Conference taveng::bagels

    Re .0:
    
    Why doesn't the guy just take a .45 automatic and shoot himself
    in the foot!
    
    I'd say his chances of being nominated are probably slim and none
    now....he'll be forever explaining what he "really meant" during
    the interview.
    
    I feel I can speak with some knowledge on the subject Silber addressed
    (or attempted to anyway). I think I can safely say that in no instance
    was I ever not made to feel welcome at any synagogue I ever visited
    or with any Jewish family I visited. In fact, six years ago while
    my family lived in Rochester, NY, I worked in Westport, CT for Sikorsky
    Aircraft as a contract technical writer. A Jewish friend of mine
    at Sikorsky, knowing I was not able to see my family very often,
    invited me to his Seder, something I've never forgotten.
    
    So, I can only speak for myself but if my experiences are anything
    to go by I have to question the veracity of Silber's statements.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Mark

    At least he's making the Governor's race more interesting.  His natural
    position seems to be with both feet in his mouth, which both says
    something about the size of his mouth and about his ability to run in
    his natural position.
    
    				Paul
    
    

    Although I personally can't stand Silber, I think we should
    admit that back in the late 40's (about which he was talking)
    intermarriage was not nearly as common as it is nowadays, and
    most Jews tended to be MUCH less open to converts. 
    
    (Yes, I know all about Ruth and Onkelos etc etc... 
     But I am talking sociology here, not religion!)
    
    So maybe his experiences were real!
    
    -ZAITCH

   Quite truthfully, I know nothing about John Silber or the Massachusetts
   gubernatorial race.  But if your only reason for not supporting him are
   some statement(s) he made over 40 years ago about his experiences with
   Judaism, I'd question your judgement on this vote.  If, for whatever
   reason, he chose not convert to Judaism and his experience of Jewish
   converts was that they were treated as second class citizens, I do not
   see this as a reason not to support him.  

   Maybe he is a "bad guy."  But not for this reason alone, and certainly
   not based on his experiences of 40 years ago.


   							Terza

    	I agree with Terza there. Silber should win or lose on the merits
    of his policies, rather than what he understands of Judaism and Giur.
    He is honest, he is outspoken, he is not anti-semitic from what I can
    see. He is also a victim of a media rabbit hunt, not unlike Bork was
    a few years ago. Only, this time it's Boston media, well known for
    its political "impartiality"...
    
    

    Re the last couple:
    
    Silber does tend to be controversial and his views on a variety
    of issues don't sit well with those of a liberal political persuasion.
    
    Having seen a generally liberal media lambaste the gaffes of many
    a political conservative since my first campaign in 1964 at age
    13 for Barry "AUH20" Goldwater (he was going to get us into a war in 
    Vietnam and probably a nuclear one at that - Bill Moyers's TV commercial 
    for LBJ with the little girl picking flowers told us the truth about
    ol' Barry, remember?), I guess I'm a little gun-shy when conservatives
    are interviewed by members of the Fourth Estate. Whatever good points
    they may have to offer the electorate are usually lost because the
    media tends to focus on anything in the interview that might possibly
    be controversial. Now, if Silber does run in the primary, he'll
    be in the constant shadow of the Globe interview throughout the
    campaign and if it even looks like he might do well, the liberal
    opposition can always launch the usual last minute whispering effort
    in an effort to convince people he's some kind of right-wing fanatic.
    
    I just hate to see the guy blow his chances through dumb mistakes.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Mark

Re: .3

Zaitch,

At least from the quote in .0, it's impossible to say what bad experience
he had, if any. If there's any basis for his antagonism, I would probably
think it likely stems from the traditional requirement of the rabbi to
dissuade potential converts from the move, in order to test their sincerity.
Judging from the "sincerity" displayed in his apology, I'm wouldn't be
surprised if he had been rejected.

Actually, it appears from the "apology", that he might not have even 
considered converting, but just expected to be excepted WYSIWYG:

> I said that
> in 1948 I had considered joining a synagogue but was deterred by
> the reluctance of members of that congregation to accept me because
> my mother was not Jewish.

Do you suppose he went in with an attitude? 

Re: .5

>    He is honest, he is outspoken, he is not anti-semitic from what I can
>    see.

Here is a man who (essentially) *admitted* making disparaging remarks about 
Jewish practice, and some believe it should be ignored. A few days ago, a
certain TV personality was *accused* of insulting remarks (by an obviously
impartial journalist :-), which he totally *denied*, and his career of 41
years is all but shot. What's the message here?

Jem

    	Frankly, I think the "certain TV personality" got shafted unfairly,
    so I don't see how his case would cast any pall over Silber's.
    	Also, one's remarks like that are studied in order to find out
    whether he is a friend, an enemy, or just ignorant. In that sense, they
    are important. However, deeds are even more important, and Silber has
    been a strong friend of Jews and Israel for many years. His positions
    in that field are well-documented and longstanding. In this particular
    case, the kneejerk reaction to one statement is wrong and the onesided
    reporting is misleading.
    
    DG

    Silber apparently got himself in another media bind this weekend with
    a comment about how the gene pool of Massachusetts is producing
    a lot of wierd kids.
    
    The article I saw also made reference to .0 and a comparison that
    Silber drew between Jesse Jackson and Adolf Hitler (not altogether
    an unfair one I'd say).
    
    Mark

    Silber can be amusing if your're not from S.E. Asia or Latino or Black. 
    I don't believe that he accidentally says one thing and means another,
    if Silber claims to be a "straight-shooter" than he is speaking from
    his gut.
    
    I believe that the Republicans have planted him in the Democrats' side
    as a sabotage maneuver.
    
    --David 

    Lessee.  Silber, in a month, as insulted
    
    a) Cambodians and Viets in Lowell ("welfare magnet");
    b) Jackson supporters ("Hitler");
    c) Jews ("racist"); and
    d) Special Education families ("gene pool/weird").
    
    Not a bad record!  At least he's consistent.
    
    Seriously, people I know with B.U. connections (and I've had some
    significant contacts there) don't tend to like the fellow.  A person I
    know (my tenant, to be sure) was voted one of the best teachers on her
    faculty there, and was then fired on Silber's direct orders.  It seems
    she was a "liberal" or some such unacceptable dissenter.
    
    My motto:  If you liked Ceaucescu, you'll love Silber!

    Re .11:
    
    Yesterday I believe his home was picketed by gay/lesbian protesters.
    
    I'd say he's batting 1000 politically-speaking....
    
    Mark

I remember reading a review of Silber's book in The New Republic about a year
ago.  The reviewer was not too crazy about Silber in general or his book 
in particular.

My general impression from that article (i dont remember which
issue it was) and the above disscusion is:

Silber is of the right-wing intellectuals who has difficulty with "Democracy" in
the sense that it lets the "great unwashed" have a say in the running of things.

He would be much happier with a (to borrow a phrase) 'dictatorship of the 
educated'

His definition of 'education' would be similar to Alan Bloom's "The Closing 
of the American Mind"

					just mouthing off...
					Louuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

re:        <<< Note 885.7 by GAON::jem "Anacronym:  an outdated acronym" >>>



>Here is a man who (essentially) *admitted* making disparaging remarks about 
>Jewish practice, and some believe it should be ignored. A few days ago, a
>certain TV personality was *accused* of insulting remarks (by an obviously
>impartial journalist :-), which he totally *denied*, and his career of 41
>years is all but shot. What's the message here?
>
>Jem
>

For those of us not aware of what happened (I'm located in the U.K.), could 
someone please give us more information on the above item?


Thanks,


Ed S.

    Sorry we do tend to get provincial at times.
    
    John Silber is the President of boston University.  This seems
    innocuous on the surface, but Silber has had a long and stormy term in
    office.  He has taken all of the unions in the college in hard
    negotiations, refused to grant tenure to professors he detests, and
    there are many and all happen are liberal to leftist.  In short he is a
    very controversial character.  
    
    Silber is now a candidate (Democrat) for governor of the Commonwealth
    of Massachusetts.  So far in his brief campaign he has managed to
    insult Southeast Asian immigrants, welfare recipients, and now Jews.
    
    --David

    One can also say that Silber is willing to state SOME situations (not
    all, but some) as they really are, without worrying if they are
    political sacred cows and supposedly untouchable.
    
    Eric

re .14

The referance is to Andy Rooney, once (and possibly, future too) a commentator
on 60 Minutes TV News show on CBS.

He made some remarks (on TV) about AIDS being a self-inflicted ailment, which
did not sit well with the Gay community.

Also, in an interview in a Gay Newspaper, he was quoted as saying that Blacks 
have diluted their gene pool because the 'stupid' ones have too many kids (or 
something like that).  Rooney denied ever saying anything like that.

Rooney was suspended from 60 Minutes for 3 months, although I headrd this 
morning that he might be back in a few weeks.

				Louuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Silber has now succeeded in insulting state employees, claiming too many of them
are unqualified for the job they are holding and are simply political hacks.
Also, in another context with only indirect links to Silber, a Boston University
chancellor has stated that Nelson Mandella should not be held up as a role
model for young Blacks. This guy can hardly be accused of bias -- he insults
everybody evenhandedly.

Dave

    Re. .18
    
    Everybody's cousin and brother-in-law works on the Mass. State Lottery.
    I would have to congratulate Silber on that one.  The budget would be
    in a more favorable position without those leeches.
    
    Bernice

    Silber's kind of political conservatism goes against the grain of
    the today's conservative populism as espoused by the majority of 
    conservatives (of both parties incidentally). His brand of
    conservatism is more of a right-wing version of the kind of left-wing
    academic elitism resident in many of the educational institutions in
    the northeast United States.
    
    I still think Bill Buckley said it best when he stated (and I'm probably
    paraphrasing here) he would rather be governed by the first 2000
    names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. Sad
    to say, from a conservative standpoint, but I think the same probably
    applies to Silber.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Mark

    re: .18
    
    Everybody is taking turns picking on state employees.  In my second
    life, many moons ago, I worked for the state.  It was one of the most
    boring work environments that I have ever encountered in 24 years of
    laboring for a week's wage.  The janitor in your building has more
    opportunity than a state employee.
    
    But yet I would like to see tenure removed from civil service and open
    all positions up to competition, like in the real world.
    
    --David 

    Ahem.  As poster of the base note, I'd like to gently suggest that we
    stick to the topic of John Silber from a Jewish perspective.

Since some Bagels readers do not get the local Massachusetts news, here
is the latest on the progress of candidate Silber.

Silber won the Democratic Party's nomination for governor, beating
Bellotti in a fairly close primary election yesterday. Conventional wisdom
has it that he will be buried in the November election by the nominee of
the Republican Party (Weld).

Dave

    Since Independents can vote in either primary was this a case where the
    Republican "Indepnedents" seeing him as the easier candidate to defeat
    voted in the Democratic primary for him?
    
    WS

It doesn't look that way.  A large number of independents voted in the
Republican party in order to help William Weld win his parties nomination.

Gav

    This also appears to be part of a very strong "we need new govt"
    message.
    
    Just about everyone that was even remotely tied to current government
    was defeated, especially incombants, unless they ran unopposed.
    
    ex: speaker of the house Kaverian stomped on for treasurer.
        ex-Attorney-general Billotti beaten by Silber
        current AG  Shannon beaten by Harshbarger 
        
    (neither Weld (Republican) or Silber (Democrat) have ever held public
    office!)
    
    -Neil

Conservative independants thought that Pierce (the more conservative
Republican) was a shoo-in so they went to the Democratic side and voted
for the more conservative candidate (Silber). Liberal independants thought
that Bellotti (the ultra-liberal Democrat - "if you liked Deukakis, you'll
LOVE Bellotti") was a shoo-in so they went over for Weld. I'd say that
independants influenced both results.

Wierd election. Noone wanted to be known as an incumbant. Usually the
incumbant is so indicated on the ballot -- not this time!

Voters switched from Democrat to Independant status in record numbers
prior to this election. The Republicans drew a record number of voters
for a non-presidential primary.

Dave