Most Jews are not one issue voters.

Do you park your most effective governors in the VP slot?

There’s this belief that the VP is entitled to the nomination after the President’s term is up. Biden was mad he didn’t get the nod in 2016. And in retrospect, he might have won if he’d run. But Trump didn’t think twice about Pence this year. So the question is, if Harris wins, does her VP automatically get the nomination after Kamala’s term(s) is up?

Now normally there’s a primary, but it didn’t make any difference on the Republican side, Trump didn’t even bother to debate, and on the Democratic side…Biden and his team and the party scared off anyone from running, ultimately to our detriment. (Then again, this short campaign leaves Harris fresh and unbattered.)

So…

I’d rather see Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer as president than Kamala Harris.

I know, I know, the ship has sailed. I get it. But these are two of the brightest lights in the Democratic party, do we really want to take them off the stage for four to eight years? And god forbid Kamala loses, will this tarnish her VP?

So there’s all this disappointment that Shapiro is not the VP.

Not me.

Sure, Pennsylvania is in play. But Nate Silver, who was pro-Shapiro, vocally, also wrote that the VP doesn’t really make that much difference. Yes, Pennsylvania is a swing state, but it’s not the only one. Harris would have to win more than PA. But…

Shapiro is for vouchers, there’s the sex “scandal” in his past, and he’s Jewish…

We Jews have been persecuted for centuries and are pessimistic. Ask a Jew, do they really want a Jewish candidate? Of course they’d like a Jewish president, but in order to be one, you have to win. And is America ready for a Jewish president?

Sure, in 1960 they said America was not ready for a Catholic president, and Kennedy won.

And no boomer believed growing up that we’d ever have a Black president, yet Obama won two terms.

But it’s not only Shapiro being Jewish, it’s also the fact that Kamala is a woman of color.

Believe me, I don’t think there was any antisemitism involved. After all, Harris is married to a Jewish man. And I can’t speak to Harris’s process, I can only speak to my own viewpoint and that of my fellow Jews.

Yes, I know Jews who are voting for Trump on his support of Israel and that alone. But I also know frummies, I know a lot of super-Orthodox Jews who have viewpoints radically different from my own. I’m not saying they can’t live how they want. Then again, the way some groups take over communities, live on welfare and don’t educate their children…

Jewish infighting. If you think Jews are a monolith, you’re not one.

And unlike Christian religions, Judaism is based on questioning. You don’t have to believe in God to be a Jew. All opinions are welcome, at least inside the camp. As far as outside…

Yes, there are pro-Palestinian Jews. Many from younger generations who did not live through 1967, never mind Munich and 1973, but they’re not jumping to the Republican side with the nomination of Walz, if anything they feel more comfortable with Walz than Shapiro on the issue of Israel.

But the rest of us…

Jews are about intellectual curiosity. About helping each other. Does this sound like the Republican ethos to you?

I’m not going to delineate every quality of the Jews. And there are heinous Jews. And Jews who vote Republican. But the majority of Jews vote Democratic, and if you think the fact that Walz is not as vocally pro-Israel as Shapiro means they’re going to vote for Trump or RFK, Jr., or sit out, you’re delusional.

Jews are practical. Because we’ve been victims of antisemitism forever. If a Jew tells you they’ve never experienced antisemitism they’re lying to themselves. I’ve experienced antisemitism from my earliest years, and it’s amped up since October 7th, but that does not make me a one issue voter. I want antisemitism to go, but my loyalty is not to Israel first, but the U.S. There’s this canard that all Jews put Israel over the U.S. That’s completely untrue. However, I must honestly admit that I like that Israel exists, that I know there’s a country where I can go and be accepted if antisemitism gets too far out of control. And if you don’t think this is possible, you’re probably a Holocaust denier.

As for Walz…

You can’t argue with his resumé. He didn’t grow up rich and he’s got a long history of standing up for the hoi polloi.

That’s what a lot of this Harris mania is all about. People feel like there’s someone standing up for them. And it isn’t even so much about Harris herself but the belief that something finally gave, that the dam has broken, that the old generations have been pushed aside, that we’re in a new era and someone intelligent can see who we are and what our needs are.

This is where Trump and Vance lose. Even the concept of MAGA. Not only was America not so great in the past, we’re all living in the present, with the future coming down the pike every day. Where’s the plan, where’s the hope. That’s one of the reasons Obama won, hope. Which is evidenced in Harris’s campaign, that things can change.

Biden was running against Trump. Believing if he just painted Trump negatively enough, he would win. That was not a strategy for victory.

Harris’s campaign seems to be running independently of Trump at this point, it’s got its own momentum, it’s dismissive of Trump, as if he doesn’t count, which is what the “weird” campaign is all about, like you can’t take Trump and Vance seriously, they’re cartoons, not worthy of your time and attention.

The momentum shifted just that fast. And it could shift back, that’s the nature of politics, and sports. But so far, Trump has been employing a scorched-earth, self-immolation campaign. He’s an out of control spinning top. He’s not the alternative he was in 2016, a man running against the system, he’s an egomaniac believing only he matters and victory is everything. You can’t win without the team, and politics requires a huge team, and Trump keeps taking aim at his compatriots.

As for Vance… A phony with no experience. An out of touch flip-flopper.

I’m not sure if it’s about issues or identities.

The bottom line is, can you teach old dogs new tricks? Can you convince anybody their beliefs are wrong? Have you ever tried to change the mind of a Fox viewer?

X is a cesspool. Not only pro-Trump/Vance, but filled with conspiracies and ad hominem attacks. I read an extensive post about Pizzagate earlier today. Yes, Hillary and the Democrats are running a child prostitution ring out of a pizza parlor? You’re not going to convince these people to vote for Harris.

So as far as informing the public…I’m not sure that makes a huge difference.

But if it comes down to identities… This is where Walz triumphs.

Shapiro would have outshone Harris, he’s no one’s number two.

But the ace in the hole is Walz’s oratorical powers. Man, this guy was meant to give speeches and relate.

I want you to watch this video:

https://tinyurl.com/mr22pra9

Just a few seconds will give you the flavor. This is not a natural born politician, this is not Joe Biden who spent his life in politics, this is a plain-speaking high school coach/teacher who you can relate to, who you can bond to, who you can get behind, who you feel good about. This guy is one of us, which Trump and Vance are not, and if you want to, you can even question Harris’s bona fides in this area, but not those of Walz.

So stop overanalyzing the VP pick. I’m down with Walz, and if anything he’s a net positive.

Minnesota is a great progressive state in the middle of the country that is seen as a red morass. Prince came from Minnesota, and continued to live in Minnesota. Al Franken came from Minnesota.

Can you criticize Walz and his positions? OF COURSE! It goes with the territory. But Walz is a good mouthpiece.

Harris added fuel to the fire. Right now she’s running ahead of Trump in the race.

Don’t discount those who hate the Democrats, those who embrace the values Trump espouses. But that’s all about hate, disparagement, whereas the Harris/Walz ticket is about hope, and the future.

This Jew is optimistic.

https://shorturl.at/Y8UHr

Ultimately this is a mystery, but it doesn’t read like one.

First and foremost it is set in a summer camp. Where I spent some of my best years. And that’s why I started reading it, and on that note it worked, but “The God of the Woods” is so much more.

Generally speaking I don’t read genre books, because I find the endings unsatisfactory. There’s an unforeseen twist, which makes you feel ripped off, angry you wasted so much time trying to figure it out.

Actually, I wasn’t that invested in the mysteries of “The God of the Woods,” the disappearance of two children. And thank god I didn’t find out until the very end what happened to them, because these results were not as interesting as what came before. Which had to do with friendships, class relations, personal growth, individuality.

Yes, you have a multi-generational rich family. To what degree is it using its power to subvert justice. Or is it just playing at the level rich people prefer, which is essentially private. Rich people have their own means of travel, i.e. private jets, they have their own doctors, they vacation at places you can’t afford, never mind know of, and they wield their relationships to pervert the course of justice. Real saints, right?

Actually, America reveres the rich and the poor, to be average is anathema. To have less is a badge of honor. If I had a nickel for every person who told me they grew up poor, and then let slip they went to a private high school and their parents drove luxury cars… And then there are the entitled rich who lord it over us. As if they deserve their perch. And then there are those who sit completely outside the system and don’t want to be judged, just left alone.

So, the story is set in 1975, during the second disappearance. Although there are a lot of flashbacks to 1961, the first disappearance. And it is set amongst the upper-crust, who marry for money, in an era when women didn’t even go to college, according to the book, anyway.

And you’ve got the woman who is nobody from nowhere who goes to college on a scholarship but still can’t make ends meet and ends up going back home and doing low level jobs.

She believes she’s the fiancée of a rich guy she met when she was at school. But he doesn’t integrate her into his family.

And then you’ve got the new investigator, a female State Trooper afraid of getting it wrong but wanting to get it right.

Meanwhile, adjacent to the camp the owners have a mansion where they have an annual midsummer bacchanal to celebrate the disappearance of the black flies.

So there are all these players, all this history, what is the truth?

Well, it’s ultimately revealed. But it’s the characters who make the book so interesting.

And the setting, in the Adirondacks. It’s got the feel of being off the grid. In a world where we’re hooked up 24/7, where you can get signal everywhere, this is a different era, in the boondocks. The book has the feel of the woods, of a moist mountain morning. Reading it you will not contemplate your everyday life, you will be taken completely away. And it will not be long before you just want to sit down and read. This is the kind of book that you find hard to close, that you bargain with yourself over…just a few more pages, how tired will I be if I keep reading…

This is not literary fiction, but there are some insights. My favorite is:

“They’ll be fine. The Hewitts—like Judy, like Louise Donnadieu, like Denny Hayes, even—don’t need to rely on anyone but themselves.

“It’s the Van Laars, and families like them, who have always depended on others.”

In other words, the poor, the middle class, are independent, they’re survivors, whereas the rich depend upon those on the payroll, and when left alone…

“The God of the Woods” is not the best book I’ve ever read. But it’s still August, and if you’re looking for something highly readable as opposed to the two-dimensional, simplistic beach reads, I’d put it near the top of your list.

Once again, “The God of the Woods” is readable, it does not take long to get into, and it will hook you.

From the time I read a review and reserved it a month ago at the library until it recently became available, “The God of the Woods” has become a huge seller, I’m not the only one.

Sometimes the wisdom of the crowd is right.

I reserved it because a reviewer compared it to Donna Tartt’s “Secret History,” which has a huge impact upon everyone who reads it. “The Secret History” is set at Bennington College, and the rest of the world might as well not exist. “The God of the Woods” has this same feel, but is not quite at the same level. “The Secret History” is a book you read and never forget, and I won’t say “The God of the Woods” is forgettable, but it’s written for everyone, not just the intellectual elite. You won’t have to look up words, you won’t feel like you can’t relate to anybody…

You’ll dig it.

It all comes down to exposure. An organized market. Wherein you focus a huge slice of the public on a certain number of artists.

That no longer exists.

We had radio, we had MTV, now we have chaos.

We were shown this was going to happen with Napster. Napster illustrated that the public was in control, as opposed to the marketers. Yet the major labels still believe they have power and can dictate, but they can’t, which is why there have been so few breakthrough artists recently. And with this difficulty, the majors have put their efforts behind fewer and fewer artists, leaving more and more of the business to the antiques and the indies.

So what does Lucian Grainge have to say about this? PAY ME MORE! Yes, he’s been arguing that Spotify, et al, should pay his hit acts more because they’re driving the lion’s share of the market. This is the same flawed thinking employed at the turn of the century. Rather than admit their retail model was broken, the majors doubled-down, insulted and then sued their customers, declaring the CD was forever, and anybody who wasn’t willing to buy a complete album at an inflated price was a pox on humanity.

How did that work out?

Daniel Ek came along and saved their lunch. As for those criticizing Spotify, this is the same element you see on X/Twitter, with an agenda, divorced from reality. Even Universal itself just said that Spotify’s growth outpaces competitors. Why? It’s simple, it’s a better service, whose main driver is music, constantly adding features, whereas Apple’s and Amazon’s services are based on brand loyalty as opposed to the service itself.

So in a world where the customer is in charge you need to alter your philosophy. When you can’t corral the customer, when you can’t dictate, you need to innovate, broaden your offerings, seed the customer base and allow people to find and grow acts. Which they will do, can you say CHAPPELL ROAN?

Have you seen the video from Lollapalooza? Of everybody singing along?

Take a peek:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Entertainment Weekly (@entertainmentweekly)

Was this driven by radio? TV? None of the usual outlets delivered this, it was pure word of mouth, along with choice tour slots. Hell, Roan was dropped by Atlantic before she was picked up by Island. In the old days of Mo and Joe, you only signed an act if you believed in them, and you nurtured and stood by them, otherwise your judgment could be declared unsound. But today, if it doesn’t happen right away, NEXT!

So instead of fashion, instead of looks, it’s now about the music. Does it resonate with the public?

And it’s not only teenagers consuming. Look at who is selling tickets, it’s a smorgasbord of acts. But the majors?

As for the legacy acts, it’s always based on sound. It’s not the me-too acts that continue to sell tickets, but the sui generis ones, the ones that came from nowhere and were so good that the audience glommed on to them.

So the Spotify Top 50 shows the most consumption, but not necessarily the most mindshare, the most devotion. 

Remember when FM came along and blew apart the AM model? Probably not, unless you’re a boomer, but FM not only played different music, it played MORE music.

The Spotify Top 50 does not drive consumption, it’s just a reflection of consumption, which is very different from the Top Forty radio of yore.

You need to be in all markets today, from metal to adult alternative. Because you never know what will resonate and blow up. Come on, before Zach Bryan did you think an act like that would sell out stadiums soon? OF COURSE NOT!

It’s great that labels study the data, but it’s soft skills that drive music consumption. We are not selling widgets here, nor shoes, nor some other needed consumable. No one needs any act. So how do you sell an act that people need?

Taylor Swift’s audience believes she speaks for them. And there are enough in this niche to sell out stadiums. She exists in her own vacuum. She does not cross lines. No one does anymore.

Furthermore, I’ll argue her music doesn’t spread. You either like it or you don’t. Like K-pop. Whereas someone like Chris Stapleton…if more people heard it, more people would like it. It’s not adolescent, it’s not puerile, Chris is not beautiful, he doesn’t dance, he’s just selling the music itself. You’d think Nashville would purvey more Stapletons, but the labels don’t know how to do this. They triangulate, focus on looks, all these markers that have nothing to do with music.

In order to get the public excited about music…they must see something there other than commerce. The majors don’t purvey art, but commerce. It’s a business like it was before the Beatles.

And then the Beatles came along.

Don’t count on the majors to deliver a new Beatles, they’re not built for it. It will come from the outside. Because the majors have begged-off their obligation. They used to release the best music, now they release the most commercial music, which continues to shrink in market share.

Everybody’s focused on hits when they should retool and focus on music. The majors are on an unending drive to marginalization.

Netflix trailer: https://tinyurl.com/mr86e6rk

I was into Everest before it was big.

That’s what we used to say about rock acts in the sixties and seventies, like Yes, whose first album my dentist turned me on to and didn’t break through until two LPs later, really three, with “Fragile.”

That used to be the process. You discovered and owned an act, followed them from the club to the theatre to maybe the arena after they had a big AM hit, and when the hoi polloi came on board, that’s what you’d say. Or as Bill Murray told his girlfriend in “Stripes,” “You know one day Tito Puente’s gonna be dead, and you’re gonna say ‘Oh, I’ve been listening to him for years, and I think he’s fabulous.'”

The funny thing is Tito Puente didn’t die for two decades.

But that’s not the point.

The point is someone turned me on to the book “Annapurna” in high school. I vividly remember reading it, becoming enraptured with the tale of Himalayan mountain climbing.

And then in ’96, the internet had progressed to the point where there were live reports from the Everest climbing season, and the disaster that ensued, ultimately covered in an “Outside” article by Jon Krakauer which was expanded into the book “Into Thin Air.” I was into Krakauer early too, I went to a friend’s birthday party and they gave out his first book, “Eiger Dreams,” wherein a climber falls off the Eiger and lives, along with a bunch of other climbing tales.

And about two months ago, I read Will Cockrell’s new book “Everest, Inc., The Renegades and Rogues who Built An Industry at the Top of the World”: https://shorturl.at/4IfdN which delineates the modern history of climbing Everest, and how the Sherpas have taken over the business.

And then I listened to a recent Blister podcast entitled “Adrian Ballinger on Everest, Ethics, & Unexplored Places” https://shorturl.at/93iOG

All this to say when I read about “Mountain Queen” I was eager to see it, but you don’t have to be a mountain acolyte to love this documentary.

Oh, one other Everest link, someone recently posted a drone video of the climbing route: https://shorturl.at/x7HlB

But that doesn’t compare with the visuals in this movie. Especially climbing up the ever-shifting Khumbu Icefall, where death is seemingly inevitable every year.

So what we’ve got here is an uneducated woman with a son who decided to leave her mark, do something great, by being the first woman on Everest. First as porter, then as a guide.

It’s an incredible achievement.

But then she meets this Romanian climber and moves to Hartford, CT, has a couple more kids, continues to climb Everest, and deals with his abuse.

“Mountain Queen” hit Netflix on the last day of last month, and I highly recommend it, I’d put it at the top of your list.

But I’d also say to upgrade to Netflix 4k just for this movie, the visuals are unbelievable.

It’s an hour and forty four minutes and your mind will never wander.

Lhakpa climbs the mountain to inspire her children, and it didn’t resonate with me until the very end. I wince when I read about a person doing this or that to inspire others, but when Lhakpa throws her arms in the air at the end of this doc, goddamn, it made me think I could do things too.

It’s cognitive dissonance, Lhakpa is working in Whole Foods, then she flies to Nepal to climb the world’s tallest mountain.

This is just not a story of mountain climbing, but of a person, born with no advantages who made her own way, despite the huge challenges in her path.

I’ve only been technical mountain climbing once. It’s easy until it’s difficult. Rappelling back down was no big deal. But when I had to pressure my hands against the overhanging rock as I scuffled along with my feet on this V-shaped formation laid on its side…that was too much.

I’d like to go to Everest Base Camp. I would not like to climb Everest, that’s not how I want to die. But “Everest, Inc.” says that if you’re in shape, they can now even take you up K2, one of the most difficult climbs in the Himalayas.

And it used to be Everest was remote. Now we have satellite phones, the whole world is networked. Then again, it’s pretty easy to be beaten by Mother Nature, I’ve had my own close calls.

As for non-climbers needing to make the trek for whatever reason… Everybody’s trying to prove something to the world. When in truth, it’s only about proving something to yourself. So, if you’re climbing Everest to brag…I don’t get it.

There are a lot of questions raised in “Mountain Queen.” I don’t care if you live on the water, if the nearest mountain is far away, you’re going to be intrigued and moved.

This is a winner.