THE JEW QUESTION

Racism: (1) a belief that race is the primary determinant  of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. (2) racial prejudice or discrimination.

Irony: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicous by adroit questioning - called also "Socratic irony.'

I started this blog about an hour after the conclusion of NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's "sterling" (I apologize) news conference in which Silver displayed a strength much needed in professional sports leadership.

I "bagged" the original blog in recognition of a need to cool off. I also wondered if I was overreacting to a solitary question which I perceived to be yet one more example of racism in our society.

Here's the media question asked of Silver during the Q&A session ( as annotated by one media source):

 "You spoke about your personal response to (Sterlings racist remarks and his subsequent punishment) in terms of Donald Sterling self-identifying as Jewish, and you doing the same as well. I'm wondering if there is a specific kind of pain associated with that for you, and if you felt a certain responsibility within the Jewish community to be responding to this in this way."

Silver's excellent reply was short and to the point": I think my response was as a human being."

My question - why the question? By the very definition of racism doesn't it beg an interpretation of more racism - the very heart of the whole matter under discussion and the subject of the news conference?

Innocent? Racist? Ironic? You decide.

It's doubtful you'll read much about the question in the mainstream media. However, I did some research online and was pleased that the question posed by Howard Megdal - who is with "Sports on Earth - and is also Jewish - did receive some comment.

One unknown writer from "Heeb Media"  (which by itself could be seen as offensive by some . Perhaps in the media it's like being OK if one Afro-American addresses another Afro - American by using the "N-word"), described his reaction to the question:

"Ah Ha! A Scoop. Jews feel Jewishly about other Jews! Or Something."

Another by respondent Abby Sherman Rosthenthiler: " So, it would seem only certain groups can be offended by racist comments? Hmmm."

My question, "What did this question have to do with anything that was decided, and did it make any difference if Sterling, the reporter, and/or the commissioner are Jewish? You see, to me that's racist.

Is it OK to put one entire race of people (The Jews) in the same basket but wrong if you do it to Afro-Americans? Why are we relying on inclusiveness to determine the traits of one race simply by the actions or words of one or more individuals?

Does this not fit the definition of racism in "Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary?"

My immediate reaction to the question was "What the Hell is wrong with people in the media?"

But, that would be an inclusive question, as well. Right?

MAIL TIME

I love mail time. Not regular mail . That's just bills and circulars.

No, I'm talking about the really good mail - spam mail. 

The most recent spam I received today was entitled "View pics of 50+ singles in your city".

Apprently wrinkles are making a comeback.

But in my neighborhood - living in a senior community - everybody's got wrinkles. You see them everywhere - including in my mirror..

My spam folder suggests I'm still a popular guy. My B.F.F spam pal is apparently PCH as they send me two or three e-mails every day practically guaranteeing me financial success.

There are also other people who think of me often, as well, and are quite eager to help me out in my senior days.

First, they tell me I can earn money by taking any one of several surveys offered daily. Sounds too easy.

I can also view a video of a weight loss spray as seen on ABC's "shark tank". I have a feeling Pittsburghs' Mark Cuban passed on that one.

Some spam mails are puzzling for the less discerning - like me - apparently.

For example, I'm still agonizing over my decision not to open the one entitled "Amish wood milk - 100 year old formula."

Naturally, fearing I'd receive an unwanted virus, I also passed on the spam mail  that was sent to me by someone who was apparently ambivalent that day:

" Naughty Nurses & 50% off for Cinco de Mayo".

I married one of the former - and love the one I got.

But, I always have PCH and their eternal promise: "The Prize Patrol may be coming your way."

That's much more exciting than "naughty nurses" anyday.

UNSOLICITED ADVICE"

Like most of you, I receive a lot of unsolicited "lifestyle advice" in my junk e-mails. Most I glance at and then pitch.

But, one I received recently was not only interesting, but timely.

It reminded me, from time to time we need to review the life lessons we learned,  from a parent, teacher, or mentor and/or possibly just our life experience. I hope you'll agree.

Here are a few of my favorites.

1. "Stop spending time with the wrong people." ( I  agree
 and decided  to practice that one again, not that long ago.)

 "Life is too short to spend time with people who suck
 the happiness out of you. If someone wants you in their
 life, they'll make room for you.

 You  shouldn't have to fight for a spot."

 (To that one I add, "too many people misinterpret our
 kindness for weakness.")

 2. "Stop trying to hold on to the past".You can't start
 the next chapter of your life if you keep re-reading your
 last one." ( I plead guilty).

 3. "Stop berating yourself for old mistakes." (a possible corollary to "2".)

(Why should we  waste so much time committing this
mistake, simply because there are way too many unhappy
people out there who are so willing to do it for us.

Why not use the time constructively and start a positive
list? What are the things you do right? What do you do
when someone pays you a compliment ?  Save them.

The author clarified this last "tip" which I've paraphrased slightly.

(a) "There is merit in making mistakes, as it happens to all
of us, and by making them, it helps us to find the person
and things that are right for us." (Been there - Done that!)

(b)   "We need to realize that we are NOT our mistakes, we
 are NOT our struggles, and we are here NOW with
 the power to shape our day and our future.

(c)   "Mistakes in our life are preparing us. Everything that
ever happened to us is preparing us for a moment that is
yet to come."

This one caused me to pause and smile as I  recalled a
100 year old female friend who I was visiting in a
nursing home years ago. Despite her advanced age she
was still sharp and had retained a delightful sense of humor.

During that visit she confided she had no clue why
she was "still around."

I did what I assume most of us would have done and tried
to ease her discomfort by offering, "Perhaps God still has
something for you to do".

She quickly responded: "Tell God, I've done enough.
Get somebody else!"

I'll keep one of my favorites (4) "Stop holding grudges"
for a later blog.

Enough unsolicited advice. Now it's time for me to
practice it.

IT'S ALL ABOUT TIMING!

I'll admit that I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. In fact, if truth be known, sometimes I miss the drawer altogether

Perhaps that's why the most recent constantly changing Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance limits has me puzzled.

I mean, I wasn't done struggling with the "United" decision when along came "McCutcheon" - which I think said, by loosening up how much you and I kick in to politicans we have increased our "free speech"  as guaranteed by the First Amendment."

You see, dumb me, I thought I already had enough free speech. I sure didn't know there was a "food pyramid" like measurement out there somewhere.

 So, please help me here, is expanding free speech now like pouring STP into your gas tank to extend your engine life?

Maybe, free speech is like purchasing a P.L.U.P where you meet with your insurance guy or gal to determine just how much coverage you need in order to be completely protected from lawsuits.

Then I started thinking, "What is the difference between "free speech" and "bought and paid for speech" - has that changed too?"

I openly confess I value my current level of "free speech". It's why I can write some of the outrageous things I do, and still have them published.

What if that changes too? Right now it's free, but do I have to get on-board in order to retain - or even possibly increase - my amount of free speech in the blog world?

Is there someone out there in the blog publishing business who might guarantee my right to even more free speech if I would just be willing to kick in a few shekels?

Then, the insecure kid in me came back and I foolishly wondered: "If I do that, couldn't it be interpreted as some subtle form of bribery?"

You see, I don't want to go to jail if  I do this wrong.

Besides, I'm not all that sure increasing the size of my P.L.U.P  coverage is any guarantee I'll be adequately protected from bribery charges.

So, I thought maybe I should look up the definition of  bribery, since honestly, (no pun intended) in my confused world, I'm a little shaky on this whole idea about giving folks money in order to protect my rights.

I asked myself, "Self, where is it going to stop?"

Will I now start seeing TV ads from Supreme Court members soliciting contributions similar to the current political ads we're constantly bombarded with?

If so, will the format be similar to the deliterious attorney advertisements we're buried with seeking our money under the guise of protecting us from the evil insurance companies?

Perhaps I should immediately contact Amazon.com and go online to order up the latest musical CD, "The Best of Justice Roberts and The Supremes"?

Now, there's a "cookie" that just might protect me.

More determined than ever to do "the right thing", and desperately seeking answers, I finally did look up the definition of what I used to think was called "bribery."

I found two of them: "An act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient."

I thought, "Isn't that what most individual campaign donors and PAC's want?"

But, that wasn't enough for me. I wanted the true "legal" definition. So, I sought out the one in Black's Law Dictionary.

I wanted to be sure I was getting "the real scoop!"

"Black" defines bribery as: "The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of public or legal duty."

Now, surely you can understand - sharp knife or not - I'm more puzzled than ever.

And, poor "Boss Tweed". He has to be spinning in his grave.

Sorry, "Tweedy Bird" - it's all about timing!

MOM NEVER LIVED IN FLORIDA.

As we get older - at least this guy - we tend to resent intrusion in our lives.

When we were still productive - at least enough to have people willing to cut us a check every two weeks - noise, interruption, deadlines, and sometimes simply our need to ignore people playing with our heads - were all part of our work day - and dystopia was just around the corner.

We put up with it basically because we were convinced we had to, and for more practical reasons like the financial obligations that compelled us to do so.

That's why reading the following still has me shaking my head.

Back in 2012 a 47 year old guy who decided he had enough with unruly teenage kids, with their rap music blaring from their SUV, fired 10 shots at their vehicle and killed one of them.

I immediately recalled a memory of a friend of mine and myself  fighting back at kids "sound intrusion" while we were vacationing on the Jersey shore in the late 80's or early 90's..

As a rebuttal to the kids crusing back and forth - and blaring their music -we tuned our car radio to one of the oldies stations - rolled down the windows - and blasted it for any unsuspecting person in the vicinity of our extended ride up and down Ocean Avenue with our wives. We too wanted to share Our music.

We laughed a lot that day, acting goofy, as we demonstrated our vacation silliness far away from our workday distractions. We did so, as I recall without any alcohol or drugs in our system. We were enjoying the euphoria of being on vacation!

If our music that day wasn't so loud we probably could have heard some poor "youngish" shnook spinning around in his driver seat while demanding of his wife: "Candace, find out where the hell  that ungodly noise is coming from?"

Others apparently reacted in similar fashion.

However, one passing motorist  - probably of our generation - possibly realized what we were doing and, (presumably) sharing our petty displeasure with the kids and their music - signified his agreement by giving us  two thumbs up.

This was definitely unlike the more demonstrative digital response our loud music seemed to have evoked from other folks that day.

Well this 47 year old guy I was reading about wasn't us - and he apparently had a short fuse - not uncommon for a lot of drivers we've witnessed down here in Florida.

His car and the SUV with 4 kids inside were stopped outside a Jacksonville gas station when he demanded that the teenagers turn down their radio.

After exchanging words, the guy opened fire on the kids - killing one of them - age 17 - before the adult and his passenger then fled the scene.

There were no "thumbs up" that day - or were there?

The guy was arrested - tried - and found guilty of three counts of  "second-degree" murder for apparently (by one written account) "missing three of the kids."

This commentator also suggested "some members of the jury must believe the kid wasn't dead - and - at least one juror  believed the adult's 'lame' defense".

The real puzzle to me and, I'm assuming most reasonable folks, was that the jury were deadlocked on the question as to whether the guy was guilty of murdering the teenager.

Paraphrasing this writer's observation: "The jury also found the guy guilty of shooting into an occupied vehicle. But, it was not able to convict him of being
responsible in any way of killing the 17 year old kid."

As one might suspect with a verdict like this - and inferred above  - there were other circumstances alleged, of course.

The guy testified to shooting only after seeing someone in the SUV point the barrel of a shotgun at him. But, when he drove away with his girlfiend, who was inside a convenience store when this all went down, he made no mention of any shotgun.

When his "excuse" DID come out was when the police arrested him at his home the following day.

You see in Florida such an allegation enables one - such as this guy - to cling to Florida's controversial "stand your ground" defense" that permists one who has a reasonable fear that his life is being threatened, to respond with deadly force."

I should add no shotgun was ever found despite his attorney's allegation that the teens must have deep-sixed it during the short time they fled the gas station. That would be  before they returned for help once the realized their passenger had been hit - a very short distance.

According to the lead detective who investigated the case and presumably was subpoenaed as a rebuttal witness, the kids travelled  a distance of about 400 yards - and no evidence of the existance of the phantom shotgun was ever introduced.

Now, I'm going to guess, assuming I did not omit any relevant facts, that you who have now read this account are probably convinced like myself that this was a total miscarriage of justice.

Oh, did I tell you that the shooter was black and the kids were white?

Of course not.

That would be a lie - an act that, at least in my childhood - often resulted in my Mom placing a bar of Lava or Fels-Naptha soap in my mouth as a reminder of my transgression.

God only knows what she would have put in there if I had chosen to shoot at some teenage kids for having the audacity to play their music "too loud!"

Then again, we never lived in Florida.

WHY WE'RE IN TROUBLE -(It's all this chicken s..t!)

So, why did the chicken cross the road?

Barack Obama: "Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period."

John McCain: "My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chicken on the other side of the road."

Hillary Clinton: "What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road."

George W. Bush: "We really don't care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here."

Dick Cheney: "Where's my gun?"

Colin Powell: " Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road."

Bill Clinton: "I did not cross the road with that chicken."

Al Gore: "I invented that chicken."

John Kerry: "Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it."

Al Sharpton: "Why are all the chickens white?"

Dr. Phil: "The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems."

Oprah: "Well I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens."

Anderson Cooper : We have reason to believe there is a chicken but we
have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road."

Martha Stewart: "No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information."

Jerry Falwell: "Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth" That's why they call it "the other side.' Yes, my friends, that chicken was gay. If you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the Liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like ' the other side.' That chicken should not be crossing the road, and that was good enough for us."

Barbara Walters: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the very first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish it's lifelong dream of crossing the road."

Albert Einstein: "Did the chicken cross the road - or did the road move beneath the chicken?"

Grandpa Barry: "In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us."

(Many thanks to my sister-in-law, Doris).

IT'S ONLY FAIR - THE OTHER SIDE

I recently submitted a blog on men's attitude toward women entitled "Things I Wish I had Known When I Was Younger."

Daughter Beth (Modrak) was kind enough to recently publish on her Facebook page a "sort of" retort attributed to deceased 60 Minutes commentrator Andy Rooney:

"As I grow in age, I value women who are over forty most of all. Here are just a few reasons why. A woman over forty will never wake you in the middle of the night to ask, 'what are you thinking?' She doesn't care what you think.

If a woman over forty doesn't want to watch the game, she doesn't sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do. And, it's usually more interesting.

A woman over forty knows herself well enough to be assured in who she is, what she is, what she wants and from whom. Few women past the age of 40 give
a hoot what you might think about her or what she is doing.

Women over forty are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you  at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you, if they think they can get away with it.

Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it's like to be underappreciated.

A woman over forty has the self-assurance to introduce you to her women friends. A younger woman with a man will often ignore even her best friend because she doesn't trust the guy with other women. Women over forty couldn't care less if you're attracted to her friends because she knows her friends won't betray her.

Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over forty. They always know.

A woman over forty looks good wearing bright red lipstick. This is not true of younger women. Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over forty is far sexier than her younger counterpart.

Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off if you're a jerk, if you are acting like one. You don't ever have to wonder where you stand with her.

Yes, we praise women over forty for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffered hot woman of forty-plus, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some twenty-two year old waitress.

Ladies, I apologize.

For those men who say,'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free', here's an update for you. Now 80 percent of women are against marriage, why?

Because women realize it's not worth buying an extra pig, just to get a little sausage."

Hey, it's only fair.

Thanks Beth.
.