Hasta La Gadget!

With the front page of the paper being occupied by so-called Deflate-gate, Congress was quick to reclaim its rightful place with its own mini-tempest over House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu to speak before a Joint Meeting of Congress without prior notice to and/or approval from the Obama administration.  

The issue of a foreign head of state addressing a joint meeting of Congress is not in itself a huge deal. This would be the 115th time it occurred and would be Netanyahu’s third appearance before the body.

What is a big deal, however, is that Prime Minister Netanyahu actively sought, and Speaker Boehner extended, the invitation entirely behind the administration’s back to permit Netanyahu to advocate harsher sanctions against Iran that the administration (and even Mossad) opposes while a final resolution with Iran is being negotiated.   

Even worse, the date selected (March 3) is only two weeks before Israel’s election, so the administration will not be able to meet with Netanyahu due to longstanding policy of not meeting with foreign leaders too close to their election so as not to be seen as interfering.

As an administration official explained privately, “[t]there are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave.”  Welcome to the Unbearable Rudeness of Bibi.

When American Presidents speak of Israel, it is often expressing sentiments similar to President Clinton’s when he said, “America and Israel share a special bond. Our relations are unique among all nations.”

When Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks of the United States, however, it is to say that “American policy in the Middle East is based on lies and distortions” or to boast that America is easily manipulated and moved “in the right direction [so] they won’t get in the way.”  He has also bragged about double-crossing President Clinton by reluctantly agreeing to adhere the Oslo accords but then taking measures to render it meaningless.

Secretary of State James Baker temporarily banned then-Deputy Foreign Minister Netanyahu from the State Department for his “lies and distortions comments,” while Netanyahu’s manipulation comments only prove President Clinton’s initial impression after meeting with the new Prime Minister in which he said “[h]e thinks he is the superpower, and we are here to do whatever he requires”.  (Further supporting Clinton’s assessment was the recent statement of one of Netanyahu’s cabinet members who told the U.S. ambassador that Israel expects “unconditional” support “even when you think we’re wrong.”)

Time and time again, Netanyahu has shown little respect for American Presidents, its institutions or interests despite the fact that we provide Israel with over $3 billion in aid annually, use our diplomatic capital to block anti-Israeli measures at the United Nations and have had to endure a devastating oil embargo and terrorist attacks at home and abroad because of our support for Israel.

In 2010, Netanyahu announced the expansion of new settlements in occupied East Jerusalem on the same day that Vice President Joe Biden arrived to restart the peace process (ignoring the U.S.’ request to to implement a settlement freeze as part of the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians).  Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the announcement as an insult, while Vice President Biden privately scolded Netanyahu that he was “undermin[ing] the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Netanyahu has lectured the President in front of the White House press corps and compared the administration’s refusal to set a firm deadline for Iran to act on its nuclear program or face military action to the Roosevelt’s administration rejecting calls from Jewish leaders to bomb Auschwitz.

He also has shown little reluctance about meddling in American politics.  In 1998, when President Clinton was pushing Netanyahu to fulfill Israel’s obligations under the Oslo accords, Netanyahu made a point of starting his U.S. tour by meeting with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and appearing at a political rally with Rev. Jerry Falwell (who at the time was selling a videotape called “The Clinton Chronicles,” which accused the President of having been a narcotics dealer and user and  involved in the death of Vincent Foster).

In 2012,  Netanyahu was criticized in both Israel and the U.S. for actively supporting Republican challenger Mitt Romney.  Romney and Netanyahu shared political consultants and Netanyahu’s attempts to escalate the situation in Iran during the fall campaign were quickly translated into Romney attack ads in the final days of the campaign.

Less than a month before the 2014 midterm elections, Netanyahu appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation and charged that he was “baffled” by President Obama’s opposition to expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories, a position he said was “against American values.” Haaretz, Israel’s leading English newspaper, called the comments a “stink bomb” and condemned Netanyahu for playing the partisan during our election season when he

slammed the president as if he was a Tea Party brawler rather than the leader of a country with a ‘special relationship’ with America.

Netanyahu’s comments also were a flat out lie, since every President since the 1967 War, from President Johnson to President Obama, has expressed opposition to expansion of the settlements in the Occupied Territories.

Netanyahu latest stunt seeks to fuel claims that President Obama is not “pro-Israel,” an astounding charge since former Defense Secretary Gates, who served under three Republican Presidents and Obama once reminded Netanyahu that “no U.S. administration had done more, in concrete ways, for Israel’s strategic defense than Obama’s” (a view shared by former Prime Ministers Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak).

For Netanyahu to disrespect the United States just after Secretary of State Kerry had called nearly 50 head of state to head off action against Israel at the United Nations is astounding.  Waterboys are treated with more respect than that.

Maybe the better question is whether Netanyahu is a friend of the United States? In words and deed he clearly is not.  As an American, I am deeply offended that a nation that we have given so much to and sacrificed for would show such a total lack of respect to our President. I am also appalled that so-called “loyal opposition” leaders were complicit in this scheme.  Sadly, Republicans seem elated to see a foreign leader spit in the face of the United States (so much for “politics ending at the water’s edge”).

Israelis also are outraged since Netanyahu is alienating Israel’s most important ally to salvage his reelection chances. As one Israeli columnist noted, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States is “the greatest strategic asset that Israel has had since its establishment” and Netanyahu has “irresponsibly” “destroyed” that relationship.  

Israeli voters may have the final say on this issue, since with Netanyahu running behind in the polls, they may send Bibi to a well-deserved retirement.

He will not be missed.

Not every homeless person is mentally ill, but a large percentage within the chronically homeless population face mental-behavioral health recovery and so we need quality, community-based care in tandem with affordable housing to help them.

Just thirty years ago, some policymakers believed homeless persons were unwilling or unable to change their lives. The misguided subtext in this inaccurate view was no matter how much we spent on housing and help, chronically homeless people would stay that way because they were lazy or crazy.

Supportive housing debunked such nonsense.

Supportive housing is affordable rental housing used as a platform to access critical community-based wraparound services such as medical care, mental-behavioral health treatments, and life planning.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed an almost 50% decline in the number of chronically homeless individuals in this country because of supportive housing.

There are now thousands of success stories from residents homeless for decades and once considered hopeless – proving the stability of supportive housing addresses the medical and mental-behavioral challenges that too often kept many on the streets.

It all boils down to these facts: People do not want to be homeless and struggling; they want homes and access to services that meet their needs.

An unacceptable number of people became homeless when governments closed mental health institutions and failed to provide sufficient community care to fill the vacuum. Public policy faltered again when veterans suffering from war-related trauma returned home from combat only to find themselves living under makeshift tarps.

Supportive housing partners have stepped up; helping to fill some gaps when communities grapple with insufficient responses to these problems, but more resources are vital.

Today, our jails and prisons are under great strain because they have become the de facto frontline in the mental health battle. Many behind bars have never received the mental-behavioral health attention and treatments that could have prevented their incarcerations in the first place.

Supportive housing is again being adapted to serve some individuals reentering communities from criminal justice institutions, ensuring they do not swell the homeless population or become tempted through hardship to reoffend.

As more people leave state hospitals, return from combat and exit jails and prisons, it stands to reason that the need for supportive housing and services will only increase.

Myths are hard to kill. Whenever a tragedy is linked to inadequate mental-behavioral health services, we hear debates that seem trapped in the 1980s. Similar to the mantra on homelessness then, pundits say there is nothing we can do to change the paradigm. But it is time to stop debating the worth of good, affordable housing and community mental-behavioral health care. We already know they produce significant, positive results.

There are many challenges, but also there are answers.

We can and should offer cost-effective solutions like supportive housing for people vulnerable to homelessness and battling mental-behavioral illnesses.

2015 is the right year for our nation to make significant investments in mental-behavioral health services.

With a new Cold War already ramping up, you can bet all your remaining pennies that every country is spying on the other with even more enthusiasm than normal. And for a sense of what that actually entails, you should go watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

Read more…

For a philosophy class, I once wrote a paper on the allure of “Revenge Movies.” My premise was that our love of these movies springs from the same innate capacity that allows us to believe in the concept of Hell: The belief that people who commit bad deeds deserve to be punished. Not only deserve to be punished, but deserve to have their skin roasted for eternity. Not just for a thousand years, mind you (which, theologically, would be a mere slap on the wrist), but forever.

Consider: If mankind didn’t believe that being a “morally good” person truly mattered, the concept of Hell never would have made the cut. It would never have taken root. Indeed, the concept would have been considered icky and perverse. If mankind didn’t believe, on some deep, dark, primordial level, that being a “bad” person rendered you worthy of contempt, we would have laughed off the very notion of Hell.

But we didn’t laugh it off. Instead, we embraced it. The notion of being consigned to eternal damnation for our sins scared the bejeezus out of us. Admittedly, while most people in the Western world no longer believe in a fire and brimstone version of it, the overwhelming majority of us still rejoice in seeing bad people get punished.

Some will call this punishment “justice”; others are more comfortable using the 24-carat term “retribution.” In any event, I prefer to call it what it is: Revenge. Hence, the universal popularity of revenge films. The following are my four all-time favorite revenge movies. They are listed in no particular order. As for that philosophy paper, I received a grade of C+. Call it “justice.” I had no business being in college.

1. NEVADA SMITH (1966). Steve McQueen plays a half-breed Indian kid whose parents are not only murdered by three horrible desperados, they are deliberately butchered and mutilated. These evil men (Arthur Kennedy, Martin Landau and Karl Malden) actually skin his mother alive. This is how the movie opens. And being the exquisitely gratifying revenge film it is, we already know how it’s going to end. Although the 36-year old McQueen plays the part of a very young man, he’s terrific in the role. As is Brian Keith, who plays his mentor.

2. DEATH WISH (1974). This might well be the gold standard of revenge films. It has everything: New York City during its high-crime glory years, criminal gargoyles roaming the streets preying on the innocent and cuddly, and a reluctant and noble hero. Charles Bronson (who better??!) plays an architect whose wife and daughter are viciously beaten and raped. The wife dies, the daughter, reduced to a vegetative state, is committed to a mental institution, and Bronson evolves into a deadly efficient vigilante, going around ridding NYC of every bad guy who dares approach him. A great movie.

3. THE BRAVE ONE (2007). Yet another film featuring a reluctant hero, and this time it’s a woman, the wonderful Jodie Foster, who plays a thoughtful, low-intensity intellectual talk radio host. True to the formula, she and her boyfriend are attacked by bad guys in–where else?–Central Park. She is severely beaten (they beat the crap out of her), and the boyfriend is killed. Afraid to emerge from her apartment, she avoids the world for a number of weeks before deciding to venture out and buy an unlicensed gun for her own protection. This purchase turns out to be a life-changer, as she morphs into a stupendously righteous, self-confident and heroic killing machine. We love her! Terrence Howard plays the ever so cool NYC cop and Greek chorus. Don’t miss this one.

4. JOHN WICK (2014). This is the only movie in the group that features a non-amateur as the revenge-taker. And, oh baby, what a “non-amateur” he is. Keanu Reeves plays John Wick, an ex-intel agent of the highest and most accomplished order, a veritable one-man wrecking crew, universally regarded as being so dangerous and efficient, the vile people whom he is chasing have no choice but to remain in a scared-shitless state of terror until he kills them all. Reeves has never been better. A resounding thumbs-up.

David Macaray is a playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor,” 2nd edition). He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

In the wake of the ongoing net neutrality argument , another equally important squabble between regulators and telecoms companies has been overlooked. The FCC is trying to redefine ‘broadband’ as “internet which is actually fast enough to use”, and telecoms companies don’t like that one little bit.

Read more…