“The Winters Tale” at the Folger Library Theatre

I knew nothing about “The Winters Tale” until yesterday, other than it was a Shakespeare play, and that I had never seen it performed or read it.  I knew it wasn’t a tragedy.  I knew it wasn’t a history.  But I didn’t know if it was a comedy, or a romance, or what.

Yesterday afternoon, I read a synopsis and a couple of essays on the play.  The synopsis was very easy to follow, but made no sense.  A king gets made when his queen seems to be on friendly terms with another king (the best friend of king #1), and gets so jealous that he banished king #2 back to his home country, while his young son dies (presumably because he is unhappy that his father now seems to hate his mother) and his queen dies (because she is unhappy that her son has died).

Before the queen dies, she gives birth to a girl, and king #1 is sure that king #2 was the father and instructs one of his aides to take the baby to the land of king #2 and leave it exposed to the elements, which he does.  The baby is found by a shepherd and his son.  King #2 has a daughter who meets the baby when she is 16 years old and falls in love with her.

King #2 forbids his son to consort with the daughter (a presumed young shepherdess), so the prince and his girl friend decide to run away back to the land of king #1 to try to make amends between the two kings.

They do, and learn that king #1 has been trying to atone for his sins for the past 16 years, and is happy to reconcile with king #2, who follows his son and son’s girl friend to king #1’s land.  Somehow they figure out that the girl friend is really the daughter of the queen (and in fact of king #1), something that the play skips over, and then it is discovered that a famous sculptor has made a life size statute of the dead queen, and they all go to see the statue which comes to life, and they live happily ever after.

Mixed in with this are a number of court figures, the somewhat hapless shepherd and his son, a itinerent con man and his assistant, and the queen’s best friend.

It isn’t hard to follow this play, but it is very hard to see it as a play.  The first portion of the play (concentrating on jealousy and revenge) is fine in and to itself, but the second portion, with all of the side-bar characters, the skipping of 16 years, the trip back to the home of king #1, the taken-for-granted fact of the young girl’s parentage, and the living statue, is just bewildering.

It is Shakespeare, and the language is Shakespearian, but approachable.  It was very well acted, with special kudos to Washington actor Naomi Jacobson, as the friend (and advocate) of the queen.  The almost three hours pass almost quickly.

But the overall point of it all?  Ah, that’s why it is called one of Shakespeare’s ‘mystery plays’.

More Gaza Thoughts (when will they end?)

We’ve heard this song before, haven’t we? Israel saying that peace is only possible if there is no violence from across the border, and if there is any violence, the reaction will be strong and swift. And, this is what has happened over the past two days.

Israel clearly knows how to spoil a good war. Many felt that Israel did what it had to do in light of the continuing rockets coming from Gaza, but many of those same people felt that Israel certainly did not have to do as much as it did.

OK, war is hell, we know that, and the Israelis did make sure that this war was hell. That was apparently part of the plan.

Well, what is past is past, but unfortunately it is also prologue, as it is apparent that the destruction and death in Gaza has further embittered the Arabs (Israeli leadership would say that Arabs were already so embittered that this additional embitterment is not very important) and turned a great portion of the world’s population against Israel, and not surprisingly against Jews (these same Israelis would say that everyone hates us anyway). And, yes, some of this harsh reaction will lessen over time.

The situation is odd. A weak neighbor that takes as its raison d’etre the destruction of the State of Israel. A losing neighbor who says, the more you hurt us, the stronger we become, because we gain in sympathy and support. Two other neighbors also with designs on (at least) some territory.

In fact, Israel has, I believe, at this point given up on peace, so what is left is continual intimidation, to try to scare off further attacks. Clearly, this is the case during an election campaign, as the country votes more and more right wing, and Likud will probably get back into power. It is hard to tell what will happen then.

Much as been written about the concept of the “other” in dealing with enemies of the nation. It is a natural reaction, unfortunate but natural. And it is terribly destructive.

So, Jews or Israelis are dogs and pigs, and Palestinians and Arabs are pigs and dogs. We rightfully complain about the tirades of Moslem clerics and political leaders, and the contents of their textbooks. But feelings in Israel, at least publicly amongst large parts of the populace, are not too different with respect to Arabs.

Just yesterday, I read the awful publications that the Israeli chief rabbinate (an institution for which I have no respect whatsoever) distributed to soldiers in Gaza. I read the statement of a high level official that described Hamas leadership as acting like kindergartners who are simply testing their limits. I read about a day care program in the Galilee where the Jewish parents put up an enormous stink to keep a single Arab child out of their school. All of this is simply awful. There is no other word for it.

What do I think? I think Israel is not capable of reaching peace with its neighbors (and may not want to) and that its neighbors probably don’t want peace in any event. So, I think it is time to rely on all of those international institutions that Israel ignores and believes to be the enemy in another guise. Let the UN, or other international organizations, guard the boarders. Give them free access to Gaza through the crossings. Let the Arab league working with the UN deal with Hamas. And so forth.

Of course, if there is violence that the international organizations cannot control, Israel must defend itself as aggressively as need be. But this should not be the first response, but one of the last responses.

This will not happen. The conflict will continue. It is hard to know where it will go, or what will be the effect on Jewish communities, particularly in Europe, Latin America, and Turkey.

What a joy to live in interesting times.

Out of the Blue, Benjamin Franklin

I am not sure why I received a copy, but yesterday’s mail brought me a beautiful, illustrated 60 page booklet from the Smithsonian Libraries, titled “Benjamin Franklin’s Political Arithmetic: a Materialist View of Humanity”, written by Harvard professor Joyce E. Chaplin.

Because it was too icy this morning to comfortably retrieve the newspapers, this publication became my breakfast companion.

The main point of the essay is that Franklin (sometimes without emphasizing the point publicly) believed that humans and animals were on a continuum, and that human actions could be measured to a great extent the same way animal actions are measured, bringing into question the existence of a ’soul’ or the promise of immortality or resurrection, controversial to be sure. People were born in pain, and spent their lives trying to maximize pleasure and avoid more pain; so it is with animals. These studies also led Franklin to make population studies and to project the nature of future increases in the population of the colonies. His premise was that the anticipated increase (brought about primarily by the unlimited land available, thus encouraging large families) made further emigration from England unnecessary. He was one of the original anti-immigration Americans (suggesting once that for every Englishman sent to the colonies, the colonies should send an American rattlesnake to England; their effects would be about the same).

And there was much more. Franklin’s study and publications about the new field of microscopy, and his effect on Malthus and on Darwin, to name just two.

I don’t know how broad the circulation of this pamphlet has been. But if you get it, I suggest you don’t just just throw it out.

Men of Zeal

It’s a funny thing, but even if I think I keep on top of things by reading newspapers and watching TV news, I often find out that I don’t know or remember a thing.

Let’s talk about the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.  How much do I really remember?  Well, I could tell you that it involved selling weapons to Iran and devoting profits to helping the Contras in Nicaragua, and I could tell you the names of some of the participants.  But I couldn’t really tell you what happened.

Today, I can do a little better, because I have just read Men of Zeal, the history of the Congressional hearings written by two of the Senate committee members, then-Maine Senators William Cohen and George Mitchell. Although the structure of the book is a little weird (because on some things, the two authors were not totally in agreement or at least had a different perspective), it is informative.

Basically, the story was as follows:  First, there was a determination to sell weapons to Iran in order to work a deal with Iran to obtain the release of the American hostages being held in that country.  In order to do this, both private companies and the State of Israel were brought into to help facilitate the transfer of arms to this hostile nation, and of course all of this was covert, no one was supposed to know anything about it.

Then, with the question of supporting the Contras a matter of great contraversy in the country, and with a Congressional directive in place prohibiting government support, a second covert program was developed, to take some of the profits of the Iran arms sales, and to convince third party countries with some dependence on the US to provide additional funding, and to send this support to help fight against the government of Nicaragua.

In fact, these programs did not remain secret, and the Congressional inquiry’s goal was to figure out who knew what and when.  Clearly, some in the Reagan government fought against these programs, namely George Schultz and Caspar Weinberger, and they were simply avoided and ignored.  Then there were those who felt that the goals of the programs were more important than the niceties of the law, people like Oliver North.  Then there were questions of how much Ronald Reagan knew.  Perhaps, he knew everything, perhaps he kept himself from knowing much.  None of this will ever be known, in part because there was a major effort, led by North, to destroy government documents, including presumably presidential “findings”, which provided the support for the programs.  And, there was tremendous contradiction in testimony with regard to any number of specifics, and it was stated that some extraordinarily smart individuals, like John Poindexter who was reputed to have a photographic memory and remember all of the details of everything, just couldn’t remember what they said, what they heard, or with whom they met.  Finally, there was the death of William Casey, the CIA head, who was obviously heavily involved, but who was not available for questioning.

So, we have covert programs without Congressional notification, programs diverting funds to Nicaragua where Congress had specifically forbidden government funding, we had deal making (unsuccessful for the most part) with a terrorist government that we did not recognize, we had admitted lying before Congress, with had shredding of government documents during an ongoing investigation, we had private companies earning fortunes and some of the profits going to some of the government participants (such as putting a $13K security system into Oliver North’s house in Virginia).

There were some eventual prosecutions, and there were some pardons.  A sorry, sorry story.

Once Again, Iranian Spokesman Says Holocaust is a Myth (1 cent)

I know this is not the first time this sentiment has been disseminated from Iran. Up until now, I have discounted it as unbelievably stupid. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe 6 million Jews were not killed during World War II. Maybe they are still alive somewhere.

How wonderful!! So, Iran, where are they?

Slumdog Millionaire

Spectacular!

Ruminations on the Economic Condition (12 cents)

The problem from the current world wide economic slowdown might be that there are no lessons to be learned from it.

Human beings will from time to time make wrong decisions.  That cannot be prevented.  And when the wrong decisions appear to be both correct at the time, and profitable, avoidence is that much more difficult.  And, even when it appears that things are heading to an inevitable eventual decline, it must be remembered that no one likes a Cassandra, and few people want to be one.

And, to make things worse, of course, the touted boon of globalization becomes a curse, as a problem anywhere has repercussions everywhere.

Should there have been more oversight?  Perhaps, although the overseers could have been wrong as well.  Is capitalism the problem?  Perhaps, but socialistic controls certainly have never proven themselves better (or even equal) to a reliance on a regulated free market.

To a great extent, our problem is a banking (or lending, or credit availability) problem, to be sure.  Banks are short on assets, have enormous liquidity requirements made more complex by recent accouting practice changes, have been troubled loans outstanding (and perhaps even more which are potentially troubled), and don’t know what to do with the money they have.  They are being told that they have to make funds available; they are being told that the problems exist because they in the past made funds too available.  They simply don’t know what to do, especially when a credit analysis of a borrower has to be based on future expectation which mean future macro-expectations as much as expectations of the borrowing entity itself.

Not being an economist, I have to rely on instinct.  And instinct tells me that pouring money into lending institutions which have these problems and uncertainty is either unwise or insufficient.  I think that money needs to be directed in two directions.

First, and everyone says this, jobs must be created.  And I think they should be created directly at this point, with great emphasis on government contracting at all levels, for all of those infrastructure, research, military and other needs that we have.  Only if people have money will the economy begin to correct itself, and only if people have jobs will they have money.

Second, I think that economc efforts have to be made to help struggling families keep afloat.  To help with mortgage payments, and other forms of economic support.  This is the other side of the same coin.  Until jobs are created, people need money to keep them going.

The devil is in the details, of course.  And the devil in the details is normally what derails progress considering the general inefficiency of the government’s decision making.  This is one of the Obama administration’s biggest challenges and if it cannot be surmounted, with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress fairly comfortably, the administration will fail.  But this will not be easy, for reasons having to do with personality and ambition as much as ideology or policy preference.

And what do we want to be when we come out of this?  Do we want the cream of our young intellectual crop deciding that Wall Street is the place to be, and making millions of dollars while still in their twenties?  Do we want so much of the country to be dependent on an automobile business, when other forms of transportation may be just around the corner?  Or is this like dependency on the slave trade, or on tobacco, both of which were economically crucial at times?  Do we want to continue to import our toys and do-dads from China?  Do we want to foster off-shore growth at the expense of jobs and federal revenues?  How much will be willing to do to enable more of our lower classes to become middle class?  And of course, how are we going to handle health care, and social security and all of that?

Do the econometric models exist to plot this out?  To show what needs to happen for recovery to be most likely?  To show what must happen if there are unanticipated bumps in the road?  Perhaps, those with the capacity to do so, are putting these together in a way that will be useful.  It seems to me that we need complex and flexible modeling to enable the policy makes to see what needs to be done, and gives them the flexibility to adjust when things go wrong.

Benjamin Button

Well acted.  Silly story.  Pretty much a waste of time, I thought

Edgar Bronfman

A few years ago, I heard Edgar Bronfman, who had been president of his family business, the Seagram’s distillery business, and the head of the World Jewish Congress, speak as part of a multi-day program at which there were many speakers with impressive resumes.

I found Edgar Bronfman’s presentation especially uninteresting and unimpressive.

I found his book, The Making of a Jew, the same. Now, it is true that when you are an heir to the Seagram’s fortune, you (because in large part of expectation of financial generosity) have doors open for you. And when you have a father who had been very active with the WJC, it is not surprising when you are asked to take his place. And, once you do, you have more doors opening for you, meet the political leaders of the world, think you can speak for all the world’s Jews and tell political leaders what they should be doing and what the consequences of doing otherwise would be. And, you get involved in interesting situations – Holocaust reparation discussions, freeing Soviet Jewry, Israeli-diaspora relations, and so forth. You visit the leaders of the USSR and Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, Brazil, Israel and various Arab countries. And you can make it look like you were an instrumental factor in what was accomplished.

But based on his egocentric nature, and what I perceive to be an overall intellectual weakness and parochialism, i would be surprised if this is in fact the case.

Now, I don’t know Bronfman of course, and do I think it is right for me to be so harsh in my opinion? That’s a good question, but you should see what he says of the people that he discusses in the book. Whew!

And what about his personal life? Bronfman has had five wives, apparently. Only three can mentioned, one because she was a Loeb, one because she was the mother of some of his children (but her mention is parenthetical), and one because she was his wife when he wrote the book.

Oh, well.

Three Very, Very Different Books –

The Damascened Blade by Barbara Cleverly:  I read this one by accident.  I had two hours between appointments, and decided to buy an inexpensive paperback to read over a sandwich and a cup of coffee.  For no good reason, this is the book I picked.  And I finished it.

I finished it because the setting is intriguing, and that is probably the reason I chose it.  1920, British India, its northwest provinces, now a wild part of Pakistan where many of the world’s problems seem centered.  And not much as changed.

The story itself is not quite as exotic as the setting:  a British frontier outpost, and a number of “guests” who happen to be there at the same time.  Two young native Afridis, a wealthy young woman from Chicago looking for adventure, an older British official sent to determine whether it is worth while holding on to these isolated outposts, a Scotland Yard detective, the pregnant wife of the local commander, a female doctor who spans all cultures, and a few others.  One of the Afridis dies, or is murdered.  Revenge is the name of the game.  Two of the guests are kidnapped; they must be resecued, to be sure.  But beyond that, a message is left telling those remaining at the fort that they have one week to find the “murderer”, or a hostage will be killed.

Well written, a somewhat obvious plot, an exotic setting.  Published about five years ago, written by a British author, winner of the 2004 Dagger Award for best historical crime novel.

Journey to the Trenches: the Life of Isaac Rosenberg 1890-1918 by Joseph Cohen:  Isaac Rosenberg, a British soldier, died in combat in France during World War I at the age of 28.  A native of London, child of impoverished immigrant parents, he was a talented artist and poet.  He is now known as one of the British World War I poets, along with Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owen and others, although his fame was somewhat slow in arriving, and he is commemorated at Poets’ Corner in Westminster Abbey.  Joseph Cohen, an expert in World War I poetry, taught at Sophie Newcomb College.  He published this book in 1975; I assume it was the first biography of Rosenberg.  Cohen goes through Rosenberg’s youth and education, his social awkwardness, his creativity and depression, his seeming death-wish in joining the military, his writing and his painting, continuing until the end.  An interesting, and very sad, story, I thought.

3.  Forever is a Hell of a Long Time by Teddy Stauffer.  Written in 1976, this is another odd, and very interesting, book.  Stauffer was born in Switzerland, became a musician and the leader of a jazz and dance band called The Teddies, which played and recorded in Europe during the early 1930s, become quite well known.  For a while, the band was quartered in Berlin, where he witnessed the coming of the Nazis.  After the Nazi noose tightened around Germany, Stauffer found himself back home in Switzerland, but was giving the possibility of coming to the United States (where he had earlier performed with his band), if he could get through France, Spain and Portugal.  This accomplished, he entered the US on a tourist visa, and then started the paperwork to turn it into an immigration visa.  In order to finalize his status as an immigrant, he needed to leave the country and return.  He was living in Los Angeles, and it seemed like a quick trip to Tijuana would do the trick; he would cross back into California in a matter of hours.

But the Americans, at war with Germany, didn’t trust the German speaking Stauffer with Swiss a passport decorated with swastikas from his many entries into Germany, and refused his re-entry.  So, he stayed in Mexico, and became a famous hotel and club owner in Acapulco, marrying five women, including Hedy Lamar.

It’s a unique story.  An international musician, traveling throughout Europe in the 1930s, losing his Jewish girlfriend (and the love of his life) to early Nazi violence.  A seasoned musician, arriving in the United States, already knowing, and known to, most of the country’s music and performance elite.  A lonely man, stranded in Tijuana, without friends, or money, or a homeland, or an ability to get into Mexico proper (Baja California then was considered a ‘territory’ of Mexico, not a state) or to get back into the United States.  Homeless in Mexico City, and then a performing musician again, and then a hotelier in Acapulco (finally, once the war was over) able to travel to the US again and renew old friendships.

Worth reading, all three.  All for very different reasons.