anti-Semite" so frivilously will not be listed to if real anti-Semitism rears its ugly head.

Going forward, Judaism will thrive or wither not based upon our ability to idenify and demonize our perceived enemies but rather upon its ability to provide people with a wonderful values and wisdom based system that can help them live happier, better and more productive lives.  It is a complicated and nuanced mix of those values along with ritual observance, culture, and a unique relationship with the land of Israel and, in recent years, the democratic Jewish state that has been built on that land.

As so often before in Jewish history, our people is facing a number of existential threats. For the first time in Jewish history, the most serious of those threats is internal--not coming from outsiders who want to destroy us but from the likely outcome of disastrous decisions being made by those who claim to be our leaders.

As the great Talmud scholar Rav Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

We might not be able to eliminate Jew hatred in the world and control the forces of evil out there that target Jews, but can't we at least find a way to call off the circular firing squad.

The Confederacy, Bible Belt, and Wilderness Party

I'm going to try to get through my post-election analysis without being too much of a jerk.  But it will be hard.  I'm used to being sort of right but not THIS right.

I caught major grief from friends and foes when I stated as a fact--not a prediction--in September and repeated for emphasis yesterday that the presidential election was over and that Obama had won.  Not only was I correct, but it was actually over for the reasons I stated.  More on why the rest of the news media seemed oblivious to that fact later.

The most relevant statistic that you will not hear anywhere else is that this is the second straight election during which a decent and intelligent Republican candidate did not come close to winning a single state outside the Confederacy, Bible Belt, or Wilderness. 

And for the second straight election that was largely due to the fact that the Republican party has been taken over by people who are so crazy and evil that the candidate had to say so many bizarre things and support such toxic policies to get the nomination that he essentially became unelectable in a national race.

The smart Republicans candidates like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Michael Bloomberg, and Jeb Bush wanted no part of that game and chose to stay as far away from this election as possible--waiting for saner times in the future.  So it was Mitt Romney who outlasted a field of wing nuts to get the nomination but, despite his last minute efforts to disavow his previous statements to appear more in touch with most Americans, he never had a chance.

All the conversation continues to be about divisiveness and partisanship but the real issue is that the Republicans can't win a national election unless they make some major changes.  The simple fact is that if over the next four years Republican leaders (and many of my friends) would commit the same amount of time, energy, and money to solving our country's problems as they have over the last four years to destroying and demonizing our president and his family, most of our problems will be solved.

After all, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and his co-religionists already have what they have wanted since 2008. The assurance that Barack Obama will not be re-elected four years from now. With that in hand, they might as well try a new approach and focus on helping the country.

As an independent voter who longs for a viable choice again I hope and pray that happens. If it doesn't, it will be sad but not shocking.

What IS shocking is the fact that none of the so-called news media--mainstream or otherwise--pointed any of this out at any point during the campaign.  Even as Intrade was showing us that real people betting real money had determined that Romney had no chance to win (Intrade accurately predicted the outcome in each of the 49 states that have been decided), we were constantly being told right up until the last minute that this was the closest race in history--neck and neck--and it would go right down to the wire.

It was as though a football game between the Green Bay Packers and the University of Wisconsin was being discussed by "experts" as a toss-up with none of them pointing out the fact that real people betting real money had made the Packers six touchdown favorites.

It calls into question if we still have real journalists or real news organizations.  They seem to have been replaced by celebrities who appear on TV shows and write blogs and columns but make their real money doing guest speaking appearances before adoring fans around the country.

Journalistic standards and commitment to the truth have gone so far by the wayside that we now have a handful of people (none of whom are well-known, high paid or famous) who have been delegated as "fact checkers" for various shows and publications.  I must be getting old but back when I was a newspaper and TV reporter, we were ALL supposed to be fact checkers.  That was the job.  Reporting the truth and calling out lies when we found them.

But an article in today's New York Times points out how dramatically that has changed during this election:

...most news organizations (with notable exceptions) abandoned their roles as political referees. Many resorted to an atrophied style that resembled stenography more than journalism, presenting all claims as equally valid. Fact checking, once a foundation for all reporting, was now deemed the province of a specialized few. 
      

But as this campaign has made clear, not even the dedicated fact-checkers have made much difference. 

      

PolitiFact has chronicled 19 “pants on fire” lies by Mr. Romney and 7 by Mr. Obama since 2007, but Mr. Romney’s whoppers have been qualitatively far worse: the “apology tour,” the “government takeover of health care,” the “$4,000 tax hike on middle class families,” the gutting of welfare-to-work rules, the shipment by Chrysler of jobs from Ohio to China. Said one of his pollsters, Neil Newhouse, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”

So, as Tevye famously said during Fiddler on the Roof,  "Send us the cure.  The sickness we've already got."  Will anything change?  Is there a cure out there?

As far as the Republican Party is concerned it is up to them.  Watching Karl Rove on Fox News last night was like seeing Matthew Harrison Brady at the end of Inherit the Wind as he continued to argue his case even after the jury had rendered its verdict.  He was Don Quixote in a business suit tilting at windmills and flailing at imaginary demons.  I'm curious to hear what Rove tells the billionaires who gave him hundreds of millions to smear Obama regarding what they got for their money.  I wonder if Sheldon Adelson feels his $100 million was well spent.

And the trend is not their friend.  Former Wilderness states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada have already joined the civilized world due to changing demographics and places like my home in Arizona and  North Carolina will be close behind.  There are fewer and fewer places where science and facts and American values and freedoms--not as defined by Evangelicals but as defined by history and common sense--just don't matter any more.  We'll see if the Republicans can figure it out or if they will just keep dooming themselves to failure on the national stage.

Regarding the news media, I'm not optimistic.  As with professional sports, it has become a business that seems more focused on individual fame and entertainment than on teamwork, traditional values and a commitment to the public good.  That part is sad.

I guess I will just have to keep writing to try to offset the decline.



 

The Election Will Resolve an Important Issue

I have received a number of calls from my many fans in recent days who want to know if I still stand by my bold (and apparently annoying) statement of six weeks ago in which I declared the presidential election to be over and declared Obama the clear winner.

I have never wavered in my conviction, despite President Obama's apparent determination to prove me a liar during the first debate, and  I certainly am not concerned now.  At the end of the day, the combination of Romney's weakness as a candidate and the Republican party's toxic platform are every bit as damaging to his candidacy today as they were months ago.

It was over then and it is over now. 

But that is not the reason for this article.

An interesting question that has emerged during the last two months of the campaign has been whether traditional polls (Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, and such) have gone the way of credit rating agencies and become completely useless as a predictive tool or if they are able to measure public sentiment accurately.

Politcal polls have a spotty track record but in the new world where no one under the age of 50 has a land line telephone any more it really calls into question how a pollster can sample opinion at all today.  During the last few months, I have received more than a dozen calls from pollsters on my home phone but no calls on the cell phone which I use for most of my communication.

How do pollsters sample public opinion if they are using telephone polling but they aren't calling anyone who only has a cell phone?  A good question, but also not the reason for this article.

The burning question is how and why there is such a huge disconnect between the predictions being made by traditional pollsters and the odds being quoted on the betting sites where real people are betting tens of millions of dollars on the upcoming elections?

Full disclosure.  As an investment adviser and as an observer of the human and political condition I have always paid far more attention to how people behave than to what they say.  It is an approach that tends to serve us all well.

That is why I confess to being an addict of Intrade, Ladbrokes, and other betting sites where gamblers (investors) can wager on the outcome of upcoming events.

From the outset, Obama has been a solid favorite to win re-election on all the betting sites and at this very moment with the election just hours away, the president is a 70-30 favorite to win on Intrade and a 2-9 favorite at Ladbrokes (U.S. casinos are not allowed to take bets on our elections) in Great Britain.  Meanwhile, Gallup--the most prestigious of the traditional pollsters--now says that Romney is slightly AHEAD overall.

The odds have always favored Obama although his lead dropped into the 55-45 range during the week after his disastrous performance and Romney's clear win in the first debate in September.  But real bettors betting real money have never--not ever for a second--considered Romney likely to win.

Even more dramatic is the widely divergent message we are getting on the likely outcome in the so-called swing states.  We are told at this very moment by the mainstream media and the traditional polls that the election is neck and neck and could go either way. That states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire are essentially deadlocked and too close to call.

Meanwhile, the betting sites are stating clearly that there are only two real toss up states remaining--
Virginia and Colorado (Obama is ahead slightly in each).  Real people betting real money have made Romney a huge favorite in Florida and North Carolina and Obama is a prohibitive favorite--25 points or more--in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Iowa, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

If investors are to be believed, it will be a very early night tomorrow.

The issue that should get a lot of attention but probably won't is why, armed with prestigious but probably very misleading polling data, have our mainstream media been tricking us into believing that this race has been a cliff-hanger all along?  Could it be that they are less interested in keeping us informed than they are in insulating themselves from charges of liberal bias from the Right?  And that most of all they are desperate to keep us sitting on the edges of our seats until the game is over even though real people betting real money have been telling us for months that this election will be a blowout?

This is the only real question regarding the presidential election--whether polls are worth the paper they are printed on and the way the media use them--that remains to be resolved tomorrow.  The rest of it was over weeks ago.

Let's Be Honest--About High Holiday Sermons--How Do You Jew--Part II

In the first part of this series, I pointed out that people who view Judasim as an important part of their lives today fall into two denominations--Tribalists and Aspirational--with most of us incorporating aspects of each into our own Jewish experience.



For years we have framed Jewish denominations as Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform which differed mainly in their levels of ritual observance.  But the new denominations cut across the old lines and focus on their followers' view of what it means to be Jewish.



Tribalists tend to believe that they were born Jewish and have a responsibility to unequivocally support Israel and to remain vigilant in their fight against anti-Semitism, discrimination against Jews and existential threats to the Jewish people here and in Israel--threats which they believe are both real and daunting.



Aspirational Jews tend to view Judaism as a package that includes a Jewish homeland, a rich history, a written and oral tradition of rituals, wisdom, values, and ethics.  It is an option with which they are fully prepared and even anxious to engage if and only if it can provide them tools that enable them to live happier, better, more productive lives.



The very different messaging and views regarding the true meaning of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and how they are being played out in High Holiday sermons provide a dramatic example of this dynamic.



In Jewish tradition, the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur--called the "Day of Awe--are a time for intense self-examination (heshbon hanefesh) as each of us is commanded to repent for the sins we have committed during the last year.  We are supposed to seek out those who we have hurt or treated badly during the last year and ask them for their forgiveness.  We also are to do repentance (tshuvah) before God and make our case to be inscribed in the Book of Life for the coming year. 



But in recent years, even as life for American Jews has become better and Israel has become stronger and more secure, many Jews and  rabbinic leaders have become  increasingly vocal about their existential fears and sense of victimhood--so much so that their Rosh Hashanah sermons have morphed into fearful and demonizing rants against others--both inside and outside the Jewish tent--who are perceived as threats.



A tipping point occurred two years ago when every Jews Inbox suddenly filled up with forwarded emails from friends sharing what they were calling "The Sermon of the Century."



The now-famous sermon was delivered on Rosh Hashanah in 2010 by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of  Atlanta's Etz Chaim (Conservative) synagogue. It earned him a commendation from both the Georgia legislature and the U.S. Congress.    
 

On Rosh Hashanah, instead of helping his congregants with their upcoming negotiations with God where their very lives stood in the balance, Rabbi Lewis decided to deliver a  passionate warning about the evil perpetrators of radical Islam--comparing the Islamists to the Nazis and making numerous allusions to the Holocaust.



He concluded by saying:



Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis. We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.

A rabbi was once asked by his students….

“Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?” Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”

 My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. “EHR KUMT.(yiddish for "He--meaning Hitler-is coming)”



Thousands of Jews were so moved by this Rosh Hashanah message that they forwarded it all over the country and it has received hundreds of thousands of views. 



With others like the blogger Gefilte on loonwatch.com it raised some red flags.



Quite simply, it’s nothing but a piece of hate speech by a religious leader. Not only that, it’s a piece of dreck delivered at a pulpit by a rabbi on the first day of Rosh Hashanah — a day for introspection and self-examination, not high political theater.




And the Tribalist approach to the High Holidays continues.



Last week former New York mayor Ed Koch gave his annual "sermon" at the Modern Orthodox Park East Synagogue in New York and reportedly used the opportunity  to deliver a screed blasting President Obama for his policies and actions regarding Iran and his weakness when it comes to dealing with Muslims in general.



This represents the third complete flip for Koch on the subject of Obama and Israel.  Two years ago, he vilified Obama for "throwing Israel under the bus" only to decide months later that Obama was great for Israel.  Now he has apparently flipped again on the subject.  All of that is interesting (or not) but in any event is it what we should be hearing from the bimah during a Rosh Hashanah sermon?

Meanwhile in Israel, two of the most powerful and influential rabbis in the Jewish world sent Rosh Hashanah messages to the their followers.



Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the politically powerful religious Shas party, sent out a message before the holiday urging all Jews to use the Rosh Hashanah observance as an opportunity to pray for the destruction of Iran.



At the same time,  Rabbi  Shlomo Amar, the chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel used the Rosh Hashanah platform to make a single statement--that Reform Jews pose the greatest threat to our people today and that it is better for a Jew not to pray at all than to pray along with Reform Jews.




Most American Jews dismiss the impact of rabbis like Amar and Josef, describing them as fringe elements, fanatics, and worse.  But they are not the least bit fringe.  These rabbis have enormous political power and influence in Israel and elsewhere and their opinions form the basis for policy and law in the Jewish homeland.



Those widely hailed dark and ominous sermons were far different from those delivered  last week here in Aspen.  The sermons on the mount(ain) were the work of Rabbi David Segal, the young spiritual leader of the Aspen Jewish Congregation--a fast growing center of Jewish life in a community where the congregants range from old and very wealthy to young and middle class and who come from all neighborhoods of the Jewish, economic and political spectrum.



Rabbi Segal is a Reform rabbi who is bright and innovative and would even be called progressive but his sermons seemed far more true to Jewish tradition that those delivered by the more ritually observant religious leaders described above.



On Erev Rosh Hashanah Rabbi Segal  traced the Jewish tradition of reforming the rules and tradition back to Abraham, and suggested that each of us can be true to that tradition by changing it in ways that retain its essence but keeps it relevant.



On Rosh Hashanah morning  he talked about politics.  But instead of promoting or bashing one of the candidates, Rabbi Segal talked about our need to support candidates and promote our political agendas in a way that is consistent with Jewish values and civility.



He closed with the following prayer for the New Year: 




Ribono shel olam, Great One of the World, we’re trying really hard here to put Your will into action through our political affiliations.

Remind us that You are bigger than party and faction, and that some of Your truth always resides in the words of our opponents. Give us the confidence to learn from them, especially the ones who seem so wrong at first... Remind us of the wisdom of our ancestors, who taught,“Who is wise? He who learns from all people” (Pirkei Avot 4:1).

Teach us that our People’s record of your Revelation is subtle, complex, multi-vocal, at times confusing and troubling, and elsewhere a clarion call for justice. Help us to study it more (perhaps with a local rabbi), and through our learning to know You better, and Your will, for our action in the world.

Then may we fulfill your promise to Abraham, that we shall be a blessing to the community and nation we all call our home.



As Rabbi Segal quotes from the Talmud, a truly wise person is one who learns from all people.  And as we are also advised in the Talmud, we should travel down some part of the middle of the road and not on the far right or the far left.



Today we have new Jewish denominations.  The Tribalists on one extreme who view being Jewish as a real life game of "Survivor" where even today we face enemies and discrimination and existential threats.  And on the other extreme are the Aspirationalists who view Judaism as a value-added set of beliefs, history, rituals, and wisdom traditions that can help us lead happier, better, and more productive lives.



Each side is correct--to a point. There are existential threats to the Jewish democratic state of Israel and to our ability to maintain a vital Jewish community here in the U.S.  But the most daunting of those threats is not a nuclear Iran or radical Islam or intermarriage or anti-Semitism. 



The major threat is that in our efforts to fight each of those very real challenges we lose sight of the Jewish values and ethical guidelines regarding how we treat each other that were the whole point of Judaism in the first place.



Now more than ever before, Jews are in a position where we have the power and standing to implement our tradition and our values more fully and completely than ever before.  Along with that power comes the freedom to make choices--including the choice of simply walking away from a tradition if it loses its meaning and ability to help us be better, happier, more productive human beings.



The key challenge of 5773 is to spend less time demonizing others (even with fair criticism) and to seek out more opportunities for self-examination and linking to our tradition and wisdom in ways that truly make each of us, the world, and the Jewish people better.

That seems like the best New Year's resolution of all.

Let's Be Honest--About Jewish Denominations--How Do You Jew--Part 1

The time between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are called the "Days of Awe" since we are supposed to spend them making our case before God that we are worthy to be inscribed in the Book of Life for yet another year.  It is the one short period when we are supposed to focus completely on our own strengths and weaknesses and our personal relationship with God.  The rest of the year, and Judaism in general, focuses on prayers for the Jewish people, the communities in which we live, and the rest of the world.



The various flavors of Judaism--Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Vegan, Jew-Bu, etc.--have always more or less agreed on this model.  We are very different in the trappings and the role that ritual observance plays in the process.  But the various denominational labels have been used for decades to help Jews and other differentiate between the various denominations and how different Jews choose to be religious in their own way.



But as with most labels that have served us well for a long time, those denominational labels are becoming more meaningless by the day.  In the past, the list above (in order) has been used to determine which Jews are "more Jewish" ranging from Orthodox at the top to Jew-Bu at the bottom.
But now, many of my Orthodox friends have become more flexible in their levels of observance while more and more of my Reform friends are wearing kippot and keeping kosher. 

As with our relationship to Israel and a whole broad range of issues, things are just getting more and more complicated when it comes to using the old measures and language to talk about what it means to be Jewish.



I would suggest that as a practical matter, there are really only two denominations of American Judaism that exist today and that they have far less to do with ritual observance per se than they do with the macro view regarding what it means to be Jewish.



One view--the one I hear about in emails from my older Jewish friends of all existing denominations--is that Judaism carries with it first and foremost a set of obligations.  Those of us who were born Jewish have a duty to perpetuate the Jewish people (by marrying inside the faith), to unequivocally support the government of the State of Israel without which Judaism would essentially cease to exist, and to be fully aware that even though things may seem pretty good for us right now, the anti-Semites and Jew haters are still out there and we must always be alert and vigilant for the signs of the next catastrophe. 



We owe it to the memory of those who died in the Holocaust not to grant Hitler a posthumous victory and must forward every article and statement documenting horrible acts of anti-Semitism from anywhere in the world to make sure that the current complacent generation of Jews is snapped out of its dangerous illusion that life for Jews is pretty good here.



The other denomination consists of those who believe that in this new open source world without boundaries and limitations in which we are blessed to live in this country, Judaism like every other religion, way of life, and wisdom tradition, is to be viewed as a choice--not a burden or responsibility.  It will thrive or wither based on the ability of its rituals, ethics, values, historical memories and insights to help people live happier, better, and more productive lives. 

The same applies to the legacy organizations such as synagogues, Federations, pro-Israel groups and all of the other entities that for decades essentially had a large captive audience and suddenly find themselves having to compete for customers in the open market.



Perhaps the best example of how the failure of most Jews and the media to understand that there are now just two relevant denominations has surfaced in the jumbled and contradictory conversations about "The Jewish Vote" and whether President Obama is as popular with Jews as he was four years ago or if he is losing ground to Mitt Romney.  It also applies to the corollary question regarding the role that Israel plays in the voting decision of Jews.



Polls and surveys have yielded a broad range of results and answers to those questions because the pollsters and pundits don't understand that the differences in issues, politics, and actual definition of what it means to be Jewish is so profoundly different between the denominations that the term "Jewish" no longer has a single definition.



Among the "tribal" Jews, unequivocal support for Israel and its government is a huge priority and the almost omnipresent sense of victimhood, fear, and anger that is voiced at meetings and articles that are forwarded by these folks has caused many of them to employ the tactics and tone of the political Right.



Within the other denomination people who turn to Judaism as an important part of their lives embrace its rituals, culture, history, wisdom, ethics, and values as a life choice due to its ability to help them live happier, better, and more productive lives.  They believe that a Jew's first responsibility is to leave the world a better place (tikkun olam) than it was when we got here. 



I will call this group Aspirational Jews--not because they don't feel as strong an historical and cultural connection to Judaism and Israel but because they tend to pick and choose among the rituals and traditions and focus on observing only those that make their lives better, happier, and more productive.  They don't feel "commanded" nearly as much as they feel empowered to make relevant and value-added choices.



As is always the case, the best result will occur when pluralism prevails and the extremists of each denomination work hard to find the partial truths that certainly exist in the positions of the other.

The Tribalists need to understand that we live in times when even the legacy organizations that they embrace have determined that the greatest threat that American Jews face today is not that gentiles hate Jews and want to destroy us but is rather that so many gentiles love Jews so much that they can't wait to marry our children.  That fact should cut into the fear just a smidge.



The Aspirational Jews need to understand that although we enjoy a life in the U.S. that none of our forefathers and mothers ever dreamed possible, there are still enormous threats that exist in a very ugly world and that Jew hatred is a very major challenge in many places around the world.



Our tradition teaches us over and over that some version of the middle road is always the best way to travel.  It also teaches that we grow and survive not by demonizing those with whom we disagree but rather by engaging those very people in dialogue and conversations that will make each of us wiser and lead to the best result possible.



During these Day of Awe we need to look at ourselves and determine how we can best make the positive difference that our tradition teaches were are all obliged to seek.



Part 2 will  be a discussion of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the Days of Awe and point out new differences are emerging the the way the Tribalists and the Jews by Choice frame this period as well.