A few years ago, I read Devil in the White City, Erik Larson’s non-fiction account of the history of the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893, complete with architecture, politics, and a murder mystery. Good stuff. But I didn’t realize that the Chicago World’s Fair was also the site, 115 years ago this week, of the first Jewish Women’s Congress, which was part of the Fair’s World Parliament of Religions.

Led by Hannah Greenebaum Solomon, who organized the event when the male organizers of the proposed Jewish Congress planned no meaningful part for women, the Women’s event drew so many women that they had to elbow each other and step on one another’s toes just to get through the hall to hear the speakers. Ultimately, the delegates at the Women’s Congress decided to form the National Council of Jewish Women, NCJW, which remains in existence today as an advocacy organization.

These days, membership in a Jewish women’s organization seems sort of standard – between Hadassah, Jewish Women International and NCJW (a brief and incomplete list, I’m sure) you’ve got thousands of American women involved. Not too shabby.

I want to take this moment to highlight NCJW’s current focus on women’s health and reproductive rights. Their 2-prong approach to the issue advocates for safe and legal abortions as well as “Plan A,” a campaign for contraceptive access. Now, I don’t want to name names, but some people in this election season are not just anti-choice, but they are also pro-abstinence only education, which is the first strike against reproductive rights.

NCJW is also fighting for equal rights for same-sex couples, a just and humane immigration policy, universal health care for children, and a livable minimum wage. I’m so proud to have a strong Jewish female voice speaking out in Washington and across the country on issues that matter not just to the Jewish community, but to the entire nation.

To find out more about the first Jewish Women’s Congress, visit This Week in History.

To find out more about NCJW’s advocacy work, visit their website.

So wait, Joe, break this down for me. You are actually still using the experience line when it comes to Obama? But not only that, in your eyes, Palin is a leader, and Obama is what exactly?! Ah yes, what were your words — “Eloquent,” but not experienced?!

Are you wearing your tefillin too tight?
Cutting off too much good blood flow or something?

Seriously?! Who wrote your talking points?

Palin is the leader we’ve been waiting for, after she’s been governor for as long as I’ve been getting my MFA in Creative Writing, and ran the big campaign, calling for Alaska to secede: “Alaska First, Alaska Always!?!”

Yeah, you’re totally right Lieberman! Palin is the leader we’ve been so desperately needing! I’m so glad to see that you’re no longer timid about your intimate relations with the Christian Right!

Bonafide lovers, that’s what you are. Ahh, your “ticket for change.” I’m just…swooning.

Wait, yup, there’s the “upchuck” desire again.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
www.democracynow.org

September 1, 2008

Contact:
Dennis Moynihan
Mike Burke

ST. PAUL, MN—Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time. Police violently manhandled Goodman, yanking her arm, as they arrested her. Video of her arrest can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman’s crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sherrif Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.

Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar. These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman’s office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).

Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amenmdent rights of these journalists.

During the demonstration in which they were arrested law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force. Several dozen others were also arrested during this action.

Amy Goodman is one of the most well-known and well-respected journalists in the United States. She has received journalism’s top honors for her reporting and has a distinguished reputation of bravery and courage. The arrest of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar is a transparent attempt to intimidate journalists from the nation’s leading independent news outlet.

Democracy Now! is a nationally-syndicated public TV and radio program that airs on over 700 radio and TV stations across the US and the globe.

Video of Amy Goodman’s Arrest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

I’ve attended an Orthodox service exactly once in my life, and I’ll never do it again.

It was Yom Kippur during my year in France, when I was working as an au pair for a Parisian Jewish family. They’d wanted someone a little more Jewish - someone who spoke Hebrew, someone who wasn’t secular - but I turned up the charm during our phone interview and they deemed me worthy to fold their laundry and make dinner for their kids. During my first few weeks there, they busily schooled me on the particulars of Orthodox life, reminding me to use the flowered plates and the fridge in the hallway for meat, gently chiding me when I absentmindedly flipped switches on Shabbat. They kept inviting me to go to service with them, and I kept demurring - after all, I was in Europe! I had to see the Louvre and Notre Dame! I had to visit my college pal in Scotland! I didn’t have time for synagogues.

Except I did kind of want to go. I was still working through what it meant to be a Jew, and even though I leaned toward atheism, I knew it was essential to at least familiarize myself with Judaism. I was descended from Hasidim, after all. So when they asked me if I wanted to attend the Yom Kippur service with them, I agreed.

I’d known about the separation of the sexes in Orthodox life, but I’d always imagined it as two equal groups side by side. When I arrived at the synagogue, I was stunned to find the central men’s section, the opaque curtain, the folding chairs haphazardly strewn around the periphery of the room. I couldn’t believe it when the service started and the women around me contented themselves with staring at the fabric and silently mouthing along with the prayers. The service lasted four hours, and during that time I could only guess at what the actual activities looked like. The message I got was clear: women had no place in holiness. Scripture might state that women are merely not required to participate in worship, but in reality, what I experience is that, women are often actively - and aggressively - barred from it.

Two months after I got home from Paris, I went on a Birthright trip and faced the same message when I visited the Kotel. For those of you who have never been, let me give you a woman’s-eye view. When you pass through the metal detectors at the back of the plaza, the temple mount is partially obscured by tourists, soldiers, fences, and Israeli flags; if you’re merely following your guide like I was, it actually takes a second or two to realize what exactly you’re looking at. The wall looks shockingly normal - it’s not a thousand feet high or glowing with divine light. Much like the Mona Lisa, though, the size quickly becomes part of the experience: see how little significance has to do with grandeur? The wall is a wall, but it’s not just a wall, and you realize that that’s part of what makes it sublime. It’s only when you approach it that you begin to notice the gender divide: black hats and coats taking up the vast majority of the space, with a small knot of scarves and shawls off to the right. Is it just a coincidence? One of the crowd’s normal shifts and permutations? No, you realize - each area is fenced off. And soldiers are guarding the entrances.

I was glad we weren’t there on a Saturday; otherwise, I might have never gotten up close, the women’s section was so tiny. Unless I was mistaken, women make up about half the population of Israel, same as any country. Why exactly did men need so much more space? Were women expected to be tending house? Does manliness suffer from claustrophobia? And if it was really my birthright to be here, why was I shoved off to the side?

After the group reconvened, I found out about the tunnel system, which was, we were told, accessible only from the men’s side. (Note: during my research for this essay I read that both men and women are allowed to enter the tunnels. Have they changed the policy? Was I there during a temporary closure? Was it all a stupid mistake?) I, and the other women, gathered around as one of the guys showed us the pictures he’d taken of deep caverns and corridors. “I can’t believe this place is so sexist,” he said with a brief, forlorn shake of the head. “That totally sucks, you know?” We agreed: it totally sucked. Then we got lunch.

Why were we all so blasé about such blatant injustice? Partly it was because Israel wasn’t our country (despite the Birthright program’s assurances), and we knew that once we got on the plane back to Los Angeles, we could leave the problem to Israelis. But there was more to it than that. Those of us who were truly bothered could sense that the men didn’t plan on worrying about it. We knew we’d annoy them if we nagged. So we - I - kept silent.

But the effects stayed with me. I’d never before felt the shame and the anger and the helplessness of state-sanctioned discrimination. It’s humiliating to be told you can’t do something because you - your being, your personhood - are flawed and impure. It’s humiliating to have to rely on a man to show you what you’re missing. That day at the Kotel, I thought of the suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the fight for gay marriage. I was standing in a country that was supposedly an egalitarian democracy, but I’d felt the sting of official second-class citizenship.

That was my Kotel experience.

Sure, I felt some of the holiness and pride that everyone talks about. I even teared up a little as I touched those giant stones. But what sticks with me isn’t the awe; –what sticks is the feeling of exclusion, of alienation, and of punishment. The message I received at the Kotel was the same as the message I received at the Orthodox synagogue: “woman” and “Jew” - and, taken to its logical extreme, “woman” and “human” - are mutually exclusive categories.

And this is my culture? This is my wall and my birthright? How? How can I possibly feel at home here, when the other half has the power to shut me out?

***

Last month in the Forward, Jay Michaelson wrestled with the effects of politics on a Jew’s relationship to the Kotel. How political does the personal have to be? Michaelson writes,

It’s obvious why many contemporary Jews don’t miss the Temple, with its animal sacrifices and priestly hierarchies. But let’s face it, Jews like me don’t like the kotel either. Expats living in Israel see it as a tourist trap; rationalists find the adoration of a physical object un-Jewish, even idolatrous; mystics see it as a distraction (isn’t God supposed to be everywhere?); secularists see it as the object of irrational devotion, and liberals see it as sexist and Haredi-centric. So, as a liberal, expatriate intellectual scholar-mystic myself, I shouldn’t like the kotel, let alone love it.

But I do, and I want to reclaim it as my own.

On the surface, the essay is a noble endeavor. Obviously I see the Kotel - or, rather, the policies and prejudices that have been built up around it - as sexist. And as a secular liberal, I couldn’t help but think of the absurdity of crying over an object, and the Palestinians being restricted from, or denied access to, the Dome of the Rock. And it’s true: we tell ourselves we shouldn’t get caught up in it, but we do. Something in our brains turns on. Michaelson describes the Kotel as “an energy center, a vortex of holiness,” and whether that energy comes from spirituality or psychology or even biology, we feel it despite ourselves.

But his introspection left me troubled. “I know the Kotel excludes,” he writes:

and I am not blind either to the sexism of the mechitza or to the politics of that other Israeli wall that’s visible off in the distance. I stand with Women of the Wall, and sometimes wear my rainbow yarmulke when I go there to daven….

So, I do understand the critiques. But I’m not willing to let either conservatives or liberals steal my people’s most sacred space from me. If progressives let the fundamentalists capture all the spiritual treasures of our tradition, we’ll be left with nothing but the dregs. And we’ll continue to lose the demographic battle, because we’ll be left with less to inspire us. Progressive Jews are like that Hasid in the famous story — unaware of the great treasure that’s lying right in his home. Only it’s not that we’re unaware of it; we’re suspicious of it.

But maybe the kotel could become a model for Jewish religiosity in general. It’s got a questionable pedigree, it means different things to different people and it means particularly odious things to some people. Just like much of Judaism. But it is a treasure nonetheless, if we dare to embrace it — ambivalence in tow, but not necessarily in front.

Michaelson seems to be talking to Jews who have decided to reject the Kotel altogether - to abandon it to the fundamentalists and find meaning elsewhere. And that discussion is certainly necessary. But what about the rest of us? What about those of us who want to love the Kotel, but are barred from doing so?

Perhaps the ambivalence and suspicion he describes is more than just politics; perhaps it’s solidarity. Because what good does it do those who are oppressed to revel in an experience you know they can’t have? How exactly do I embrace the Wall when I know I’m not wanted there? How do I let go of my bitterness and shame when the men to the left of me constantly enforce it - and how can men ever rouse themselves to really confront injustice when their primary concern is their own experience?

It’s not enough to simply stand with those who are oppressed. To really fight injustice, you have to let it enter you as deeply as that holy energy. It can’t hover at the periphery of your vision, like the women risking arrest by praying out loud, slipping out of view as you daven. You have to feel their anger and frustration and pain so vividly that you can’t embrace your own experience. Unless you feel everyone’s injustice as keenly as they do - unless your sacred space is stolen, just like mine has been - then you’ll never be an effective ally.

***

Privilege is a funny thing.

I remember a birthday party I went to when I was nine years old. The birthday girl, who had earned the nickname “Weirdo” through her penchant for wearing her jacket on her head and screeching like a monkey, had invited every girl in our class, and to my surprise - I was her best friend at the time - many of them actually came. We were playing in her backyard when someone noticed that she had disappeared.

We only stopped playing for a few moments. “She’s probably in her room crying,” one of the popular girls said. Everyone laughed and resumed what they were doing. I hesitated - after all, I was her best friend! I had to go to her! I had to shut this down until she was okay! I tried to get a few girls’ attention, but they’d have none of it. I quickly realized how much easier it was to go along with everyone else; my friend would probably be fine, and, well, I was having fun…I’d comfort her later, I decided. It’d be easier to comfort her later. Yes, she’d be fine.

And I did. And she said she was fine. And she continued to succumb to depression with no one to help her through it.

It’s easy to tell myself that I was just a kid, but I’m still all too familiar with the comfort of inaction. I hear about prejudice and injustice and I do nothing. I read news stories and blog posts and action alerts and I feel numb. Maybe I donate some money; maybe I go and shout at a rally. But I feel like if I let every bad thing in the world get to me, I’ll go crazy, so I shut most of it out. It’s so much easier to put in my fair share of effort and then go back to my own life - to raise my voice in protest and then stop there, regardless of whether I’ve made a difference. We all share this problem, and it’s not okay.

Is it really a matter of daring to embrace the Kotel - along with Judaism and Jewishness and everything that implies?

Or should we focus on making sure everyone feels free to embrace it?

As with any injustice, many of us don’t have a choice.

***

A Response from Jay Michaelson:

Julia’s experience at the kotel resonates with that of many of my female-identified friends, and the points raised in her essay are well-taken. Really, I don’t disagree with any of it. I’d just like to make
two points.

First, we should remember and respect the fact that for many traditional women, sex-segregation provides the experience they want. I refuse to be so condescending as to say that all of these women are lost in false consciousness or delusion. Some women find their access to holiness enabled, rather than blocked, by these forms — even though to us they obviously privilege men.

Second, even many progressive and feminist women have different kotel experiences from Julia’s. No one I know simply ignores the segregation, or the unequal size of the two spaces. But many do hold both the holiness and the injustice. They don’t feel blocked (they tell me) — only conflicted and ambivalent, which is how I feel too.

So, for those who love the kotel but experience themselves as blocked from it, I would say: don’t let yourself be blocked. Don’t accept or acquiesce or rationalize or justify, but do recognize that your inner spiritual experience is your own, and no one can take it away from you. That’s the blessing and the curse of spirituality: it can coexist with oppression.

Michael Fischbach‘s review of his own book is disturbing. Not so much because it has bias, or lacks factual data. It is disturbing because it brings to light another situation concerning the Jews from Arab lands which he does not touch upon. And that question is racism. He might have felt that the subject was not relevant to the book’s intent, however, since this matter has been nothing but “HUGE”  this year (just have a look at the related posts), it is primordial to bring to light how “why have the Arab Jews waited until 2002** to press for recognition, when they are not even seeking compensation”.

Mr. Fischbach however, is absolutely on the money when he intimates that the exiled Jews from North Africa are nothing but pawns on the  Israeli, dominantly Ashkenazi, chessboard as they position themselves against the Palestinians for “peace negotiations”. Fearing claims against the “right to return” to their land, and recovery for properties lost, it was essential to put something into play which would counterbalance such claims.

“But why had JJAC(acronym for Justice for Jews from Arab Countries), established relatively recently in 2002, suddenly become active on behalf of the rights of ex-Arab Jews – called Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews, although both terms are problematic – decades after most of them left the Arab world to build new lives in relative obscurity? And why did the Resolution fail to call explicitly for Jewish property compensation or restitution?

Furthermore, why did the Resolution, which JJAC helped to write, link the fates, rights, and avenues of possible redress of ex-Arab Jews with those of the Palestinian refugees from 1948, who were not responsible for the Jews’ dispossession in the first place? Were not the mass Jewish exodus from the Arab world and the resultant property losses important enough issues to merit congressional scrutiny on their own, without reference to the Palestinians?”

Even more disturbing is his calling to the table the fact that both U.S. and Israeli government representatives worked hard and long for remuneration for the Holocaust’s victims, - thus, why is it that Resolution 185* only calls for “equal time” rather than compensation for those Jews that were exiled from North African nations? When I had ventured to say to a fellow Sephardic Jew that we had not suffered the “ovens”, I was instantly labeled as anti-semitic. Yet, here is a professor raising the same question. But, missing from the book’s profile is any knowledge of the diminution of the Sephardic Jew’s standing in the Jewish world, and the centuries’ long dichotomy between the two sects.

“Unlike the demands for Holocaust reparations, compensation, and restitution that Jewish groups and the State of Israel alike have pursued with vigor over the decades, JJAC went out of its way to state that its campaign on behalf of Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent was not seeking monetary recompense for property lost at the hands of Arab governments. Why have JJAC and other groups such as the World Jewish Congress (WJC) adopted this stance toward the claims of Jews from the Arab world”

Most disturbing now to me, is the fact that the Head of the JJAC, Mr. Stanley Urman, is not Sephardic himself, but has apparently done much for the cause, I was told. Does that include the wording of the document? Does that include the terms under which “Arab Jews” are to be recognized? It has been estimated that, in today’s dollars, the cumulative value of the property abandoned by Jews of Arab Countries is estimated at US$30 billion.

Is this figure to be manipulated in negotiating the Palestinians right of return and compensation for the loss of their demolished homes? Let’s face it, Israel was never very interested in Sephardic Jews, and not terribly keen to absorb them into their fold after hostilities broke out in the Middle East in 1956 after the Suez Canal Crisis. To this day, Sephardim in Israel are second class citizens.

Yes, they have their token Sephardics in government and elsewhere. (No Prime Minister Yet). However, if one is to connect the dots as Fishbach has meticulously done, the JJAC/JIMENA/WJC and other groups are only there to serve as counterpoints to damages that may be demanded by the Palestinians at the peace negotiating table.

Is JJAC’s campaign likely to benefit Mizrahi/Sephardic Jews who suffered property losses when they left the Arab world? Is this even its intent? An “even exchange of populations and property” would leave claimants on all sides with nothing, except perhaps the possibility of seeking compensation from an international fund that does not yet exist. In fact, few efforts have been made over the decades by Israel or Jewish organizations to press for Mizrahi/Sephardic property compensation.”

* Resolution 185 - US Congressional Resolution passed in May 2008 that essentially mandates that  Jewish refugees from Arab Countries must be part of any and all discussion which implicates the Palestians refugees of the Middle East.

**2002 was the second time that a body was formed for this purpose. Thirty or so years earlier, another committee was formed in Israel with the acronym of WOJAC that sought to redress the claims of Jews from Arab Countries. WOJAC had to close its doors from lack of support from the Israeli government.

Related Posts: Take Action! Senate Resolution on Jewish Refugees

What is there between the Mizrahi issue and Palestinian Nationalism

Why Sarah Fedida Matters

Report: 4ème FESTIVAL DES CULTURES JUIVES

European Parliament Holds First-Ever Hearing on Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

Cotler Speaks on Jewish Refugees in UK Parliament

Acknowledging the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries

British parliament briefed on Jewish refugees

BBC and Justice for Jews: Have Your Say

Please read the entire critique

In case y’all haven’t heard yet, The Shondes started their fall tour this month.

What do the critics say?

“The Red Sea is a visceral work… Eli Oberman’s [violin] lends substantial melancholy to their quiet-loud dynamics. While being a radical, Judaic-bent, genderqueer, post-punk quartet sets The Shondes apart, being a political band whose music is as strong as its message is a rare treat.” - Jessica Hopper, Chicago Tribune

“Louisa Rachel Solomon’s vocals are strong, nimble and graceful …complex song structures intertwined with direct, inquisitive lyrics…an album rich in saw-tooth guitars, pummeling rhythms and an undeniably anthemic spirit…The Shondes are a twisted carnival film noir come true.” - Matt Kiser, CMJ (Jan 07, 2008)

“This is a band that rocks as if they just don’t give a fuck but has crafted their art in a manner that shows they clearly do.” - Earfarm

“Riot grrrl radicalism wed to classically structured songs, distortion pedals, clashing vocals, and powerful lyrics.” - The Village Voice

“Ready for an indie break out….radical politics, inspired riffs, textured hamonies and pure sex appeal” - Curve Magazine

Give ‘em some love y’all!!! Check out a full list of all their upcoming shows after the jump, coming to a city/town in the U.S. near you!

Aug 29 2008 9:00P
Tritone Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Aug 30 2008 8:00P
424 Clark Street Morgantown, West Virginia
Aug 31 2008 8:00P
Garfield Artworks Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Sep 3 2008 8:00P
TC’s Speakeasy Ann Arbor, Michigan
Sep 4 2008 8:00P
The Void Lexington, Kentucky
Sep 5 2008 8:00P
Headliners Louisville, Kentucky
Sep 6 2008 8:00P
Mad Planet Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Sep 7 2008 8:00P
The Off-Broadway St. Louis, Missouri
Sep 10 2008 8:00P
The Bottom Lounge Chicago, Illinois
Sep 11 2008 8:00P
Vaudeville Mews Des Moines, Iowa
Sep 13 2008 8:00P
The Picador IOWA CITY, Iowa
Sep 14 2008 8:00P
The Triple Rock Minneapolis, Minnesota
Sep 17 2008 8:00P
TBA Eugene, Oregon
Sep 18 2008 8:00P
Towne Lounge Portland, Oregon
Sep 19 2008 8:00P
The High Dive Seattle, Washington
Sep 20 2008 8:00P
The Track House Olympia, Washington
Sep 24 2008 8:00P
the Hotel Utah San Francisco, California
Sep 25 2008 8:00P
The Silverlake Lounge Los Angeles, California
Sep 27 2008 8:00P
TBA Santa Barbara, California
Oct 1 2008 8:00P
The Living Room Tucson, Arizona
Oct 3 2008 8:00P
tba santa fe, New Mexico
Oct 5 2008 8:00P
Emo’s Austin, Texas
Oct 7 2008 8:00P
The Dragon’s Den NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana
Oct 10 2008 8:00P
Little Kings Shuffle Club Athens
Oct 11 2008 8:00P
Wonderroot Atlanta, Georgia
Oct 16 2008 8:00P
Churchill’s Pub Miami, Florida
Oct 18 2008 8:00P
the Nightlight CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina
Oct 23 2008 8:00P
The Knitting Factory NEW YORK CITY, New York
Oct 30 2008 8:00P
Hampshire College Amherst, Massachusetts
Oct 31 2008 8:00P
Geno’s Portland, Maine
Nov 6 2008 8:00P
Sarah Lawrence College Bronxville, New York
Nov 15 2008 8:00P
University of Maryland College Park, Maryland

This brings us to Stuart Appelbaum’s Labor Day 2008 Op-Ed piece, online at the JTA here. It will, we hope, also appear in a number of Jewish community newpapers in the next two weeks. Stuart is the president of the Jewish Labor Committee {disclosure: where I work} and the 100,000-member Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union/UFCW. His article, “Jews, justice and the workplace,” begins simply:

In August 2006, a worker at a Rite Aid Distribution Center in Lancaster, Calif., was fired. Her name was Debbie Fontaine.

Her offense? Taking part in a campaign to organize a union. It’s an incident that may not make many of us think about our responsibilities as Jews, but this Labor Day it should.

And that brings us to this. The Jewish Labor Committee has joined in a multi-organizational effort to secure support for the Employee Free Choice Act. And you’re invited to join us! EFCA is critical Federal legislation that would help protect the rights of workers in the U.S. to organize and form unions. The law would give more workers a way to form unions and negotiate for better wages, health care and working conditions. The EFCA, when passed, would amend the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, by requiring employees to recognize a union when a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation [so-called card-check]. When passed, EFCA would also strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate their employees and establish binding arbitration mechanisms when employers and workers are unable to agree on a first contract.

National organizations supporting this proposed legislation range from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs to Americans for Democratic Action. Locally, the Progressive Jewish Alliance in California and Jews United for Justice in Washington DC have also been active in support of EFCA.

You’re invited to sign the Jewish Labor Committee’s petition in support of EFCA {and to get others to do so as well}. It will be presented to the new President and Congress. Just click here and fill in the form. You can find some additional information here.

Let me end with the last ‘graph of the aforementioned Op-Ed:

The Torah teaches Jews to pursue justice: “Tzedek, tzedek tirdof.” To some that means challenging the horrors of Darfur. For others it may be a call to fight for human rights in Burma. But the experience of Debbie Fontaine reminds us that some battles for justice are as close as the nearest workplace.

Lesbian rights pioneer and feminist activist Del Martin passed away yesterday. She was 87.

Martin wed her partner of over 50 years, Phyllis Lyon, last month after same-sex marriages were legalized in California. They were the first same-sex couple married in San Francisco.

Martin and Lyon founded the Daughters of Bilitis, an early lesbian activist group, and Martin was the first out lesbian to serve on the board of the National Organization for Women.

Our condolences go out to her widow, Phyllis Lyon, and her daughter.

You can read more here, here and here.

But in reality, how substantiated is this claim?

First of all, there is a huge difference between leadership and office. Leaders not only know how to tap into the relationship between power and ideas, they can use this knowledge to greatly influence civil society. On the other hand, an office is simply a puppet station designed to keep society running in case great leaders come around. As all of us should realize, Washington is full of great officials, yet short on great leaders.

In my opinion, all this whining about Senator Obama’s youth and short term in national politics really says more about the whiners than it does about Obama. They’re just pissed that he’s been able to achieve in a few years what took other Washington politicians decades to accomplish: clench the Democratic nomination to the Presidency.

Look at McCain, for example. With all those years of service, with that great reputation of being a war hero, with all of that bipartisan work and long years of inter-party bridge-building, this so-called “maverick” had to wait until he was over seventy years old before taking the GOP nomination. Now the Republicans want to use his experience as proof that McCain will be a better president. But this doesn’t follow at all. (Think of all the many crimes against humanity that have been committed by party-endorsed, citizen-elected and fairly “seasoned” politicians.) Instead, there seems to be a more simple reason why people are quick to question Obama’s readiness: sheer jealousy.

And this jealousy isn’t limited to the Republicans. There are many Hillary Clinton supporters who were pissed their candidate lost the primary. They complained that Hillary was more electable and that she had received as many or more votes as Obama. As evidence, they pointed to the fact that Hillary won the vote of the party’s backbone—that is, blue-collar Democrats, older Democrats and the “big” states like California, New York and Pennsylvania. And all of this is undoubtedly true.

The problem, however, with the “pro-Hillary” argument then, and the very similar “pro-McCain” readiness doctrine now, is that Obama’s very success demonstrates their conclusions to be wrong. For precisely the reasons that are raised by Clinton and McCain supporters, the evidence demonstrates Obama is more ready to be president than anyone else on the national stage. Think about it. The fact that he, in a relatively short period of time, grew from a Chicago community organizer to the national political arena suggests he’s more of a leader, not less. The fact that he won the voting count despite losing many white, blue-collar Democrats indicates his voting blocks, not Clinton’s, were the political backbone of this Democratic primary. And even more so, the fact that Obama won more delegates than Hillary while losing all the states with the highest delegate count should make his election feats more remarkable, not less. And the list goes on… he’s only forty-six years old; he’s African-American with the middle name of “Hussein”; he’s lived on multiple continents; he’s published two books while expanding his career in politics, etc. and he STILL has been able to master and ultimately gain control of the United States’ Democratic Party machine!

Taken together, what all this suggests are three absolutely critical things: first, that if winning elections is any indication of leadership potential, Americans believe beyond a shadow of doubt that Obama is ready to lead; and second, if other politicians doubt Obama is ready to lead, he or she really secretly thinks those millions of disagreeing Americans must be naive as hell; third, and most important, it conveys the notion that Americans are tired of good politicians in Washington. There are definitely times for good politicians, but there are also times for great leaders. Whether or not Obama will change Washington has yet to be seen. But one thing’s for certain. When he says to his supporters that “our time for change has come,” their massive response does just about everything except the one charge constantly labeled against him: suggest that he’s not ready to lead. Quite to the contrary, he’s so far led all his opponents to abandon their campaigns for the presidency. And unless you’re willing to say he’s a charlatan and demagogue, the obvious truth is that — even if not the greatest president — Obama has already made his mark as a great leader.