March 23,2008

There’s no joke like an old joke, so once again we need to reach into our old favorites bag. Hope you have forgotten this one.

A newlywed writes the following to an advice-to-the-lovelorn column:

Dear Abby,

I recently married, and my husband is a very wonderful man, but I have a serious problem. He is a sex maniac.

Every night, he wakes me u at least two or three times for sex. And even during the day he comes after me––when I’m making the bed, when I’m washing dishes, when I’m vacuuming . . .

I don’t know what to do. Please help me.
Sincerely yours, Exhausted

P.S. Please excuse the jerky handwriting. # # # # # # # # # #

Books by Marv

BOOKS by the Curmudgeon(quite a variety)






Marv Rubinstein’s books can all be purchased online and


March 22, 2008

Faradis. Kafr-Kassem. Shfar-Am.Taibe. Um-El-Fahm. Whoever heard of these names? Are they in today’ s newspaper headlines? Have they been shown on television? Would an average American appearing on Jeopardy be able to identify them or know what they have in common?

These are the names of Arab villages — largely populated by Arabs only — deep in the heart of Israel proper. Not on the West Bank. Not on the Gaza Strip. Inside the borders of the State of Israel. Their residents are Israeli citizens with most of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Relatively few of them have taken part in the Intifada. Their standard of living, while not up to that of the average Jewish Israeli, is far better than that of the vast majority of Arabs in countries controlled by their bretheren. They have no desire to emigrate from Israel and, except for a lunatic fringe, the Israeli Government and most Israelis have never suggested that they be exiled or deported.

These five villages can rightly be defined as “settlements.” But no one in his right mind has asked that these settlers be forced to vacate homes and move to Arab lands. No one has suggested that their presence in the heart of Israel constitutes the major impediment to Middle Eastern peace. No New York Times editorial, no television talk show, no vituperative columnist has even mildly hinted at such a step. The names of these villages are never even mentioned. Is there a conspiracy of silence by the American press?

Peculiarly enough, these same newspapers, these same television networks, these same columnists and pundits are at the same time pounding away on the theme that Israel must get tough with its settlers, must remove their settlements from Hebron, and even from the perimeters of Jerusalem. Claims are made that the settlements constitute a danger to the peace process, so they must go, and they must go now. Otherwise, the peace process will falter, and you know who is to blame for that.

Whatever happened to quid pro quo? If Arabs can live peacefully in the land of Israel, why can’t Jews live peacefully in Arab lands? They did so for two thousand years and, in countries like Morocco, still do today. If there can be Arab villages inside Israel, what is so wrong with the idea of Jewish settlements or villages in Gaza or Jordan or in some future Palestinian state, should one arise? These questions seem fair, but no one asks them. Not the newspapers, not Crossfire or Nightline. Not even normally pro-Israel columnists. Nobody.

The more important question, however, regards reciprocal living arrangements. Is ethnic cleansing really necessary in the Middle East? Europeans, Asians, African-Americans and Latinos coexist more or less amicably in the United States. So do Jews and Arabs. If they can coexist here, if Arab villages can grow and flourish in Israel, why can’t Jewish settlers grow and flourish in Arab countries? Certainly, this question creates other questions. Whose laws will the settlers obey? Will they be given citizenship in the countries where they reside? Most important, will these countries provide them with protection? And, if some settlers choose to return to Israel proper, will the Government of Israel provide them with financial assistance? These are just a few of the many questions needing answers.

But these questions can never be answered until the first question is discussed, debated and settled. By the Israelis, by the Arabs, by the American State Department, perhaps by the United Nations. First and foremost, however, the American press must be willing to ask this question. If there can be Arab enclaves in Israel, why can’t there be Jewish enclaves in Arab countries? What is the matter with quid pro quo?

# # # # # # # # # #

B. S.


“SPITZER IS LINKED TO PROSTITUTION RING” So reads a New York Times headine, similar to dozens of other newspaper headlines around the country. Spectacular headline writing, but what does it mean. Is Elliot Spitzer running a brothel? Sounds like it.

Why not “SPTZER CAUGHT USING SERVICES OF A PROSTITUTE? Straight and to the point with little chance for misunderstanding. Of course, it doesn’t make as much of a splash.

The difference between these two headlines covering the same set of facts accurately mirrors the two sets of public reactions. The actual Times headline leads to people calling Spitzer an “arrogant sicko,” a “hypocrite,” a man who “believes himself to be above the law” and similar silly comments.

For God’s sake! Arrogant? Name me a Governor or a Senator or a President who is not arrogant For that matter, name me a C.E.O. or a large corporation or a famous Hollywood figure who is not arrogant. It goes with the job.

Hypocrite? Anyone who gets elected is a hypocrite. The public demands it. Politicians who tell the complete truth just don’t get your vote. Ask Senator McCane how many votes he will lose if he continues to back an intelligent and fair approach to integrating illegal aliens into our society.

Above the law? Are you kidding? Do the millions of men who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or girl friends really believe that they are above the law? Nonsense! They are actually obeying natural laws –– the law of horniness or the law that success breeds the constant need for excitement and attention.

Members of the public who read my suggested (and more accurate) headline respond with more temperate language to describe Spitzer’s indiscretion.

# # # # # # # # # #


March 5, 2008

The time has come for a Hillary-Obama ticket. It is now self-evident that neither candidate will win enough delegates to pass the finish line, unless the Florida and Michigan delegates are admitted and/or the superdelegates cast their votes in one direction.

Hillary wants the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. Obama claims that this goes against the rules. However, he wants the superdelegate votes to be distributed in the same proportion as the elected delegates. It does not bother him that this is also against the rules. It defeats the purpose of having superdelegates, whose role is to look out for the interests of the Party and to help pick the cndidate most likely to beat McCain. Neither candidate believes in consistency.

Should the superdelegates vote in a way that gives Hillary the nomination, even if Obama is leading in delegate count, all hell will beak loose. Should Obama be nominated without allowing votes from Florida and Michigan, huge numbers of Clinton supporters will refuse to vote in the election. In eiher case, what was viewed as an almost certain Democratic victory next November will be endangered.

The only solution is a Clinton-Obama ticket with Hillary at the head. This will not be easy. Hillary has already broached the idea, but Obama has balked. It is time for both a stick and a carrot. Party leaders and superdelegates must try to convince Obama that, for the good of the party, he must accept the Vice=Presidency this time. He will balk, but the stick is a threat by the superdelegates that they will vote for Clinton if he does not go along.

Now the carrot for Obama. Hillary must agree to run for only one term, so that Obama, still young and healthy does not heve to wait too long. If Hillary balks, the superdelegates can apply the same stick and threaten to vote for Obama. The pressure must be intense. And, of course, the good of the Democratic party must be emphasized over and over. Rest assured, they will hate the provisions, but they will agree. Besides, this solution results in a solid ticket with high hopes for victory in November.

Incidentally, this idea is not new. In England, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made a similar compromise several years ago for the good of the Labour Party. It took a little longer than Brown anticipated for him to achieve his goal. But the idea worked.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for President and Vice-President of the United States. What a brilliant break with history.

# # # # # # # #