A friendly warning to those who might dare criticize that miserable, pathetic, dilapidated, decrepit, sorry excuse for a ballpark Wrigley Field: bring an umbrella. And old clothes. And be ready to duck the tomatoes.
That dump Wrigley Field certainly has its defenders who have made their feelings known to me, quite a few of whom are young Jewish women. "Charming." Of course it is. So is a park bench in a downpour. Nice to look at--not so nice to sit in and take in a game. Around the league, the only ballparks that approach Wrigley Field in terms of "worst ballpark experience" are Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (1966) and Fenway Park (1916). Alameda County's taxpayers built the Coliseum as a bipurpose facility for baseball and football. Apparently the Oakland Raiders' return in 1995 and the Coliseum's subsequent remodeling for football ruined it for baseball. Like that overcrowded bandbox Wrigley Field, Fenway Park looks nice on tv and is full of history, but it's a terrible place to watch a ballgame.
Part of the blame for the sad state of Wrigley Field, which should have been imploded years ago, falls directly on the Cubs' miserable ownership. Decades of neglect from the Wrigley family and then Tribune Co. contributed to the Cubs remaining in a ballpark best suited for baseball in the 1930's and 1940's, when it was just a few decades old and still on the cutting edge of ballpark technology and architecture. If Chicago had followed the lead of major National League cities such as Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Cincinnati in the 1960's, it would have built a bipurpose baseball-football facility for the Cubs and Bears. Instead, the Bears moved from Wrigley Field to a college athletic stadium--Soldier Field--and the Cubs stayed put. P.K. Wrigley never bothered to install lights despite all his fellow owners doing so. Why didn't Major League Baseball force the Cubs to start playing home games at night? So sad that they are now stuck in a serious competitive disadvantage due to playing 45 percent fewer night games than their rival clubs.
So neither the Wrigley family nor Tribune Co. followed their fellow owners in friendly blackmail with their civic hosts: threaten to leave if the taxpayers don't come up with a new ballpark. The Wrigleys sat quietly by (never having enough money to run the team well after the 1930's, anyway) while their colleagues built new stadiums in the 1950's and 1960's. The Tribune Co. enjoyed the revenue from the renewed popularity of "retro" Wrigley Field in the 1990's and 2000's (while fielding truly awful Cubs teams) while other cities indulged their baseball teams again with new ballparks.
Now the Cubs are doubly cursed: they aren't allowed to play enough night games in an aging, decrepit ballpark the city is ready to condemn. An urban legend says the Wrigleys bought lighting equipment in 1941, and then the U.S. went to war, so the Wrigleys donated the equipment to the war effort. And they did nothing about lights from 1945 until they sold the club in 1981! To make matters worse, the new owners at that time, the Tribune Co., compromised with the city and the Cubs' neighbors, agreeing to very strict, untenable night game limits: 18 night games per season beginning in 1989, and 30 night games per season beginning in 2004 and continuing today. Other teams play 55 home games at night. The Cubs wear themselves out in the summer sun every season, meaning they need to be much stronger than their rivals to reach the playoffs. It's not a coincidence they haven't won the pennant since 1945, when most teams were still playing no night games or very few night games. It's a severe competitive disadvantage.
New owner Tom Ricketts announced very modest plans to renovate his ballpark, but he isn't even replacing the troughs in the men's restrooms. He wants the Cubs to host the All-Star Game in 2014, but he isn't planning any serious upgrades, and he isn't interested in changing the night-game schedule. I guess he isn't serious about a world championship, either.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Super Bowl: Wishful thinking
The NFL’s Super Bowl schedule looks like this:
Super Bowl XLIV, Feb. 7, 2010: Sun Life Stadium, Miami
Super Bowl XLV, Feb. 6, 2011: Cowboys Stadium, Arlington, Tex.
Super Bowl XLVI, Feb. 5, 2012: Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis
Super Bowl XLVII, Feb. 3, 2013: Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans
I’m guessing the next three, on Feb. 2, 2014; Feb. 1, 2015; and Feb. 7, 2016 will be in Glendale, Ariz.; Tampa and Miami.
Yes, I’m sure Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Jacksonville (if the Jaguars are still there) and would-be first-time hosts St. Louis (if the Rams are still there) and New York will make presentations to the Super Bowl Host Committee. And Dallas and Indianapolis will certainly hope the Super Bowl will swing by their cities again, with its $200 million in economic impact.
Here’s a little secret: the Super Bowl is for rich guys who play golf. Sure, it’s a national holiday with a four-hour tv extravaganza. But most people who watch don’t care where the game is. The NFL does. The host city does. And wealthy fans who use the Super Bowl to entertain their clients and friends care. The NFL wants to keep its wealthy fans who actually pay cash for tickets (unlike its member clubs) happy. And they’re not happy if they’re flying up to Indianapolis in February. They love Miami. They love Phoenix. They like New Orleans because of its party atmosphere. They like Tampa if it’s nice out. Jacksonville may have ruined whatever chance it had of hosting another Super Bowl with cloudy, rainy weather all week when the Super Bowl was there a few years ago. Indianapolis has a nice stadium and friendly locals, but the NFL puts Indy in the same file as Detroit: one and done. “We promised you a Super Bowl if you built us a new stadium. You hosted. That’s it.” The NFL may return to Dallas if only because Cowboys Stadium can hold 100,000 people, meaning a live gate of possibly $200 million at $2000/ea. When it comes down to it, though, the Super Bowl is about rich guys who play golf. So keep that in mind, Twin Cities, when you consider the Vikings’ request for a new retractable-roof stadium. The Super Bowl might visit once, and that’s a big “might” since you couldn’t guarantee clear roadways to the game in the event of a blizzard on Saturday night.
In the 1980’s, the NFL liked its Super Bowl rotation of Miami, New Orleans and Pasadena, Calif., with occasional visits to other cities. Pasadena is not currently viable since the NFL left L.A. years ago. I see the current Super Bowl triumvirate of Miami, New Orleans and Phoenix holding firm. If L.A. lures a team, that will change. But cold-weather cities—and even mild-weather cities like Atlanta, Houston and Dallas—should be realistic about their slim chances for regular Super Bowl visits.
Super Bowl XLIV, Feb. 7, 2010: Sun Life Stadium, Miami
Super Bowl XLV, Feb. 6, 2011: Cowboys Stadium, Arlington, Tex.
Super Bowl XLVI, Feb. 5, 2012: Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis
Super Bowl XLVII, Feb. 3, 2013: Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans
I’m guessing the next three, on Feb. 2, 2014; Feb. 1, 2015; and Feb. 7, 2016 will be in Glendale, Ariz.; Tampa and Miami.
Yes, I’m sure Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Jacksonville (if the Jaguars are still there) and would-be first-time hosts St. Louis (if the Rams are still there) and New York will make presentations to the Super Bowl Host Committee. And Dallas and Indianapolis will certainly hope the Super Bowl will swing by their cities again, with its $200 million in economic impact.
Here’s a little secret: the Super Bowl is for rich guys who play golf. Sure, it’s a national holiday with a four-hour tv extravaganza. But most people who watch don’t care where the game is. The NFL does. The host city does. And wealthy fans who use the Super Bowl to entertain their clients and friends care. The NFL wants to keep its wealthy fans who actually pay cash for tickets (unlike its member clubs) happy. And they’re not happy if they’re flying up to Indianapolis in February. They love Miami. They love Phoenix. They like New Orleans because of its party atmosphere. They like Tampa if it’s nice out. Jacksonville may have ruined whatever chance it had of hosting another Super Bowl with cloudy, rainy weather all week when the Super Bowl was there a few years ago. Indianapolis has a nice stadium and friendly locals, but the NFL puts Indy in the same file as Detroit: one and done. “We promised you a Super Bowl if you built us a new stadium. You hosted. That’s it.” The NFL may return to Dallas if only because Cowboys Stadium can hold 100,000 people, meaning a live gate of possibly $200 million at $2000/ea. When it comes down to it, though, the Super Bowl is about rich guys who play golf. So keep that in mind, Twin Cities, when you consider the Vikings’ request for a new retractable-roof stadium. The Super Bowl might visit once, and that’s a big “might” since you couldn’t guarantee clear roadways to the game in the event of a blizzard on Saturday night.
In the 1980’s, the NFL liked its Super Bowl rotation of Miami, New Orleans and Pasadena, Calif., with occasional visits to other cities. Pasadena is not currently viable since the NFL left L.A. years ago. I see the current Super Bowl triumvirate of Miami, New Orleans and Phoenix holding firm. If L.A. lures a team, that will change. But cold-weather cities—and even mild-weather cities like Atlanta, Houston and Dallas—should be realistic about their slim chances for regular Super Bowl visits.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Public transit: fare increase vs. service cuts
How would the mayor know?
When was the last time Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley took public transit to work?
It's been more than 20 years. He's had taxpayer-funded 24-hour limo service for as long as he's been mayor, and he was elected in 1989.
Once again, the mayor demonstrates how little he knows about real life in the city he runs. Last week, as the Chicago Transit Authority (cta) prepared to cut service frequency on most of its bus routes and all rail lines (except in Skokie), Mayor Daley said service cuts are preferable to fare increases.
For whom?
For people like the mayor who don't ride cta, I guess.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a sense at cta headquarters that now that we can find out via text message when the next bus is coming, we won't mind waiting. A longer wait is still inconvenient, especially when a trip requires more than one ride. And the rush-hour overcrowding on the busses with heaviest passenger demand and all trains will only get worse.
Three dollars a ride would be a lot to take, and there's so much wasteful spending in cta management that must be cut. (A ride is currently $2 or $2.25.) But the alternative, which we riders will face next week (beginning Feb. 7), is going to be worse. Every time cta cuts service, a percentage of its faithful ridership decide it's not dependable and seek other options. It does itself nor its passengers any favors by cutting service.
When was the last time Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley took public transit to work?
It's been more than 20 years. He's had taxpayer-funded 24-hour limo service for as long as he's been mayor, and he was elected in 1989.
Once again, the mayor demonstrates how little he knows about real life in the city he runs. Last week, as the Chicago Transit Authority (cta) prepared to cut service frequency on most of its bus routes and all rail lines (except in Skokie), Mayor Daley said service cuts are preferable to fare increases.
For whom?
For people like the mayor who don't ride cta, I guess.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a sense at cta headquarters that now that we can find out via text message when the next bus is coming, we won't mind waiting. A longer wait is still inconvenient, especially when a trip requires more than one ride. And the rush-hour overcrowding on the busses with heaviest passenger demand and all trains will only get worse.
Three dollars a ride would be a lot to take, and there's so much wasteful spending in cta management that must be cut. (A ride is currently $2 or $2.25.) But the alternative, which we riders will face next week (beginning Feb. 7), is going to be worse. Every time cta cuts service, a percentage of its faithful ridership decide it's not dependable and seek other options. It does itself nor its passengers any favors by cutting service.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Book of Eli: ****
The Book of Eli
Warner Brothers
Alcon Entertainment
Silver Pictures
Directed by the Hughes Brothers
Rated R for some bloody violence
Running time: 1:58
Spoilers below
Younger moviegoers may ask, "Who the heck are the Hughes Brothers?" Great question. Since their stunning 1993 debut Menace II Society, they haven't made any significant films. Well, welcome back and what a comeback! This is an amazing return with an exclamation point.
As I noted in my Tweet, the desert landscapes of New Mexico set the tone for the quiet desolation of a post-apocalyptic America in which the power went off 30 years before. Denzel Washington is headed west with his book and his date with destiny. Mila Kunis, the Russian-Jewish immigrant actress best known for her comedic work in That 70's Show, will surprise audiences with her serious turn here. She's quite effective, I thought, as Washington's unwanted sidekick. Gary Oldman is splendidly evil, as usual, and his Carnegie character wisely recognizes the power of the book Washington possesses.
This film is not for children or those who are queasy at the sight of blood and violence resulting from hand-to-hand combat in movies. I highly recommend this film. Those who plan to see the film should stop reading now.
A rabbi I know and trust tells this story, and I suspect it's true: a group of five Torah scholars imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp decided to memorize the Chumash text (first five books of the Bible--the Torah), one man per book. They knew the Nazis were destroying sefrei Torah (Torah scrolls) and were unsure if any would survive the war. If we memorize the text, they thought, we would still have the Torah in the postwar world.
I thought of that story as I was watching the film. I had a pretty good idea of what Book Washington had. It didn't occur to me that he had memorized it. It is possible but highly unusual; unlike Islam, rote memorization of text is not celebrated in Judaism or Christianity.
No way was Eli blind. Impossible to be blind and be a hand-to-hand combat expert like he was. Maybe he was farsighted. But not blind. Interesting that the directors would assume their audience would recognize Braille text. Even before the computer age, very few blind people could read Braille (10 percent, I believe). Learning it was extremely tedious. Now that blind people can carry a hand-held reader that can read text aloud, why bother? (For the elevator. Of course.) I wouldn't be surprised if there's an App for that.
I instantly thought of the secret of The Sixth Sense, revealed at the end of the film. Was The Book of Eli true to its character? Did Washington really never respond to what we could see? I didn't think it was consistent in the same way.
I didn't understand the reference to hands and checking for unnatural growth. The film never explained it.
I loved one of the final scenes of the film: the publisher shelved his new copy of the King James Bible next to the Stone Tanach (Old Testament). The Stone Edition is the one most commonly found in orthodox Jewish homes.
Great concept that an evil boss, as leader of a town/community, would place so much value on a copy of the Holy Bible. Did he intend to declare himself the Messiah, the reborn Christ?
Jennifer Beals is also great. Beals has had quite a career, from Flashdance to (more recently) The L Word and now a dramatic turn as Oldman's blind lover.
Warner Brothers
Alcon Entertainment
Silver Pictures
Directed by the Hughes Brothers
Rated R for some bloody violence
Running time: 1:58
Spoilers below
Younger moviegoers may ask, "Who the heck are the Hughes Brothers?" Great question. Since their stunning 1993 debut Menace II Society, they haven't made any significant films. Well, welcome back and what a comeback! This is an amazing return with an exclamation point.
As I noted in my Tweet, the desert landscapes of New Mexico set the tone for the quiet desolation of a post-apocalyptic America in which the power went off 30 years before. Denzel Washington is headed west with his book and his date with destiny. Mila Kunis, the Russian-Jewish immigrant actress best known for her comedic work in That 70's Show, will surprise audiences with her serious turn here. She's quite effective, I thought, as Washington's unwanted sidekick. Gary Oldman is splendidly evil, as usual, and his Carnegie character wisely recognizes the power of the book Washington possesses.
This film is not for children or those who are queasy at the sight of blood and violence resulting from hand-to-hand combat in movies. I highly recommend this film. Those who plan to see the film should stop reading now.
A rabbi I know and trust tells this story, and I suspect it's true: a group of five Torah scholars imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp decided to memorize the Chumash text (first five books of the Bible--the Torah), one man per book. They knew the Nazis were destroying sefrei Torah (Torah scrolls) and were unsure if any would survive the war. If we memorize the text, they thought, we would still have the Torah in the postwar world.
I thought of that story as I was watching the film. I had a pretty good idea of what Book Washington had. It didn't occur to me that he had memorized it. It is possible but highly unusual; unlike Islam, rote memorization of text is not celebrated in Judaism or Christianity.
No way was Eli blind. Impossible to be blind and be a hand-to-hand combat expert like he was. Maybe he was farsighted. But not blind. Interesting that the directors would assume their audience would recognize Braille text. Even before the computer age, very few blind people could read Braille (10 percent, I believe). Learning it was extremely tedious. Now that blind people can carry a hand-held reader that can read text aloud, why bother? (For the elevator. Of course.) I wouldn't be surprised if there's an App for that.
I instantly thought of the secret of The Sixth Sense, revealed at the end of the film. Was The Book of Eli true to its character? Did Washington really never respond to what we could see? I didn't think it was consistent in the same way.
I didn't understand the reference to hands and checking for unnatural growth. The film never explained it.
I loved one of the final scenes of the film: the publisher shelved his new copy of the King James Bible next to the Stone Tanach (Old Testament). The Stone Edition is the one most commonly found in orthodox Jewish homes.
Great concept that an evil boss, as leader of a town/community, would place so much value on a copy of the Holy Bible. Did he intend to declare himself the Messiah, the reborn Christ?
Jennifer Beals is also great. Beals has had quite a career, from Flashdance to (more recently) The L Word and now a dramatic turn as Oldman's blind lover.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Can Joel send Jan packing?
It's tough, as a constituent, being represented by an entrenched incumbent in Congress. The incumbent typically builds up a huge war chest from supporters and lobbying groups who depend on his or her votes to keep them in business. In Illinois' 9th District, two of our three representatives on Capitol Hill have been there way too long: U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), first elected in 1996, re-elected in 2008 to his third term; and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.), first elected in 1998, running for re-election to her seventh term.
Seven terms, Jan? Really?
Trying to bounce an entrenched incumbent from her congressional seat is next to impossible. After a census, the district is gerrymandered to favor her. When Illinois reduced the size of the 9th District following the 2000 census, Rep. Schakowsky was able to keep her core support of lakefront liberals by keeping Lake Shore Drive (down to Diversey) in her district. Those voters really should be in the 5th, like their neighbors to the west. The incumbent enjoys widespread name recognition of everyone who voted in the last decade. In the 9th, it gets worse: since 1948, the district has had just two different representatives in Congress*--the sainted Sidney Yates, and now Jan Schakowsky. Thousands of liberals have pulled the same lever their entire lives, voting for just two different liberal Democrats like themselves.
People who would like a chance at the seat usually don't bother. Jan typically runs unchallenged or receives token opposition, like from that guy in 2006 who refused to accept campaign contributions. (I'm tempted to use the word "idiot" to describe him. He wasn't stupid, but obviously had no interest in people taking him seriously.)
This year is different. This year Jan will be up against Joel Pollack, a young man (Niles North '95) who is running to win. In order to send Jan into happy retirement--to spend more time with her grandchildren--Joel needs to convince a healthy number of Jan's liberal Democratic faithful to stay home or vote Republican for the first time ever.
How is Joel going to manage a miracle on that scale? I don't know. No one else ever has. It's like trying to beat a computer at tic-tac-toe, a game a computer can easily master. (Whether Big Blue completely mastered chess is debatable.) I can think of a couple of issues that Jan should address head-on and has not needed to or been asked to:
1. The finance-related felonies (bank fraud and tax evasion) for which Jan's husband, Robert Creamer, went to prison. Is it really possible Rep. Schakowsky had no knowledge of his crimes? If not, what did she know and when did she know it?
2. How has the 9th District improved since Jan was sworn in as its congresswoman 11 years ago? What has she done to develop and bring jobs to the district? I'm no fan of congressional earmarking, but in this race she is going to boast of her experience and seniority. Is her seniority really worth anything? And how is her experience helping her constituents?
3. Is there a connection between Jan and ACORN, the disgraced left-wing community group that recently had its federal funding yanked in the wake of an embarrassing scandal?
4. Is the health care plan Rep. Schakowsky so strongly supports going to hurt wealthy and not-so-wealthy seniors?
If Joel can make seniors in the district nervous about #4 ("Keep government hands off my Medicare!"), he can seriously cut into Jan's base. Can Jan fight off a serious candidate for the first time in her congressional career? Or can Massachusetts happen here? She will try to scare her base, saying Joel will "try to take away your Social Security and Medicare." Will she get away with it?
*in 1960, Yates ran for Senate and lost. The district had another congressman for one term. Yates ran for his seat in 1962 and won it back.
Seven terms, Jan? Really?
Trying to bounce an entrenched incumbent from her congressional seat is next to impossible. After a census, the district is gerrymandered to favor her. When Illinois reduced the size of the 9th District following the 2000 census, Rep. Schakowsky was able to keep her core support of lakefront liberals by keeping Lake Shore Drive (down to Diversey) in her district. Those voters really should be in the 5th, like their neighbors to the west. The incumbent enjoys widespread name recognition of everyone who voted in the last decade. In the 9th, it gets worse: since 1948, the district has had just two different representatives in Congress*--the sainted Sidney Yates, and now Jan Schakowsky. Thousands of liberals have pulled the same lever their entire lives, voting for just two different liberal Democrats like themselves.
People who would like a chance at the seat usually don't bother. Jan typically runs unchallenged or receives token opposition, like from that guy in 2006 who refused to accept campaign contributions. (I'm tempted to use the word "idiot" to describe him. He wasn't stupid, but obviously had no interest in people taking him seriously.)
This year is different. This year Jan will be up against Joel Pollack, a young man (Niles North '95) who is running to win. In order to send Jan into happy retirement--to spend more time with her grandchildren--Joel needs to convince a healthy number of Jan's liberal Democratic faithful to stay home or vote Republican for the first time ever.
How is Joel going to manage a miracle on that scale? I don't know. No one else ever has. It's like trying to beat a computer at tic-tac-toe, a game a computer can easily master. (Whether Big Blue completely mastered chess is debatable.) I can think of a couple of issues that Jan should address head-on and has not needed to or been asked to:
1. The finance-related felonies (bank fraud and tax evasion) for which Jan's husband, Robert Creamer, went to prison. Is it really possible Rep. Schakowsky had no knowledge of his crimes? If not, what did she know and when did she know it?
2. How has the 9th District improved since Jan was sworn in as its congresswoman 11 years ago? What has she done to develop and bring jobs to the district? I'm no fan of congressional earmarking, but in this race she is going to boast of her experience and seniority. Is her seniority really worth anything? And how is her experience helping her constituents?
3. Is there a connection between Jan and ACORN, the disgraced left-wing community group that recently had its federal funding yanked in the wake of an embarrassing scandal?
4. Is the health care plan Rep. Schakowsky so strongly supports going to hurt wealthy and not-so-wealthy seniors?
If Joel can make seniors in the district nervous about #4 ("Keep government hands off my Medicare!"), he can seriously cut into Jan's base. Can Jan fight off a serious candidate for the first time in her congressional career? Or can Massachusetts happen here? She will try to scare her base, saying Joel will "try to take away your Social Security and Medicare." Will she get away with it?
*in 1960, Yates ran for Senate and lost. The district had another congressman for one term. Yates ran for his seat in 1962 and won it back.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
"24": Dana apes "The Unusuals"
24
Fox
Mondays 9pm ET/PT
For all five of us who watched abc's New York-based cop drama The Unusuals last spring, the tale of the criminal-with-a-new-law-enforcement-identity is all too familiar. In the now-cancelled show, the NYPD officer became religious and was about to get married. His friend from back home blackmailed him into assisting him with a burglary or two. Now, Data Analyst Dana (about to get married) is visited by a friend from back home who wants a six-figure score, with help from her access to sensitive documents at her CTU office.
The solution is easy. She calls a criminal defense attorney and cuts a deal with the state's attorney: I'll lure my friend into an attempted robbery, and you'll let me off the hook for accessory to murder. In "24"'s compressed schedule, this could easily be accomplished in the space of a few hours. The problem with blackmail is it lasts forever unless the blackmailer ends up dead.
The main plot line seems a little weak--nuclear rods to the black sheep brother of a ruling family of a FSR breakaway -stan republic? I felt bad for the Russian mobster mutilated by Renée Walker, only to be shot point-blank by one of his mobster contacts. "Dump him in the river."
Fox
Mondays 9pm ET/PT
For all five of us who watched abc's New York-based cop drama The Unusuals last spring, the tale of the criminal-with-a-new-law-enforcement-identity is all too familiar. In the now-cancelled show, the NYPD officer became religious and was about to get married. His friend from back home blackmailed him into assisting him with a burglary or two. Now, Data Analyst Dana (about to get married) is visited by a friend from back home who wants a six-figure score, with help from her access to sensitive documents at her CTU office.
The solution is easy. She calls a criminal defense attorney and cuts a deal with the state's attorney: I'll lure my friend into an attempted robbery, and you'll let me off the hook for accessory to murder. In "24"'s compressed schedule, this could easily be accomplished in the space of a few hours. The problem with blackmail is it lasts forever unless the blackmailer ends up dead.
The main plot line seems a little weak--nuclear rods to the black sheep brother of a ruling family of a FSR breakaway -stan republic? I felt bad for the Russian mobster mutilated by Renée Walker, only to be shot point-blank by one of his mobster contacts. "Dump him in the river."
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Guest spkr addresses full house at Skokie Chabad
Skokie Chabad invited Shimona Tzukernik to address shabbos dinner guests Jan. 15. Since no one wants to speak to a hungry crowd, we had dinner first:
challah (of course)
gefilte fish
matzahball soup
beef in gravy
sweet potato in philo (outstanding)
wine
bottled water
Mrs. Tzukernik spoke about spirituality in a way that even I found compelling. The talk was titled "The Mind's Eye," and I think one concept she put forth quite well was suggesting that the ideal wasn't an extreme side of the spectrum but right in the middle--just right, so to speak. (I didn't put that in quotes because I don't think she used that term.) She pointed out that we think the opposite of stinginess is generosity, and she said it's not true--that the opposite of stinginess is the inability to manage one's finances, and that generosity (tzedakah) is right in the middle. She made another observation, the details of which now, of course, escape me, but I think it was about happiness. We shouldn't consider happiness to be one extreme, or the opposite of sadness. Happiness is in the middle--it's just right.
She told a couple of stories which I found to be utterly fascinating, including one of a Polish Catholic man dating a Jewish woman--a relationship both sets of parents vehemently opposed. Years later, they ran into each other--in the Vatican. She was in line to see the Pope; that Polish Catholic decided he could never marry after that unhappy ending to the relationship, and he eventually became Pope John Paul II.
Mrs. Tzukernik is South African and grew up in the waning days of the apartheid government. In the late 1980's, most political observers thought that either the apartheid regime would continue its grip on power while violently suppressing its opposition; or there would be a violent revolution resulting in a bloodbath of the nation's civilians, both white and black. Many South African Jews were obviously concerned about the latter possibility and considered leaving. At the behest of the South African Lubavitch community, a community member flew to New York to ask the Lubavitcher rebbe his advice--whether the community should flee the country to Israel, Australia and the United States. In his wisdom, the rebbe replied, "Stay in your country. There is going to be a peaceful transition of power."
Now, I can try to imagine the Lubavitcher rebbe appearing on Meet the Press or This Week With David Brinkley and making such a declaration. He turned out to be absolutely right. South Africa remains a difficult place to live with its high crime rate. And many South African Jews did leave. But the transition of government from de Klerk to Mandela was indeed peaceful. Amazing.
Dessert:
pareve frozen dessert (faux ice cream)--chocolate and vanilla flavors
pound cake
fresh fruit
coffee
apple cider
challah (of course)
gefilte fish
matzahball soup
beef in gravy
sweet potato in philo (outstanding)
wine
bottled water
Mrs. Tzukernik spoke about spirituality in a way that even I found compelling. The talk was titled "The Mind's Eye," and I think one concept she put forth quite well was suggesting that the ideal wasn't an extreme side of the spectrum but right in the middle--just right, so to speak. (I didn't put that in quotes because I don't think she used that term.) She pointed out that we think the opposite of stinginess is generosity, and she said it's not true--that the opposite of stinginess is the inability to manage one's finances, and that generosity (tzedakah) is right in the middle. She made another observation, the details of which now, of course, escape me, but I think it was about happiness. We shouldn't consider happiness to be one extreme, or the opposite of sadness. Happiness is in the middle--it's just right.
She told a couple of stories which I found to be utterly fascinating, including one of a Polish Catholic man dating a Jewish woman--a relationship both sets of parents vehemently opposed. Years later, they ran into each other--in the Vatican. She was in line to see the Pope; that Polish Catholic decided he could never marry after that unhappy ending to the relationship, and he eventually became Pope John Paul II.
Mrs. Tzukernik is South African and grew up in the waning days of the apartheid government. In the late 1980's, most political observers thought that either the apartheid regime would continue its grip on power while violently suppressing its opposition; or there would be a violent revolution resulting in a bloodbath of the nation's civilians, both white and black. Many South African Jews were obviously concerned about the latter possibility and considered leaving. At the behest of the South African Lubavitch community, a community member flew to New York to ask the Lubavitcher rebbe his advice--whether the community should flee the country to Israel, Australia and the United States. In his wisdom, the rebbe replied, "Stay in your country. There is going to be a peaceful transition of power."
Now, I can try to imagine the Lubavitcher rebbe appearing on Meet the Press or This Week With David Brinkley and making such a declaration. He turned out to be absolutely right. South Africa remains a difficult place to live with its high crime rate. And many South African Jews did leave. But the transition of government from de Klerk to Mandela was indeed peaceful. Amazing.
Dessert:
pareve frozen dessert (faux ice cream)--chocolate and vanilla flavors
pound cake
fresh fruit
coffee
apple cider
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
