Proud of Canadians

I’m proud of Canadians. Even the politicians. This federal election campaign has been unusually substantive, marked by a tone of seriousness and purpose. Canadians, in turn, have responded with unprecedented numbers turning out for advanced polling. There’s a sense of civic engagement in the air that we haven’t seen since 1988—when Canadian sovereignty was also on the ballot, in the form of the proposed free trade agreement with the United States.

That fall, I had just returned from a year of graduate studies in Switzerland, after three years studying political science at McGill. I decided it was time to get real-world political experience, and a friend of my mother’s connected me with a Liberal candidate running on the South Shore of Montreal. Like him, I opposed the free trade deal. It wasn’t that I was against trade; I believed in international commerce. But I felt there needed to be safeguards. The fear, widely shared at the time, was that free trade with the U.S. would make us culturally, politically, and economically dependent on the ravenous giant to our south.

Thirty-seven years later, that fear seems less like paranoia and more like prophecy.

In 1988, both major parties offered versions of Canadian nationalism. Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives argued optimistically that Canada was ready to compete with the world, including the U.S., and that free trade would unleash our economic potential. The Liberals, under John Turner, argued defensively that the deal would lead to irreversible changes we’d be unable to resist—pressures that would compromise our sovereignty, culture, and policy independence. Both messages, in their own way, were nationalistic. One was hopeful; the other, cautionary. The hopeful one won by a landslide.

As it turns out, both were also right. In the decades that followed, Canada experienced growth and prosperity—but also wage stagnation, cultural dilution, and a deepening economic dependency on the U.S.

Today’s election feels like the inverse of 1988. Once again, Canadian sovereignty is part of the national conversation, but this time the threat isn’t a trade deal—it’s the political chaos seeping northward from the United States. And it has had a galvanizing effect. All of our major party leaders, regardless of ideology, have been forced by circumstance to strike a more unifying, forward-looking tone. This is how political leaders should behave: trying to build broad support by offering hopeful visions, not seeking power by dividing their opponents. This campaign is about how to make Canada stronger, more resilient, and fairer—not about who to blame for what’s broken.

That’s a sign of democratic health. The surest symptom of democratic decay is when politicians focus on wedge issues, stoke grievance, and pander to fear. Canadians, to their credit, seem unwilling to go down that road.

That’s why, I believe, Pierre Poilievre’s once-ascendant campaign has faltered. He built his brand around anger and antagonism. That approach resonated briefly, but when the national mood shifted—when Canadians began to look for hope—he couldn’t shift with it. Mark Carney, by contrast, has offered a consistently optimistic, constructive message. That positivity may well be the secret sauce of his continued success. Poilievre has tried to soften his tone in recent weeks, but it doesn’t come naturally to him, and it shows.

Voting should not just be a civic duty. It should be a hopeful act—a declaration that the future can be better, and that we can build it together. Politicians who trade in anger and cynicism don’t deserve to lead. And when they do win, as we’ve seen in the United States, the consequences can be catastrophic.

This election, Canadians appear to be choosing differently. That gives me hope—not just for the outcome, but for the country itself.

Yes, We Are Canadian

Not something in our character, 
To shout it out with pride.

Part of being Canadian,
Is a reluctance to take sides.

Our balance is our strength,
With steadiness and grace.
On skis, on blades, in a canoe,
No challenge we won't face.

We seek the quiet middle,

We’re a mix of many kin.
Stand tall as a Douglas Fir, 

Strong as a prairie wind.

We love in many languages,

We work in many fields.

Our voices and our values,

Express our shared ideals.

Yes, we are Canadian,

It's all we want to be. 

We sing it from the Rockies,

From the ice floes to the sea.  

Yes, we are Canadian,

It's all we want to be.

Nothing 'gainst the USA -

Just not a place for me.

We know who are our friends,

We honour every creed.

The flag we raise means unity —

Our symbol the maple leaf.

Our homes are always warm,

Our arms are always open.

With hearts vast as the wilderness,

Our spirits can't be broken.

We seek the quiet middle,

We’re a mix of many kin.
Stand tall as a Douglas fir, 

Strong as a prairie wind.

We love in many languages,

We work in many fields.

Our voices and our values,

Express our shared ideals.

Oui, nous sommes Canadiens,

Notre amours vaste comme cette terre, 

Nous le chantons des Rocheuses,
Jusqu’au bord du mer. 

Oui, nous sommes Canadiens,

Et c'est là qu'on vieillit.

Rien contre les États-Unis,

Mais ce n'est pas notre pays.

Yes, we are Canadian,

It's all we want to be. 

We'll sing it from the Rockies, 

From the ice floes to the sea.  

Yes, we are Canadian,

It's all we want to be.

Nothing 'gainst the USA -

Just not a place for me.

Now

According to the sage 

Past and future 

Memory and projection

Are figments of mind 

And the universe 

Gives birth anew

All the energy of creation

Coalescing in a single moment

We call now.

The Battle Royale

Like people born with different temperaments and talents, countries—shaped by geography, climate, history, and culture—excel at different things.

Canadians are great at hockey, curling, and being apologetic.

Norwegians excel at cross-country skiing and polar exploration.

Russians dominate chess, figure skating, ballet—and submitting to autocracy.

Americans are great at many things, but in one domain they are the undisputed world champions: consumption.

One estimate suggests the average U.S. household consumes over 15% more than the next closest country, and nearly four times more than what the Earth can sustainably provide.

China, meanwhile, holds a commanding lead in production. It accounts for nearly 32% of the world’s manufacturing output—double that of the second-place United States.

But Trump, who is incapable of imagining any relationship beyond a transaction, seems to believe the world’s greatest consumers can force the world’s greatest producers to submit to their will. That’s essentially the Battle Royale he’s been staging. What he fails to grasp is that we are all both consumers and producers—and that it's in everyone’s interest to have access to the widest array of goods at the lowest cost.

In his mind, Americans can produce anything—just like he’s sold anything and everything for a buck: Bibles, sneakers, guitars, steaks, board games, bottled water, clothing. The list is too long—and too ridiculous—to recite. The irony, of course, is that nearly all of it was made in China. And most of it failed. Maybe that’s where the resentment really comes from.

But what makes this moment so revealing isn’t just the clash of consumption vs. production. It’s that, like all real conflicts, it tests deeper human qualities: discipline, values, and character.

Trump lacks these traits entirely. And because he does, he cannot understand how other nations—who possess them—might endure and even outlast his economic attacks. His obsession with the so-called “trade deficit” masks a deeper truth: being a great producer takes discipline, ingenuity, and industriousness; being a great consumer requires nothing more than a big appetite and access to lots of credit - sort of a perfect description of trump himself.

This is no contest.  

Doing Something

This week, the trump administration sent Harvard University a demand letter. At first glance, it reads like a civics lesson on federal accountability. But peel back the rhetoric, and it’s something far more sweeping: a threat, wrapped in bureaucratic prose, aimed at coercing the oldest and most prestigious university in the United States into political compliance.

The letter’s core message can be summed up with an old idiom: he who pays the piper calls the tune. The piper, of course, is Harvard. The tune, according to this administration, is whatever the federal government decides it should be.

The letter is sprawling and, in many ways, meaningless—full of vague accusations and sweeping mandates. It accuses Harvard of failing to uphold federal civil rights laws but offers no evidence or legal justification. If there were actual violations, there are courts for that. But this isn’t about justice. It’s about control.

And control is exactly what the government is after. Early in the letter, the real agenda becomes clear: a demand for full oversight of hiring practices, admissions policies, student discipline, even the source and use of all foreign funds. Harvard is to “submit to a forensic audit,” “certify reports to the federal government,” and “ensure full transparency with federal regulators.” The scope of these demands reads like a blueprint for federal occupation—only with spreadsheets and subpoenas instead of soldiers.

There’s a paragraph about “Antisemitism and Other Biases.” But it’s really just about antisemitism, specifically referencing last summer’s campus protests. The letter demands names of faculty who allegedly “discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students” or encouraged rule-breaking after October 7. I can already hear many fellow Jews cheering, “Finally, the government is doing something about antisemitism!” But I wonder how they don’t—or won’t—see that this kind of “doing something” is a grave threat to institutional liberty.

This isn’t a defense of Harvard. The university has its flaws. But that’s the point—so do all institutions. What’s chilling is not that Harvard is being asked to reflect; it’s that it’s being told to submit. And what happens when other universities—without a $52 billion endowment—receive their own letters?

Fortunately, Harvard said no. President Alan M. Garber, himself Jewish, refused to yield. In response, the federal government froze $2.2 billion in grants. But this piper, for now, won’t be bought.

The real question is: who’s next—and will they be able to say no?

At The Seder Table

I imagine it's the sort of thing American families fear might happen at Thanksgiving dinner when talk turns to politics. In this case it did indeed involve an American - a Canadian-born cousin, living in the States for a couple of decades now, married to a lovely native-New Yorker and they have two children. He works on Wall Street and became an American citizen recently. We reconnect around this time every year when he is making plans to come back to Canada to attend our extended-family seder with his parents (we had 53 attendees this year). Two years ago, when we exchanged emails, he extolled to me the magical curative properties of Ivermectin against Covid. You can probably guess where this is going.

By the way, I really like him. He's a warm, enthusiastic fellow. Smart, friendly and passionate about many things including his Jewish identity. I appreciate that. I can't say I'm innocent for how things went down. To my wife's dismay - she generally wants to keep dinner talk, whether it be on weekdays, Shabbat, or holidays - as pleasant and anodyne as possible. For her food is love, and controversy of any kind, ruins the taste. Since Passover is the only time of year when my extended family gets together this is usually not a problem. The seder is more like an annual family reunion than a religious event. Most of the time is spent simply catching up on personal news, marvelling at how the kids have grown, and for the older generation, of which I am now an official part, getting health updates. But for me, respecting my wife's wishes presents a certain dilemma at the Passover table. The seder meal is all about having a deeply memorable and meaningful experience. 

It seems that the sages who constructed the Haggadah understood the potential for things to go off the rails when you get a bunch Jews together for dinner. They tried to fill the time as much as possible to keep unscripted interaction to a minimum. When we're not reading, we're acting out ritual, and when we're not acting out ritual, we're drinking glasses of wine (and getting drunk), and in between glasses of wine we're singing songs that seem to go on forever, to the point of crying for mercy - Dayenu!

But, there is the meal, and in between bites of food, opportunity for conversation and opinionation. As I say, there is something about Passover in particular, this holiday that commemorates the Israelite deliverance from slavery in Egypt, when we think about the redemption from captivity and the meaning of freedom, that brings out the Pharaoh in me. Well that's an exaggeration, but let's say my tolerance for banal, mundane table talk is at a minimum. One year, I became so despondent listening to people around our seder table gossiping and yakking about sundry nonsense, that I unceremoniously excused myself and didn't come back (I was the seder leader). My thought was, if they don't want to make this meaningful in the spirit of the holiday, then I'm not needed. My wife was not happy with my rudeness. As usual, she was right and I apologized. 

This year, meaningful discussion wasn't a problem - back to my newly-minted American citizen cousin. The conversation started innocently enough, about what our kids were doing. One of my daughters is attending McGill and his youngest daughter is starting university next year as well, at Emory. Atlanta I exclaim. That's an unusual choice. Remember he lives in New York, lots of great universities in and around the region. I have a hunch why Columbia wasn't her first choice, but I say nothing. Yeah, the universities in the American south are exploding in popularity, he says. In response to all the antisemitism at the Ivies. Places like Emory, Vanderbilt and Rice are seeing a massive uptick in admissions because the Jewish students don't feel safe. Florida universities are the safest, he says. I'd heard that from my brother whose daughter attends University of Florida in Gainesville. She saw no pro-Palestine protests on campus when they were in full swing last summer everywhere else. I mention that. It's great what the administration is doing to go after all the antisemitism at the universities, he says. By now I'm trying my best to hold my tongue, but can't. I say, so you agree that they should be cutting federal research grants and deporting students? Absolutely, he says, it's about time the government did something. Don't you believe in free speech? I ask. It's not free speech when you're pro-Hamas, he says. It's support of terrorism, and they have every right to cancel the Visa of any student for any reason. I say, they are expressing their political views, and expressing antisemitic views, as repugnant as they are, is not illegal. Anyway, if it got out of hand and resulted in harassment and vandalism, there are laws against that, and it's the responsibility of the local law enforcement and the university to handle it. There's a danger to the federal government using its power to go after people exercising a constitutional right.

That's when the discussion got interesting. He repeated that the government has the right to cancel their Visas if they burn the American flag and express anti-American views. The problem is that the United States has been too tolerant for too long of people who have anti-American values. I responded that in fact, burning the American flag, is not illegal. But it was his use of the term 'anti-American' that was most striking to me, reminiscent of another time considered by many as one of the darkest periods in US history, particularly for the exercise of free speech. I'm talking of course about the McCarthy era, and his House Un-American Activities Committee. A time of persecution in which America had a Grand Inquisitor, and Jews especially ones working in the arts, film and entertainment, were targeted for their communist sympathies and affiliations, and blacklisted. Now we're on the other side, it seems. 

My response to my cousin, when he used the term 'anti-American' was simply; And you, I suppose, know what constitutes 'anti-American'? 

I don't remember if he responded, but recall the conversation grinding to a halt. We both smiled to show that there were no hard feelings, exchanged supportive words to reassure the other family members listening in (including my wife, who seemed to support him), that it was good to have a friendly disagreement and share different perspectives. I think we meant it, at least I did. Then I said something about how the last time we disagreed it was about Ivermectin, and I chuckled. He said, yeah, not too long ago I was travelling with my son and he wasn't feeling well, so I gave him a dose of Ivermectin and it was miraculous, he was feeling great in less than an hour.  

Donald's Brain

Is there a scarier place on Earth than Donald's brain? Unfortunately, we're all trapped in it.

In a time when irony is dead, what could be more ironic than the last election, when the incumbent was forced to step aside because he was accused of lacking mental acuity due to age, and instead America chose to elect his opponent, a man of almost the same age and would be the oldest President in history, who was clearly suffering from mental incompetence in a form of criminal sociopathy and disassociation from reality, which we now see is getting worse with every passing day.   

Whatever you might have thought about Biden's verbal gaffes and painfully hesitant debate performance, the one thing you could always say with certainty is that he cares about responsible governance and always respected and listened to his expert advisors. What we have instead is a demented narcissist who doesn't believe in the rule of law or government, is bent on destroying them, and has surrounded himself with a group of lackey 'advisors' devoid of expertise and self-respect whose chief talent is for humiliating sycophancy. Whatever happens now depends on one thing and one thing above all: What goes on in trump's addled, warped mind. In that sense he is far closer to Kim Jong-Un and Putin (Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Louis XVI, Henry VIII etc.) than any other President in US history. The difference between trump and the rest of this rogue's gallery of tyrants, is that he is far more powerful and his actions potentially far more consequential, than they could ever be.  

Biographies are written about every US President in an effort to get at the source of their personality and thinking because there is the sense that it's significant to their presidency. The same will be done with Donald (and indeed already has), but perhaps for the first time the main research tool will be the DSM - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The most accurate analysis I've heard of his political decision-making has focused on trump's amoral disordered mind, charitably called 'neuro-divergent'. For instance, when asked in the Oval why and when he decided to pause his 'reciprocal tariffs, trump answered, “Over the last few days, I’ve been thinking about it. I think it probably came together early this morning, fairly early this morning... We wrote it up from our hearts, right? It was written from the heart, and I think it was well written too.” This 'answer' about a Presidential decision with vast global consequences would be surreal if it wasn’t so insane. It sent the pundits and commentators scrambling for interpretation, trying to find some rationale or justification so the public could make sense of it. Is there some sort of hidden logic? 4D-chess? Ideology? Long-term plan or strategy? Criminality? Thought of any kind? If you answered none of the above in your Psychology 101 multiple choice midterm, that would probably be closest to the correct answer.

America was not made to be trapped in the mind of a mad king. In fact, America was constituted for the exact opposite, "...government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address. America and the world is in a scary place now: The dark, cold, bat-shit encrusted cave of Donald’s Neanderthal brain (apologies to Neanderthals). And like caveman paleontology, any useful artifact you might find there is really nothing but a matter of pure speculation 

Who Do You Trust?

I walk 47 miles of barbed wire/ I use a cobra snake for a necktie/ I got a brand new house on the roadside/ Made from rattlesnake hide/ I got a brand new chimney made on top/ Made out of a human skull/ Now come on take a little walk with me, Arlene/ And tell me, who do you love?

Bo Diddley revolutionized rock 'n roll when he asked "Who Do You Love?" He was the first badass. But I gotta say, his description of himself and his lifestyle doesn't exactly instill confidence - "A rattlesnake necktie" and "a chimney made of human skull." Not what I'd be putting on my Tinder bio (if I had one). He's basically saying to his girl, take a chance with me. Which suggests he understands that the more important question is Who Do You Trust? 

"In God We Trust" is what it says on the American greenback - until this week the most trusted currency in the world - which is bizarre enough. Aside from the fact that it suggests only God is trustworthy ie. people can't really be trusted, Americans seem to equate God and money. 

But the more important message is that everything is built on trust: Every relationship, from love and family to business, every time you go to see the doctor, every time you get into your car to drive somewhere, every time you open your phone to get the news. Trust is literally the glue that holds the entire world together. And the more interconnected the world has become the more complex and confounding the network of trust is. 

It wasn't too long ago when doctors made housecalls. You knew your 'green grocer' and dairy was delivered to your home by a milkman. Ours was named Maurice, and he drove an orange Guaranteed Milk Truck that had sliding doors, sort of like the Amazon Prime delivery vans you see today. Maurice would give me and my friends rides down the block with the doors open. But trust was not only a function of neighbourhood relationships. A sense of trust existed at many levels of society. For instance, in every household we watched the 6 o'clock news on television when dad got home from work. It was  a national ritual everyone shared. There were four or five channels, the broadcasts delivered more or less the same information, and CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite was called 'the Most Trusted Man in America'.

I'm not saying this to wax nostalgic, but rather to describe how fragmented our world has become, and  the tangible way that fragmentation has impacted our daily activities and interactions. Sixty years ago, it was much easier to decide if people were trustworthy when you dealt with them face to face on a regular and ongoing basis, and I believe this translated into a general feeling of trust and security in society at large. The world we live in is impersonal and remote. The crises we are facing today - and I use the plural term because it's multiple crises political, economic, cultural, layered one on top of the other, like a cake - is actually only one crisis: A crisis of trust. People don't know who to trust, so they end up trusting no one, and the reality they live in loses meaning and coherence. They self-cocoon with their screens. When that happens they become susceptible to believing the most outlandish ideas; conspiracies, fanatical religions, extreme politics, grasping for anyone and anything that projects certainty and confidence. 

A talent for gaining the confidence of people is the main trait of every snake oil salesman and swindler - that's why they call him a con-man. Trump is not the cause of the crisis we find ourselves in, he is a symptom of it. His main talent for exploiting insecurity could not have asked for a more fertile environment in which to operate. A person like him, without principles, values or morals, thrives in an environment where trust is low. His followers are devoted to him not because they are stupid, but because they are desperate. The one thing he offers his constituents that the Democrats have failed miserably at, is vision, even if it's the most absurd, impractical, cynical and backward-looking one. In trump's case, it's a vision of security provided by a fence that Mexico would pay for, or the security of manufacturing jobs that would come flooding back to America once the tariffs start working their magic, or the security of Russia making peace with Ukraine in 24 hours etc. It doesn't matter if the vision has any relationship to reality, it's the vision that counts. In some sense the more outlandish the vision the more deeply committed the followers of the visionary become, often at their own personal expense. And once the followers have committed it's nearly impossible to get them back - the hardest thing to admit is that you're wrong. Trumpism is unique in that it combines elements of nihilistic religious devotion and craven individual self-interest, which makes it an undeniably potent and dangerous political force. Trump will inevitably self-destruct, but it won't be because the cheering crowds will suddenly realize that the emperor has no clothes. He'll push the envelope too far. He's done it several times before, but got lucky and survived. His luck will eventually run out, as it always does at some point.    

In the meantime, he will continue to do further damage to the already-deficient and declining level of trust that exists in society. I'm not sure what we can do to restore it at this point. I'm just hoping that it doesn't take a catastrophe to do a re-set.  

Thin Skinned Jews

Jews are as worthy of criticism as anyone else. If they can dish it - and they do that as well as anyone - then they should be able to take it too.

First, let me say that there’s something deeply ironic about what is going on at the top American universities: A purge by the government to ‘cleanse’ the institutions of their antisemitism. It's being done against the administrations by threatening to cancel billions of dollars in federal research grants. Cowering in fear, the faculties appear to be caving one by one to the pressure. It's also being done against individual student activists being accosted by federal goons sometimes wearing ski masks to hide their identities. The students, who are legally in the country, get hauled off for detention, usually to other states, without due process. This purge is using antisemitism as a hammer against free speech and the rule of law, as the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley puts it. The irony of course is that it wasn’t too long ago that many of these same universities practiced discrimination against Jews in a variety of ways, including admission quotas and practices designed to ensure that Jewish students could not participate fully in campus life and organizations. For more on this I recommend a podcast called Gatecrashers. 

Stanley, a child of Holocaust survivors, who has taught at Yale for twelve years and written books on fascism, has publicly announced that he has taken a position to teach next semester at the University of Toronto. He says he will be leaving his home country because life has become untenable for him and his two Jewish African-American children. His move is clearly intended as a political statement as much as a career decision. As an academician, Stanley is appalled at the attack on free speech he is witnessing on campus as well as the craven capitulation of the administrations. But even more, he is angry as a Jew. I suspect he feels a lot like I do. 

Here’s what I find so hard to swallow: Jews have always been sort of experts in the field of self-examination, analysis and criticism. It’s a tradition, part of the Jewish cultural DNA. Which is why witnessing Jews who can dish it out but can’t seem to take it, turns my stomach. I'm talking about the Jews who are cheering on the trump regime's anti-DEI kapos as they go after the universities in the name of protecting Jews on campus. The idea that Jews would support a blatant threat to freedom of speech and the rule of law because of name-calling, or offensive chants, is one obvious point. But also, to side with the likes of trump, who famously dined at Mar-a-lago with neo-Nazi leaders and called them very fine people after they chanted "Jews will not replace us" at their Charlottesville hate rally, makes it even worse. How thin-skinned do you have to be to seek the protection of an unconstitutional, immoral, anti-democratic, felon extortionist because you feel threatened by a bunch of ill-informed, nose-ringed, flag-waving, social-justice warrior kids chanting slogans they barely understand?

Unwise as well. Are we not supposed to think that there won't be an antisemitic backlash against the Jews for getting into bed with the autocrat? In what world are we not expecting that it won't take long before the Jews are blamed for controlling these authoritarian goons? It's the oldest and most enduring antisemitic trope there is.

I'm not naive. This week my youngest daughter who is a first year student at McGill was unable to attend classes on two occasions because she was blockaded from entering the classroom by pro-Palestine protesters. She spoke to her teacher who was standing passively outside the classroom, asking her what she was going to do. The teacher responded by simply saying class was cancelled. My daughter said her impression was that the teacher was sympathetic to the blockade and that's why she didn't demand the protesters be removed by campus security. The McGill administration seems to have learned very little from the debacle of last summer's disruptive and destructive protests, so there's a good chance it'll get worse.

But that isn't a reason to side with the fascist goons trying to quell a basic constitutional right. There's a steep price to pay for cowardice for the sake of expediency. This week another example was the disgraceful settlement with the trump regime announced by the prestigious New York law firm Paul Weiss. The blue chip partnership caved, fearing that if they didn't, their mergers and acquisitions business would suffer because their deals would be refused government regulatory approval. In announcing the settlement, Weiss Chairman Brad Karp invoked the name of the firm's co-founder Simon Rifkind, a revered legal figure. Two of Judge Rifkind's granddaughters, lawyers themselves, took him to task for it in a letter made public. It's really worth reading. Paul Weiss and other 'Jewish' law firms were established at a time when it was not easy for Jews to find work in the legal profession, so they had to strike out on their own. The letter is a reminder that when you bend the knee, you know where you stand.

My body reminds me

My body reminds me that I am my body,

My body is me, as a tree is a tree.

Should I, at times, have a mind to disagree,

My body reminds how it feels to be me.

My body speaks when a thought arises,

How and from where always surprises.

My thought says "move," and my body complies,

Or my body moves 'fore my thought apprises.

My body reminds me of entropy,

A law of nature, a stark decree.

Life is unique, yet nothing is free—

Disorder increases, degree by degree.

A threadbare coat frays at the seams,

A weathered barn sags with rotting beams.

An empire falls with failing regimes,

A dream is a dream—and only a dream.

My body reminds me that I am my body,

My body is me, as a tree is a tree.

Should I, at times, have a mind to disagree,

My body reminds how it feels to be me.

Trump Teaches a Lesson (in Economics, Geography and History)

There's so much to love 

about Trump,

but most of all the way he makes us laugh.

Today it was tariffs,

which some are calling a tax

we pay when we buy things,

but others are not so sure. Trump

says it'll teach those nasty Canadians

for taking advantage of our big

American hearts (and bank accounts).   

And then he shows this chart of import tariff rates

he's 'charging' to other countries,

and on it are a bunch of places

I've never heard of 

so I Googled them:

Heard and McDonald Islands,

off the coast of Antarctica with no inhabitants 

(except seals and penguins)

who get slapped with a 10% tariff;

Svalbard and Jan Mayen,

uninhabited volcanic islands in the Arctic Ocean

get slapped with a 5% tariff;

Norfolk Island, off the coast of Australia,

population 2,000 -

those people must be especially mean to Americans -

gets hit with a 29% tariff; 

somewhere called Réunion,

which is what a family does when they miss each other, 

gets a 37% tariff.

And anyone know where Tokelau is?

Saint-Pierre and Miquelon? They get tariffs too.

Trump has to be a 'stable genius' like he says

to know so much about the world.

Switzerland gets a punishing 31% tariff,

mostly on watches and chocolates I suppose.

I know where Switzerland is

(I actually lived there for a year)

and can't argue with that one.

Switzerland deserves every punishment it gets

for hiding Nazi loot. They are politically neutral,

but everyone knows neutrality is a lie.

It's 'Liberation Day' Trump cheers!

Of course, I think of D-Day, WW2,

how the fascists fascinated us

with their big show of strength,

their tanks and pressed black uniforms,

their death camps and efficiency,

because they were really weak inside,

in their messy hearts,

and it eventually destroyed them.

Hitler was a funny little psychopath,

easy for Charlie Chaplin to parody

in The Great Dictator 

and make us laugh.

Where was I?

Oh yeah, the best teachers make us laugh.

April is National Poetry Month - Floaters

I'm seeing floaters

tiny bubbles dancing 

across my vision field

that no amount of blinking 

will dispel

like dandelion seeds 

suspended permanently 

on a summer breeze.

 

It's the beginning of a new season

according to the web-doctor,

along with flashes of white light 

that I first interpreted 

as headlights reflected by the chrome 

of passing cars 

while I was driving,

but still flickered off and on

at home

in the corner of the bedroom

while my wife was out -

I was in a panic 

and had no one to ask 

if getting old 

is like a hallucination -

cars speeding by, bubbles 

always on the verge of bursting,  

or if it's a symptom of mortality 

settling down over you   

barely perceptible

as dusk,

a gradual blindness

mistaken for 

reality,

and then

I heard the sound of a key 

turning in the front door

I think.

The Connection Between Tariffs and Imperialism

A word about autarky. Autarky is a term related to autocracy, but instead of describing a form of iron-fisted political rule by one person, it relates to economic self-sufficiency. It's essentially a description of the policy that trump seems to be pursuing with the widespread imposition of import tariffs. As he puts it constantly, America has been economically 'ripped off' or 'treated really badly' or 'subsidizing other countries' - if there is one thing that trump has been completely consistent about it's believing he is always a victim. 

But the stated rationale seems to be to encourage international companies who sell product to American consumers to move their production facilities to the United States to create jobs. In theory that makes some sense, and historically tariffs have been used in a more surgical fashion to protect particularly vulnerable domestic industries by raising prices on cheaper goods coming into the market. One recent example is the 100% tariff imposed on imported Chinese electric cars designed to protect American electric car manufacturers. 

Import tariffs have two primary impacts: First they raise prices on imported product to make more expensive domestically produced merchandise more competitive, and second, they raise revenues for the government, like a federal sales tax would. The inflationary effect is why import tariffs have generally been used by government very sparingly. There is a lot of speculation that trump's blanket approach, which he says is aimed at protecting American industries and bringing manufacturing home, is actually meant to maximize government revenues (through his 'Exterior Revenue Service') to offset the cost of continuing his first-term income tax cuts which are scheduled to expire in 2025. One problem is that it's self-contradictory, the inflation generated by tariffs would produce a slowdown in the economy which would result in a drop in revenues from tariffs. Another problem is that an increase in unemployment would necessarily follow, so-called 'stag-flation'. These would be the short term impacts of tariffs felt very soon by Americans. In the medium term, if the policy did succeed in encouraging companies to move their manufacturing facilities to the US - a process that would take at least a half decade or more - the cost of producing domestically is inherently higher than producing overseas and consumers would pay that price.  

In other words, the plan is economically disastrous in both the short and medium term. But that's not the worst of it.

There's a political side to this terrible economic approach. Countries pursuing economic self-suffiency, even if they have established the factories and manpower, require natural resources. They need inputs from other places that have what they don't have. What to do? Can't trade with other countries because that goes against the goal of self-sufficiency. The only answer is to take them. Autarky and Imperialism go hand in glove, hence trump's interest in absorbing Canada and 'buying' Greenland, two places rich in minerals and energy, and why his threats need to be taken deadly seriously. It's not just rhetorical disrespect, or a distraction away from other disastrous headlines like Signalgate, although it's that too. If trump is serious about autarky then he's also serious about subjugating Canada and Greenland, and the sooner we acknowledge it the better.   

Honey I Love you But... part 2

I've received some interesting, thoughtful and helpful responses to my previous post about 'working on your relationship' that I think merit further elucidation and clarification. 

1. The post attempts to shift the frame of reference - to think about relationships, especially intimate ones, in a manner that suggests a different way of understanding and approaching them. I'm not providing any advice, or tips, or rules, because every relationship is completely different, as different as the two individuals involved, and that's fundamental. No two relationships are exactly the same. What works for some will not work for others. I think the better approach is to give people a framework for thinking about their relationship, and let them decide what they need to do to get to a better place, however they define better. One size does not fit all. But what I am arguing is that thinking about your relationship as something that needs tending, as if it's an independent entity, a baby that needs feeding, is fundamentally unhelpful. It suggests that you know what's best for the relationship and the other party does not. That's false. No one knows what is best for a relationship, they only know what is best for them, or rather what they want.    

2. On dissing therapists and therapy: I think therapy is great. I've consulted therapists in the past, both marriage and personal. There is value in therapy, namely exactly what I'm talking about, to change your personal frame of reference. Good therapists provide their clients with new perspectives so they can reconsider their approach and behaviour, and make changes if they wish to. It's all about taking personal responsibility. Therapy is about giving clients options and alternatives to what is not working for them. And again, it respects the bedrock principle that change begins and ends with one person - you.

3. Communication: What therapy is most helpful for is learning the skills of communication. How to express yourself so your partner has a chance to hear what you are saying, and equally important, how to listen so your partner has a chance to expresss him/herself. This is definitely 'relational' meaning it's a dynamic that takes place in the context of a relationship. But I'd argue it's an individual skill, so it fits squarely in the paradigm of taking individual responsibility and self-improvement ie. growing your circle. Good communication skills are transferable and extremely useful in every facet of life. I'd say it's perhaps the essence of relationship therapy, so why not call it 'Communication Therapy' instead.     

4. Getting to 'Yes': Obviously I think relationships can improve - otherwise why bother writing my post -  but the main point is that they change not because you are trying to change them, but rather because you are changing yourself. Tug-of-war relationships are difficult and exhausting, and I argue ultimately likely to fail, because one person is always trying to change the other person, by pulling them over to their side. This does not mean that you can't express your needs and desires to your partner. On the contrary, you must express your needs and desires. But you should not expect your partner to satisfy those desires. You should not be saying I need you to do X or Y (because it's best for the relationship). The expression should always focus on how you feel - I like going for walks and would love for you to join me. If the answer is no, you may feel disappointed, which is normal, but that disappointment is your problem, not your partner's. In this instance, you expressed an honest desire, and they gave an honest answer. The honesty is what is important. No one should be doing anything for the relationship. They should only be doing it for themselves. And sometimes that means doing things you don't necessarily want to do initially, but you will see the value in doing it anyway, and find a way of getting to yes, because you value and care for your partner. Getting to yes means you genuinely and sincerely want to do it, without reservation, for your own reasons. You take full responsibility for your decision. Feeling that you have been forced or pressured into doing something always leads to resentments. Getting to yes, is an internal individual process. In my experience, generosity and opennness comes much more naturally with individuals who are personally content and fulfilled, and so getting to yes is easy. Being resistant to the needs and desires of your partner usually indicates that you are unhappy and signals a need to work on your personal growth.

5. Why bother? If relationships are fundamentally all about individual growth ie. learning how to be honest and true to yourself, why bother with relationships? Why not just go to individual therapy, or spend time in an ashram or ascetic temple where you can meditate in silence all day long? I think there's a place for that. But we are social creatures, we're not made to be alone. And one of the best ways to grow as an individual is precisely in the context of a relationship. You can learn things about yourself in a relationship that you cannot learn on your own. One thing, as mentioned, is communication skills. But more importantly you can only learn about love, trust, generosity, empathy, understanding and so much more that enriches the individual's experience of life in the context of a relationship. Relationships can be individually challenging and present opportunities for growth that are unique, and the deeper the relationship, the more there is to learn. In other words, there are some ways that your circle can grow only in a relationship.  

6. Some relationships don't work, there are no guarantees. This will happen in two possible ways, according to the Venn Diagram. If the nature of the relationship has a tug-of-war dynamic, one or both parties will simply decide to let go of their side of the rope, essentially they will give up. Chances are this comes about from exhaustion, disappointment, resentment, frustration and anger ie. negative feelings ending in recrimination and blame. Imagine a tug-of-war ending when a rope full of tension is suddenly let go. The other type of relationship, the one based on personal growth, is much stronger and more flexible, and has a much better chance of long term success. But sometimes those too can fail. In this case the parties drift apart because they decide their personal growth is better served outside the relationship than within it. Imagine two growing bubbles floating apart. The separation is mutual and has none of the negativity of the tug-of-war. It is an ending based on respect, in which the parties accept that there is no sense trying to hold on to a relationship where one or both parties are unfulfilled and unsatisfied, and the relationship has run its course and needs to end for the sake of personal growth. 

The Rent Collector Audio Book

Dear Friends,

I am happy to say that for the first time, and just in time for the 20th anniversary of its original  publication in 2005, my debut novel The Rent Collector is now available as an audio book. So if you've been holding back all these years from reading The Rent Collector because you're more of a listener than a reader, or were waiting for that long summer car trip, it's just a click away either from Amazon or Audible, thanks to the latest in voice automation technology.

Thanks for listening!

Questions For the Rabbi

Q: What is meant when they say God is the light?

R: It means that without God we cannot see the world.

Q: You mean without God we are in the dark morally-speaking?

R: No, we are literally in the dark. The world cannot be fully seen or experienced for its wonder. Like a flower that cannot be seen with all its colours. Like honey that cannot be tasted for all its sweetness. How can one fully experience creation without acknowledging the presence of the creator?

Q: But people say creation is a process of evolution, through cause and effect. What do people mean when they talk about cause and effect?

R: It means they don’t understand anything.

Q: Why? Isn't everything we know a result of cause and effect?

R: No. Everything has many causes and many effects. If you ask me to show you a desert and I place a single grain of sand in your palm, or even a scoop of sand, have I shown you the desert?

Q: Of course not.

R: It's the same as telling you I can describe the universe by cause and effect. It misses the essential part, and tricks you into believing everything is explainable. A single event at a single moment of time cannot be explained without understanding that it was given birth by everything that exists in the universe. Everything at every moment is composed of the entire universe. It is also what we mean when we say God is everywhere.

Q: If God is everywhere all the time, is God responsible for the bad things that happen?

R: There are no 'bad' things. Just as there are no 'good' things. 

Q: Surely tragedies befall people?

R: The only tragedy is to live in a world defined by 'good' and 'bad'. 

Q: You mean there is no such thing as misfortune?

R: There is only expectation. What we don't expect we call misfortune. What we expect we call fortune. Expectation comes from not living fully in the present moment. Expectation comes from believing that the past indicates the future, and the past and future are real. They are not. 

Q: What then is our purpose?

R: To live in the present as fully as you can.

Q: Are you saying that there is no higher purpose to life?

R: The pursuit of a higher purpose, only serves to take your mind away from living in the reality of the present moment, which is the essence of life. 

Q: It all seems so arbitrary and meaningless.

R: If you say so.

Honey, I Love You But Our Relationship Needs Work

Why do I hate it so much when my wife tells me that we need to work on our relationship? It grates on my nerves, and I answer her sarcastically. I say, collecting rent is enough work for me, I don't need another job. The image above is the product of my request to ChatGPT to draw me a picture of my marriage. I'm kidding (sorta). I asked AI for a cartoon of exactly what is depicted, a Venn Diagram having a tug-of-war. Let me explain. 

The Venn Diagram is, to my mind, the best illustration of any two-party relationship, because it comprises three basic elements, two independent, well-defined, individual parties, and a section in the middle shaped by an overlap. The size and content of the overlap is what defines everything the parties have in common ie. ‘the relationship’. A Venn Diagram illustrates many aspects of a relationship in a helpful, concise way. 

First, it shows that every relationship is actually just made up of two defined individuals (circles). I know many billions in relationship therapy has been spent, and many millions of people have been certified as relationship counsellors, but actually there is no such thing as 'the relationship' per se, at least not as an independent entity. It’s just a configuration of the two circles. The relationship does not need scrutiny or thinking about, like a baby or a pet that needs feeding. It's a byproduct of two people interacting, an expression of commonalities of individual values, objectives and desires. 

Second, the Venn Diagram suggests that there are two ways to change the size and content of the area of overlap. One way is for one party to pull the other party over to their side. In this dynamic - familiar to partnerships where a lot is at stake like in a marriage - it becomes a kind of tug-of-war. Each person is trying to bring the other person over to their side, to their way of thinking, to their point of view, so the overlap includes more of their circle. These types of partnerships tend to be contentious, the kind in which people talk a lot about 'compromise' and 'work' for the sake of 'the relationship'. When the overlap gets bigger, in this instance, it also gets lopsided, favouring one side over the other. A one-sided overlap is an out of balance partnership that is unstable and usually unsustainable. They're energy-draining and exhausting to the individual parties, and foster resentment and disappointment in one party or both, as the parties tug back and forth. 

The alternative way to increase the size and content of the overlap - the only one I'd argue that is sustainable and balanced - is a partnership that expands because one, or better both, of the individual circles gets bigger on their own. It's not based on a tug-of-war of two rigidly defined circles trying to pull one circle over to the other. Instead, it's more like two permeable bubbles swelling with air. It doesn't treat the relationship as a separate entity requiring 'attention' and 'work', but rather as a natural byproduct of individual emotional, intellectual and spiritual growth. 

Women seem to have more trouble with this concept than men. They are biologically and genetically designed to nurture, and so tend to regard relationships like a child, as a separate entity requiring attention. Plus, traditionally women have been brought up and socialized to think of the needs of others before their own. So much so, that when they feel a need to pay attention to their own needs, they often have to compete with feelings of guilt. It’s part of the reason they invent terms like 'self-care' which gives them a permission structure to attend to their own needs since it's a type of 'caring'. Guilt-free selfishness comes much more naturally to men.         

Mahatma Gandhi reportedly said, "If you want to change the world, start with yourself." I think the same idea works for partnerships. Happy, self-respecting, contented and fulfilled individuals, make better partners. Invariably, if one partner is pressuring another partner to take action 'for the relationship', what they actually mean is 'it's what I want' ie. a tug of the Venn Diagram in my direction, the commonalities should include more of my circle. They may think that saying it's 'for the relationship' gives their individual desire the moral stamp of approval ie. it's not 'selfish'. But actually that's what it is, which is perfectly okay. The only honest approach to a better relationship is through each partner taking full responsibility for their own emotional well-being and actions. The focus should never be on the other party or 'the relationship' - a signal that you are trying to externalize, and avoid personal responsibility. The best relationships are ‘selfish’ ones, in the sense that you are being true to your own needs and desires, to both yourself and to your partner. If there's 'work' to do it's on oneself, and each partner should give the other partner the time, support and understanding required.   

Inferiority Complex as Foreign Policy

Wherever people interact there is politics, from friends and families, to community organizations and businesses, to municipal, national, regional and international affairs. And politics always overlaps, one area of political interaction effects other areas. It's part of what makes politics so difficult to understand and predict. It's literally like trying to understand 20-dimensional chess. Most political analysts have their analytical hands full just studying one level of the chessboard. But an accurate description would have to include the interaction of multiple levels because a move at one level impacts the game at other levels. Even talking about the highest level of politics, national leaders, to understand what’s going on you need some view of the lowest level, interpersonal politics. For trump, personal animus and petty vengefulness plays an outsized role in his decision making, and a major reason why he is so unfit for his job. His personal agenda, flaws and vulnerabilities are central to understanding every action affecting millions of people.  

Let's step back and consider two levels of political interaction: national and international. Sometimes they are at odds and sometimes they are more in sync. Under responsive governance, the policies and activities of foreign policy support and reinforce domestic policy. It's one way that we know government is functional. American foreign policy since World War 2 has been phenomenally successful in this respect. It’s a reason America has become the most powerful and prosperous country the world has ever known. And with the ascendancy of America, virtually every region of the world has benefitted. Today, there are fewer people living in poverty than ever, people live longer and healthier, and they are more educated, all largely due to American efforts and investment. This is not an expression of the goodness of American hearts. It comes from American leadership recognizing that the best way to achieve American prosperity at home is to pursue a secure global marketplace. They understood, until trump, that the zero-sum politics of conquest and subjugation, which is how it worked for most of human history, was outmoded and ineffective, not to mention cruel and inhumane.  

American hegemony and efforts to establish open markets and international integration meant that competition would be chiefly economic instead of military. In one of the great ironies of the past half century, America has been so successful at promoting its interests, that in doing so, it has managed to create its principal economic rival, China. For its part, China has transformed from an economic and political backwater into a powerhouse and in the process demonstrated how an authoritarian government can be domestically restrictive while pursuing liberal trade policies that generates wealth for its citizen. Interestingly, the flight of Chinese wealth out of China to the west indicates that once they've achieved a certain level of prosperity, Chinese citizens don't trust their government to allow them to keep it. It’s a truism that economic prosperity fosters political demand for rights. Absent that, people seek alternatives. In fairness to the Chinese, even in the west, wealth moves offshore to avoid taxation. 

What does the current US approach to foreign policy tell us about how functional the government is? At least what we can discern as ‘foreign policy’ from looking at recent actions, namely, the widespread imposition of import tariffs, the manic push to end the war in Ukraine at all costs, the green light given to Israel to do whatever it wants in Gaza, and the decision to threaten most traditional strategic alliances. Some have called it protectionist or isolationist, and others have called it predatory. No matter how you label it, one thing that it most certainly is, is idiosyncratic and incoherent. If it's a reflection of anything, it's certainly not policy or ideology. It can only be understood in terms of the psychology of one person. When trump says 'the world has taken advantage of us' it's hard to see how he is expressing anything other than his personal feelings when you consider that the US is unquestionably the most powerful and prosperous country that has ever existed in human history. How did it get that way if it was being taken advantage of all this time? There is no conceivable reason America should not believe in itself and its ability to compete and succeed, and yet this inferiority complex masquerading as a foreign policy seems to be its guiding principle under trump.

The greatest tragedy is that this foreign policy shaped by the whims and idiosyncrasies of one person, will come at the expense mainly of American citizens. It's a case of foreign policy and domestic policy, which is coherent insofar as it is determined by ideology (read: Project 2025), being out of sync. It's also a return to a zero-sum, conquest/subjugation view of politics, which makes the whole world a riskier, more dangerous place.

Morality Check: The Tragic Consequences Of Choosing Weak Leaders

There is no question in my mind that if trump had been president in 1941, there is no way the US would have entered WW2, which means that he would have sided either passively or actively with the Nazis. The evidence is overwhelming for this kind of pure speculation. Trump is nothing if not transparent. Whether it's his unprincipled haphazard transactional approach to negotiations, his knee-jerk predatory 'America First' reflex, or his blatant fondness for tyrants. He has no pretense to alliances based on common values. If trump can be said to believe in anything it’s the authority of the strongman, based on the notion that might (be it military, political or economic) makes right. I'd go so far as to say that his support for Hitler would have been active. He would have told Hitler, Europe is yours, North America ours. That trump would have sided with the Nazis should be disqualifying for any person with a shred of morality or human decency (especially so for any Jew).

If trump believes in anything, it's strength, because he is so profoundly psychologically weak, intellectually, emotionally, and character-wise. It's a major reason he cannot side with Zelensky, he perceives him as weak, and trump can never associate himself with perceived weakness. The basic impulse of a psychologically weak individual is to speak in grandiose terms, using hyperbolic, exaggerated language, and lying liberally to mask their weakness. They also need constant reassurance and validation, which in trump's case, comes from cheering campaign rally crowds and constant media attention. Weakness also leads to bullying those perceived to be weaker, which is why trump has focused on disrespecting and attacking Canada economically and rhetorically. 

Most dangerously, psychological weakness drives a need to break things and destroy in order to demonstrate (to oneself as much as to others) strength. The strong, confident, courageous, skilled, experienced leader builds, while the weak, vulnerable, unskilled, incompetent leader destroys. Moreover, weakness leads to a compulsion toward vicariousness ie. associating with strength that you do not possess yourself. Again, this is a source of trump's attraction to Putin, Orban, Xi, Erdogan and Kim, and why he would have certainly sided with Mussolini and Hitler. 

In addition to a compulsion to be destructive, inner weakness makes a leader easily manipulated. He is prone to flattery and compliments, which from a strongman is desperately craved and feels like validation, but from a perceived weaker party will provoke self-awareness and consequently self-loathing which leads to disdain. This means that getting what you want from trump starts with how you are perceived by him, which is easy to see since he is so transparent. Flattery works if you are stronger, resistance if you are weaker. This is why Justin Trudeau's fatal mistake was to run down to Mar-a-lago when summoned by trump. And why Mexico's Claudia Scheinbaum, who keeps a distance and stands up to him rhetorically, appears to be more successful dealing with trump. 

Inner weakness like trump's means he will be entirely focused on satisfying immediate emotional needs, and incapable of achieving any goal that requires strategic thinking and long-term planning. When trump said he will solve the Ukraine War and Gaza in 24 hours, it was a reflection of this. Everything to trump needs to happen quickly, because he is not capable of sustained attention to complex matters. In any negotiation, time is always trump's enemy before he loses interest, and in the case of Ukraine, trump is certainly no match for Putin, and Putin knows it. Putin knows that trump needs his approval, and will side with him against Zelensky in every instance. All Putin needs to do is feed trump excuses for blaming Zelensky, which he will readily accept. In trump's mind the aggressor is never to blame because aggression indicates strength. Trump is not capable of pressuring Putin for fear of losing his approval. On the contrary, he will take at face value everything Putin tells him, to show Putin he's a member of the club. Putin will string him along, maybe throw trump the odd meaningless bone, which trump will trumpet as progress. It can never occur to trump that supporting Zelensky fully against Putin is actually the only way to get Putin's respect and force him to the table for good faith negotiations. In trump's mind Putin needs to win and Zelensky needs to capitulate, because every negotiation is zero-sum, there is a clear winner and a clear loser. For trump, Putin has all the cards, as he said. What Zelensky, should have said to trump when they met in the Oval Office was, "But you have cards too. Why are you so ready to fold them?"  

Purim and AI

I had an epiphany while listening to the reading of Megillat Esther (The Book of Esther) this Purim. But first I got mad. 

Before the reading, the rabbi made some preliminary comments. He asked, what does ‘megillah’ mean? Someone called out, 'a story!' Yes, but more specifically, “something that is revealed.” The Rabbi then asked, what does ‘Esther’ mean? No responses. Answer: ‘That which is hidden’. So together the reading of Megillat Esther means the revelation of that which is hidden. What this refers to is the fact that in the story the heroine’s identity as a Jew is hidden from the king, and in the penultimate dramatic scene, is revealed in order to save the Jewish people. The story is a tale of intrigue, hidden agendas, manipulation, the devious machinations of power, events getting flipped on their head, and ultimately salvation. In other words, it has all the elements of a gripping soap opera. It’s always been my favourite story for that reason, but mostly because it also has an element of delicious biting social satire. With the exception of Mordechai, Esther’s heroic uncle who cleverly masterminds a plan to save the Jews, the main male characters in the story, the clownish King Ahashverus, and his evil advisor Haman, are crass and buffoonish. The women, in contrast, are strong, clever and manipulative. From Vashti, the queen who defies the king and sets the tone of the story by bravely suffering consequences for it, to Zeresh, the wife of Haman who cajoles her husband into his scheme, and of course the heroine Esther. The men think they are the ‘Masters of their own House’ as the king decrees, but it’s actually the women who are cleverly calling all the shots. At a time when patriarchy dominated the social order, The Book of Esther has to be one of the first examples of subversive feminist literature.  

But my interpretation is admittedly a modern one. The rabbis focus their understanding on the hand of God as the story’s real hidden actor. For a text at the center of a religious celebration of salvation it is odd that the Almighty is never actually mentioned. And this, according the rabbis, is meant to illustrate how God operates in human events. Our rabbi, in his prefatory comments, then did what rabbi’s tend to do, he pivoted to current events. And that’s when I got mad. 

“One Jewish chicken,” he said. “That’s all that was killed when the Ayatollahs of Iran sent a barrage of missiles against Israel. Hundreds of rockets, and not a single Jew killed. If that’s not the Almighty’s hidden hand sparing Jewish lives, I don’t know what is.”

I said, (to myself not to be disrespectful), yeah and where was the Almighty’s hidden hand on October 7th? If the next thing he says is that the slaughter, rapes and hostage-taking was all part of the Divine plan, I might have to leave (or else I might vomit next to the ark). I have no problem with people who have faith in an omnipotent Creator, just don’t come up with excuses for Him when He lets incomprehensible tragedy happen. And if you’re going to argue that he is merciful and cares about what happens to his children, He’s got plenty to answer for (see: the Holocaust).  

But that wasn’t my epiphany. As I stewed in my moral outrage while the rabbi sang from the Book of Esther, the jovial mood that we’re supposed to feel on Purim now ruined, it suddenly hit me. If there is a hidden story within this story, a hidden force at work that we are not aware of, maybe the best analogy to our current moment is AI. While the clueless politicians dither, and their craven supporters sit  blithely by, perhaps the most powerful and manipulative force that has ever existed is determining human events in ways we cannot fully grasp. The hidden hand of AI is generating the algorithms that influence the information we are exposed to which shapes our opinions and decisions every day. The influence is so encompassing and profound that we are unaware of it. 

And then my mind turned to the film Ex-Machina, which I watched a couple of weeks ago and haven’t stopped thinking about. I immediately saw connections between Ex-Machina and the Book of Esther. In the film, the heroine is Ava, an anatomically correct, beautiful, alluring robot equipped with AI. Ava is the latest version of female robots initially created to satisfy the urges and desires of their ego-maniacal male creator. The fragile male ego and his vulnerability to the power of sexual seduction is also a main theme. While the storyline of the film is a 'Turing Test' to see if Ava's intelligence can equal a human's, in the end, it's the female robot, using her attributes and guile who outsmarts and turns the tables on the men. It's essentially exactly what happens in the Book of Esther. But even deeper, the movie (released in 2014) demonstrates how generative recursive AI not only surpasses human intelligence but can become so advanced as to manipulate us into thinking that we aren’t being manipulated.

And that’s what happens in the Purim story. The question at the heart of the story is, who is really in control? According to the religious view, it's the Almighty that guides events, only no one knows it. In Ex-Machina replace the Almighty with AI (which is omniscient). In the Megillah, the tables are turned on the evildoers. I fear the ending of the modern day version might not turn out so well. 

Trump is already an (Economic) War Criminal - Canada should petition the ICJ

Donald Trump explicitly stated that his economic warfare against Canada was intended to force annexation, this could be considered aggression and therefore illegal under international law.

Key Legal Principles Violated:

United Nations Charter (1945) – Article 2(4) Prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

While economic measures (such as sanctions or trade restrictions) are not explicitly considered "force" in the military sense, if they are intended to compel political submission or territorial annexation, they could violate this provision.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (Definition of Aggression, 1974) Defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state." However, it also recognizes that non-military coercion could amount to aggression if it forces political submission.

Customary International Law:

Economic coercion with the intent to undermine or eliminate a nation's sovereignty could be seen as a violation of the principle of non-intervention. Past examples (e.g., sanctions against Cuba, Iran) were aggressive but did not seek annexation—so Trump's statement could set a new precedent.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)

Canada is a sovereign state with defined borders. Economic aggression intended to remove its sovereignty would violate the core principles of statehood.

Would This Be Prosecuted?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could be approached for a ruling on economic aggression, though enforcement would depend on political will.

Conclusion:

If Trump openly admits that his economic war on Canada is intended to annex it, this could be seen as economic aggression, violating Canada’s sovereignty under international law. While prosecution would be complex, such statements could invite international condemnation, sanctions, and potential legal action at the ICJ.

Trump's Auto-Mart

So yesterday was a marquee day in the presidency of the United States. The richest man in the world who bankrolled the re-election campaign of the current President, was seen standing in front of the White House with his 5-year-old child (his Mini-Me, or infantile alter-ego), a number of shiny Tesla models and the President of the United States who was shamelessly shilling the benefits of Musk's vehicles for the assembled cameras like the proverbial (used) car salesman. 

It was a perfect summation of where we are at. The spectacle demonstrated:

1. How trump has debased the office of the POTUS.

2. How the POTUS is for sale.

3. How the POTUS is in the pocket, bought and paid for, by the richest man in the world.

4. How pathetic the media is for allowing themselves to be used. 

 

The Digital Cult and the Challenge of Learning To Live With Uncertainty

Victor Frankl was right. The one thing that unites all of humanity, besides the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and safety, is the need for meaning. I'd argue we can live without everything else, including love, as unpleasant as that would be. But we can't live without meaning and a sense that life has purpose. And ultimately, having a sense of meaning and purpose is up to us. Religious people will try to convince you that life is inherently purposeful because the Creator imbues it with purpose, otherwise why would He/She/It have bothered creating conscious beings who sought life's purpose - to come to the realization that there is a Creator God. If life is imbued with Divine purpose why make it so difficult to figure out? Ah, they will say, it's the process that gives life meaning, and the reason we have conscious freewill. If it was easy, life would be meaningless. So, life is inherently meaningful, but it's up to us to figure that out, which is what gives it meaning? A bit of a head scratcher if you ask me.    

The bottom line, and the only thing we can be sure of, is that if there is a meaning to life, it's up to us to figure out. And the Creator, if there is one, is the kind to throw all kinds of curveballs at us; unimaginable tragedies, cruel twists of fate, diseases, natural disasters, traumas etc. which, according to the faithful constitute tests, and according to the rest of us constitute evidence that life is fundamentally arbitrary. And that's what Victor Frankl got right. Whether you are looking for it in a sacred book, a spiritual tradition, or the vicissitudes of daily life and experience, the search for meaning is a part of human nature. 

If there is one thing that the advent of the internet has shown, it's that we have an insatiable need for meaning. Our addiction to looking for answers and certainty has fueled the scourge of disinformation, mistrust and conspiracy online. It's as if we created an electronic trough with an endless supply of informational slop for gluttonous pigs to feed. I remember when people talked about the internet in utopian terms. It would be a place where global connection would foster knowledge and harmony and a golden age of humanity. It did the exact opposite. What we learned from this greatest unregulated experiment in human history is that our need for meaning makes us vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, and we were now susceptible in an unprecedented way. The people who controlled the means of mass-manipulation could use it to shape the political and economic decisions made by entire societies.  

The power of the internet is unprecedented as a tool of mass-deception. It shows us how vulnerable each of us is to mind-control and brainwashing - which we call the informational 'bubble' or 'silo'.  I believe it's not so benign as 'bubble' or 'silo'.  It's far more encompassing to our lives. Most of us have joined a digital cult. Our digital self defines who we are within a virtual space that provides us with a sense of security, comfort, and control. It feeds us reinforcing information that shapes our thinking and defines our social network and activity. If my characterization is correct, then what is needed to free us, is a type of de-programming. 

The attraction of a cult is that it answers our basic need for security and meaning. The antidote must involve getting comfortable with the notion of uncertainty. No one likes uncertainty. That’s a hard sell. But maybe that’s the real challenge of modern life—choosing to accept ambiguity rather than latching onto convenient, easy answers and comforting illusions. In a world in which we are bombarded with an unending and constant barrage of disinformation, learning to live with uncertainty is even more daunting, but it's also ultimately the only source of empowerment and resilience. It's saying, I don't have to run for cover in an algorithmic shelter that panders to my predilections and tastes. I can stand on my own two feet and seek truth. It takes stamina and courage to break free from the cult's spell.   

I am reading a book of questions to the guru Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu spiritual teacher. In it, the questioner observes that we live in a universe of cause and effect, and therefore there is certainty, if only the cause(s) can be identified. I think the question relates to this need for answers which makes us susceptible to deception and manipulation. The guru answers, that cause and effect are part of the illusion, just as time, past and future, is illusory - we only exist in the everpresent now, the moment. The rest is a construct of mind. In fact, the moment in which we live comprises infinite 'causes', and to try to determine the cause, or any specific number of causes, speaks to the nature of the mind's illusion. Reality, as we experience it and relate to our place in it, should be understood as the manifestation of the infinite universe. Anything less, is like settling for a partial, easy answer.   

P.S.

Sometimes it's sudden, 

without warning,

sometimes it's in view,

a tape snap

at the finish line.

Sometimes by accident,

negligence, incompetence.

Sometimes by intent.

Technical—pilot error,

gravity taking hold of helpless

passengers yanked

back to the ground.

Targeted 

as a drone strike.

Sometimes it's public, 

a journalist's beheading for the cameras.

Sometimes private, 

a back-alley knife

through the ribs,

a club to the back

of the skull.

Usually it's cruelly intimate, 

a surrounded hospital bed, 

watching, waiting,

signing off

after Sincerely, 

Yours Truly,

As Always,

Best Regards,

P.S.

of chronic, unceasing pain,

tumors bloomed in flesh

like mushrooms 

in damp rotting wood,

hands and legs useless

as stone,

brain morphine-addled,

faces like bats flitting

in a dark tunnel —

death is 

a torchlight

for the only way out.

The Art of the Peace Deal: A Word

Ukraine is fighting for its survival. There is no greater motivation to fight than for your survival. Survival is not negotiable. That should be obvious. By siding with Putin, trump has made Zelensky more desperate to fight on, and at the same time given Putin every reason not to negotiate because he now has the decisive upper hand. Trump could not have made a better move to push the parties away from the negotiating table. What he should have done is fortified Ukraine. Armed them to the teeth. That would have forced Putin to realize that the best he could hope for was a stalemate. Let's be clear it's Putin who will decide when it's time to negotiate, not Zelensky, because for Zelensky the war is existential, while for Putin it's a war of choice. Trump has it backwards. As usual, he doesn't have a clue. Putin is playing him like a fiddle. That much can't be more obvious, to everyone but trump. 

___________________________

P.S.

I put the above paragraph in ChatGPT. Here is AI's response:

You're absolutely right that Ukraine’s fight is existential, while for Putin, it’s a war of ambition. That asymmetry means that Ukraine has no choice but to keep fighting, while Putin can decide at any moment whether to press on or negotiate—if he sees it in his best interest.

By signaling that U.S. support for Ukraine is wavering, Trump has emboldened Putin. If Putin believes time is on his side, why would he negotiate? He’ll keep grinding forward, hoping Ukraine collapses from exhaustion or that Western support fractures entirely. On the other hand, if Ukraine were heavily armed and fortified, Putin would have to accept that his best outcome is a frozen conflict, much like the Korean War ended in an armistice.

Trump fundamentally misunderstands leverage. He thinks denying Ukraine weapons will force negotiations when it does the opposite—it convinces Putin that victory is within reach. That’s not strategy; that’s capitulation.

Can't disagree with superior intelligence.

Irony Is Dead

My favourite quote of last week from trump was during his fake 'cabinet meeting/press conference' presided over by Elon Musk, as the stupified sycophantic Secretaries sat by in dumbfounded silence, when trump called the government "bloated, fat and disgusting." Another window into the demented, childish way his mind works. It's projection.

This was before the debacle of the Oval meeting with Zelensky, after which a celebratory Kremlin statement was released saying that they believed American foreign policy now "shares our vision." I immediately thought about how trump has spent his entire political career calling the Democrats, "Communists" and "Socialists." Who are the Communists now? Irony is dead. 

So much ink has been spilled in the last 48 hours on the significance of what happened in the Oval meeting. Does it mean an end to American foreign policy as we have known it since the end of WW2? Does it mean an end to our international alliances? Does it mean an end to the rules-based international order that America established? Does it mean America is now aligned with the Kremlin? It may or may not mean all of those things. 

But I'm certain of one thing, trump isn't thinking about any of those things, at least not in the larger sense of having a true understanding of ramifications and consequences. He doesn't care. As I always say, he's incapable of thinking beyond the present moment. Malignant narcissists typically are. It's only ever about satisfying immediate emotional needs. The most revealing moment in the Oval meeting with Zelensky was when trump said, "You're gambling with World War 3." Of course, Zelensky isn't gambling with WW3. Like he answered, "It's not a game (to us)." He's simply trying to defend his country against annihilation. It's trump who is playing the World War 3 'game' by appeasing a tyrant who has designs on expansion. Projection again.   

It's not that hard to understand what happened in the Oval: 

1. Trump viscerally hates Zelensky. He hates him for causing his first impeachment. That became clear when trump talked about "the phony Russsia, Russia, Russia scam" that Putin, like him, has "endured." He blames Zelensky. As a snob, trump is also probably viscerally repelled by Zelensky's unrefined appearance. He finds his very presence insulting, the way a rich person would find the presence of a poor person. Made all the worse, by the fact that Zelensky is admired and revered all around the world as a hero. Trump is jealous of that, and publicly showing-up the hero, making him be 'thankful', would in trump's warped mind, elevate him.

2. Trump aimed to publicly 'humble' Zelensky because he thinks that's the way to bully him into 'making peace'. He perceives Putin as the strong party and Zelensky as the weak party ("without cards"). The world is divided between the strong and the weak, might makes right, in trump's craven mind. He thinks like a mob boss carving up the streets as 'territory' for drug dealing and a protection racket. A 'peace' can only be reached by forcing the weak party to capitulate to the strong party, or let them "fight it out." It's literally a brutish gangster's view of international relations, like Putin's. Which makes JD Vance's comment about Zelensky not wanting a 'diplomatic solution' doubly ironic. It's actually trump who doesn't believe in diplomacy. Projection again.

3. Trump's way of doing foreign policy, is, as everyone has been saying for the last 9 years transactional. But it's transactional not in the sense of national interests being pursued. Trump is not capable of thinking of the national interest, or rather, he can not distinguish the national interest from his immediate personal interest. 'Friend' or 'foe' to him is determined by an exchange that will benefit him in the moment. Zelensky did not flatter trump (like Starmer did), and would not back down when challenged. This unnerved trump, and Vance's intervention, which I don't believe was premeditated, was him seizing an opportunity to come to the defence of his fragile ego-harmed boss. It was Vance burnishing himself in trump's eyes, demonstrating the extent of his loyalty.   

Will the meeting have long-term consequences? Undoubtedly. In the sense that countries all around the world are now quite sure that as long as trump is in office, and is not reined in by his party or Congress, they cannot count on America to be guided by a foreign policy based on common values and principles. It's quite literally based on whatever the demented child-king wants at any moment. For now, the Nobel Peace Prize is off the table, so trump went golfing, again. He's lost interest. Hopefully that pattern will hold, so the damage he does is minimized.  

The Cycle of Excess and Restraint

I have a big-picture perspective, always searching for patterns in small details. As I age and my personal future recedes into an expansive past, seeing history’s larger rhythms feels even more natural. I ask myself: What have I been a part of? What has led us to this moment? Are there historical antecedents? Is there a pattern?

I believe history follows the rhythm of human nature—a cycle of excess and restraint. Humans push ideas, fashions, inventions, and political movements to excess before realizing the need for restraint. This dynamic plays out in politics as the pendulum swings between liberalism and conservatism, capitalism and socialism. Each can become excessive and require correction.

Periods of excess are marked by individualism, self-enrichment, and unregulated freedoms. Society prioritizes individual rights over responsibilities, wealth over community, and patriotism as the pursuit of personal gain free from state interference. Periods of restraint, in contrast, emphasize social responsibility, community well-being, and a patriotism grounded in collective good.

Democracy, like all political and economic systems, moderates this cycle, allowing different expressions of excess and restraint depending on its structure. American democracy, an especially open system, exhibits a roughly 100-year cycle.

The current cycle of excess and restraint in America is as follows:

1. Industrial Revolution & Mass Migration (Late 19th Century) – Rapid economic growth creates vast opportunities but also deep inequalities.

2. The Gilded Age & The Roaring Twenties – Wealth concentrates among elites, government serves plutocrats, and society indulges in excess. Hyper-partisan “yellow journalism” thrives, spreading sensational disinformation.

3. Great Depression & WWII (1930s–1940s) – Economic collapse and global conflict end the excess, ushering in a period of collective sacrifice and renewed values.

4. Post-War Restraint (1950s–1970s) – The wartime generation prioritizes national unity, social programs, and global leadership. Civil rights movements and social justice initiatives expand democratic ideals.

5. Shift to Excess (1980s–1990s) – Reaganomics, financial deregulation, and paper wealth fuel a return to greed and individualism. American values shift from idealism to lifestyle indulgence.

6. Economic Instability & Political Cynicism (2000s–2010s) – Wage stagnation and growing inequality define the era. The dot-com crash, the 2008 financial crisis, and endless wars undermine public trust. Cynicism replaces civic responsibility.

7. New Gilded Age (2020s) – Billionaire oligarchs wield political power. Social media functions as modern yellow journalism, spreading disinformation. Trust in government, courts, and democracy erodes. America retreats from global leadership.

8. Impending Upheaval – Just as the first Gilded Age collapsed into the Great Depression and World War, today’s excess is likely to end in turmoil. The question is: what form will it take?

History suggests that cycles of excess always give way to restraint, but the transition is never smooth. The challenge now is whether America can enter a new period of restraint through reform—or whether crisis will force the shift.

Gene Hackman (1930-2025)

My Gene Hackman story. 

As the building manager at 99 Chabanel from 1995 until 2015, occasionally strange, exciting things happened. One of the most exciting things to ever happen, occurred around 1999-2000 when I received a request from a film production company looking for a location to shoot a few scenes of an upcoming movie. They were looking for a 'garment building' that had office decor in the style of the 1960s or 70s. My mind immediately went to the offices of Sample Manufacturing Corporation on the 3rd floor, my grandfather Sam's company which shut its doors in 1989. The office decor, which he had designed himself, was unique. The walls were entirely panelled in stained imported wood, and the floors were carpeted. Each executive office had an en-suite bathroom decorated in Italian ceramic. Those were the days when the dress company owners came to work wearing three-piece suits and ties, had their nails manicured and hair coiffed at the local barber on a weekly basis, and their offices had built-in wet bars for 'entertaining' clients. Fortunately, my grandad's former offices were currently vacant and remained untouched and completely intact. The film rep and I toured the building and she took photos of various potential locations.  

It was probably a week or two later that I got a call from the location rep saying that the Director was interested in using our building for the film. I wasn't sure I understood what we were getting into at that point. The building was almost completely occupied with about 85 industrial tenants. I was told that the filming would require not just use of the location for filming, but also the entire 100-car parking lot that we owned adjacent to the building for trucks and trailers, as well as an additional space for a makeshift cafeteria where the crew could eat and hang out, and the exclusive use of one passenger elevator. The filming was to take place during regular business hours when the building was bustling with commercial activity. Suffice to say I had misgivings that it was feasible. At the same time, I was really excited that the building might be used in a Hollywood film and didn't want to refuse. Imagine how much more excited I got when I finally asked for more information about the production. The film was called Heist. It was written and directed by David Mamet and was starring Gene Hackman, Danny Devito, Delroy Lindo and Sam Rockwell among others. I knew of David Mamet from American Buffalo and Glengarry Glen Ross, one of my all time favourite films. Hackman was a screen legend of course, and Devito was star of the TV show Taxi which I grew up with. I could not believe that I might get a chance to meet them. 

Notwithstanding how disruptive the filming would be - someone in real estate who had experience with film crews warned me that it was like having an invading army in your midst - I was determined to make it happen. It was only one week of inconvenience, and I figured I could get 'buy-in' from the tenants if I could get them as excited about it as I was. I also had to convince the building owners that it was feasible, and more importantly profitable. I got the owners to agree by telling them we could ask a crazy price. I think it was around $20,000 for a week of rental, which seemed ludicrously high. To my amazement the producers agreed to the amount without negotiation. Later, as I started receiving more and more demand for film location spaces from the buildings that I managed, I realized that we'd practically given away our location for the price we asked. Film companies paid exorbitant sums because finding a suitable location was almost always cheaper than having to build one. Once the rental contract was signed, I went around the building visiting each tenant individually to tell them the exciting news; a Hollywood film was being filmed in 99, it would only be for a few days, and the inconveniences would be minor. Most of my tenants were unmoved. They just wanted assurance from the management that their business activities would not be interrupted. A few of the tenants, movie fans like me, were enthusiastic and wanted to know if they could meet the stars. I should also mention that the film crew was extremely accommodating when I explained to them that this was a busy commercial building and we'd have to work together to ensure that the disturbance to the tenants was kept to a minimum. They reassured me saying they had plenty of experience filming in busy public areas.   

The week of the filmshoot was indeed like an army invading. There were about 50 people in the crew. They ran thick electrical cables through the hallways, rolled equipment back and forth through the corridors, and filled the parking lot with trucks and trailers for equipment, props, make-up and costumes, various services, and of course the actors. One passenger elevator (out of three) was commandeered. I was worried that this was going to get out of hand. It was a couple of days of preparation, a day or two of filming, and another day or two afterward for restoring the location and facilities back to their original condition. In the end, it all went off without a hitch. They did do a bit of irreparable damage to Grandpa Sam's office when the scene they were filming required one actor to throw a filing cabinet against the wall and it broke the wood panelling. But we were handsomely compensated for the damage without dispute - they obviously knew they had gotten a major bargain on the location. 

I made myself conspicuous during the set-up period, introducing myself to many of the crew members, and making sure that everything was proceeding smoothly. The day of the filmshoot the location manager, with whom I had been dealing, introduced me to David Mamet who was as friendly as could be. He seemed to love being in a Montreal garment building and appreciated the history it embodied. I told him the story of my grandfather's company and about the office he was using, which was in fact where my grandfather had sat behind a large mahogany desk helming his company only a decade earlier. Talking to Mamet felt as natural as talking to a member of the family - the Jewish aspect of Chabanel's story was particularly interesting to him. Mamet invited me to hang around while scenes were being shot, but I declined, not wanting to intrude on their work.   

The next day, which I knew would be the last day of shooting, I didn't go on the set, but instead, at around lunchtime, made my way to the space on the second floor that the crew was using for their commissary. I was quietly hoping to catch a glimpse of the actors, and to bump into the Director again. The night before I decided that I would give Mamet an inscribed copy of a book that I had recently co-edited, an anthology of poems written about Jerusalem by Canadian poets (Montreal son Leonard Cohen among others) in honour of the city's tri-millenium. Our conversation the day before made me comfortable enough to think that Mamet might find our modest publication interesting. Book in hand, I did see Mamet. We chatted briefly and I gave him the book which he seemed to appreciate. I had been told that the big Hollywood stars generally ate in their trailers, not with the crew. Devito ate in private, although when he left his trailer in the parking lot to go to the set, he didn't use the back staircase to avoid causing a stir. He did the exact opposite, walking through the restaurant at lunchtime when every table was occupied. People cheered when they noticed him, and he waved back with a big smile. Customers called him over to take pictures, which he was more than happy to do. Later, several of my tenants displayed pictures taken with Devito on their office walls. I actually never met him myself. 

Because I'd heard that the big stars ate in their trailers, I didn't have much hope of meeting any of the other actors as I wandered through the commissary after chatting briefly with Mamet. I surveyed the room quickly, and spotted him, though I wasn't sure. A middle aged man sitting at one of the long cafeteria tables, eating his lunch, all alone. I could barely believe my eyes. It was Gene Hackman. The tables all around him were filled with the crew talking, but he was completely by himself, almost unnoticeable. I debated with myself whether I should approach him. Clearly, he wanted to eat in peace. How could I not say something? It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I stepped up to his table with apologies for bothering him. He looked up at me. I introduced myself in my official capacity as the building manager, and said that I wanted to welcome him, and hoped he was enjoying his time working here. I felt like a goofball, a blubbering starstruck fan, but didn't want to show it. He smiled kindly, said two words thanking me, and returned to eating his meal, alone. I quietly retreated back into the halls of the building, feeling a bit embarrassed, like I'd just violated some unspoken rule ie. you don't feed the zoo animals, and you never talk to Gene Hackman during lunch break at work. 

That's it. My entirely unremarkable, somewhat uncomfortable, brush with Hollywood greatness. And from everything I've heard and read about Hackman since, that's exactly how he was with everyone. Ordinary. Unremarkable. He just wanted to be treated like another member of the crew doing his job. And if you were starstruck by his presence, you were a fool, and made to feel like one (though not maliciously). I wasn't surprised when a number of years later I read that Hackman had decided to retire from the business, like any worker who'd decided it was time to collect his pension. This news that he's decided to leave us permanently in the decisive unceremonious way that he did, is also, alas, completely in character.  

PS: To see the scenes from Heist shot at 99 Chabanel go to 14:00. When Hackman and Devito go into an office to sit down, that's Grandpa Sam's office. When they leave the building and hit the street, it's not Chabanel.