Rant #1,341: Santa Claus Came To Town

Guess what this Jewish guy did with his son this weekend?

I did what any Jew would have done ... Santa Claus was in town, and I took my son to meet old St. Nick himself.

In something I hadn't done since my kids were very little, I took my 19-year-old son to see Santa Claus, but there was a method to my madness.

St. Nick, in this case at least, was WWE wrestling legend Mick Foley, and the North Pole was our local record store.

Foley was there to promote his "Crazy Christmas" holiday book and record--yes, a 45 rpm record--so we and about 50 others decided that this presented the perfect opportunity to meet the hardcore wrestling legend in the flesh--with his Santa outfit on--so we leaped at the chance.

What's more, all proceeds went to charity, so it was a really worthwhile cause.

Foley came into the store as the line of people wanting to meet him grew. He took out the book--with a story written by his son, ostensibly about saving Christmas--and like any good Santa who is also a world renown wrestling personality, he also took out his teeth as he started to read.

Anyway, when he was finished with his storytelling chores, we all got to meet Santa Foley, get his autograph and take pictures with him.

It was fun, harkening back to other times I took my kids to meet Santa.

One time that I remember is when my daughter must have been about four or five years old.

She sat on Santa's lap in our local bank, and Santa said, "And what would this pretty young girl want for Christmas?"

My daughter replied, "Santa, I happen to be Jewish, and we don't celebrate Christmas, we celebrate Hanukkah--and here is what I want!"

You never saw Santa so dumbfounded in his life, and although I told my daughter to tone it down a bit, inwardly, I was kind of proud of her.

Not to blame Santa though-=-how was he to know that he had such a "rebel" sitting right on his lap?

Anyway, back to the present.

My son and I had a nice time, and afterward, we did what many Jewish families do throughout the year--we ordered Chinese takeout, brought it home, and had a nice meal with my wife.

The whole encounter with Santa was a good appetizer for our main event, the first night of Hanukkah, which begins tomorrow evening at sundown.

It should be fun!

Rant #1,340: A Missed Opportunity

OK, I am going to be talking today about one of my pet peeves, so if you don't want to read on, please don't.

It is something very personal to me, and something that should be very important to my fellow Jews, but I don't think that it is.

We are in the joyous holiday season. Everyone is scurrying around, trying to get as many presents as they possibly can leading up to the big day.

My big day is probably different than yours. It isn't Christmas on December 25, it is the first night of Hanukkah, on December 16.

When you turn on network TV, all of the shows are doing their Christmas shows. Many of the Christmas shows done by classic shows are also shown, and let me tell you, some of them are real classics.

I really enjoy them.

But growing up, I was pretty much on the outside looking in.

Christmas is a wonderful holiday, even though let's face it, its religious part is not what it once was, pretty much co-opted by the need to buy, buy and buy some more.

Anyway, there were scant mentions of my holiday on network TV back then.

One of my favorite holiday episodes is from "That Girl," where Hanukkah is basically the punch line to the entire episode. If you haven't seen it, either go to YouTube or watch it on MeTV--I guarantee it will be shown this year.

But by and large, even with a large contingents of Jews in Hollywood--not just actors and actresses, but writers, directors and the like--Hanukkah has pretty much been ignored by network TV.

I remember several years ago, Fran Drescher of "The Nanny" fame fought CBS tooth and nail to have a Hanukkah-themed episode. She lost that fight, but in retaliation, carried a menorah through a holiday episode of her show.

Now we come to the present time. Network TV shows feature the "modern family" of everybody from WASPS, straights, gays, people with major psychological problems, nerds, blacks, Asians, Hispanics ... you name it, network TV has it--including Jews.

There are Jewish characters on many shows, and yes, most of the time, the characters' religion is played up as a plot device, as it often is on "The Big Bang Theory."

But ABC did something last season that was potentially monumental in my mind.

The placed a new show, "The Goldbergs," on their fall schedule.

VOILA! I said. Finally, network TV had grown up to include a real, honest to goodness Jewish family on its schedule! Kudos to them.

And then I watched the show.

Not only was it a poor ripoff of "The Wonder Years"--a show which also featured a Jewish character, best friend Paul Pfeiffer--but it may as well have been called "The Fitzpatricks," "The Anzalones," or "The Johnsons," because the family featured on the show was about as ethnic as "The Muppets" are.

No mention of Judaism here, even with an "authentic" Jew, George Segal, part of the ensemble cast.

And then, last season, I thought that perhaps things would change once they got into the holiday season, but alas, the show sidestepped the entire issue of Judaism and the holiday experience entirely.

The show is, somehow, a hit, sandwiched in among other hit comedies on ABC. So season two premiered, and still nothing.

I figured that by the holiday season, now that the show was a hit, the sitcom could venture into uncharted territory based on its success--a show about a real Jewish family (sitcom real) celebrating the holidays as any Jewish family would--not with a Christmas tree, not by drinking egg nog, but by lighting a menorah and eating potato latkes.

And last night, with their holiday episode, once again, they completely sidestepped the subject, making it more of a New Year's show than anything else.

The show was about somebody approaching the older boy for a fake modeling job, the mother getting into the act, the younger boy trying to bring his grandparents and family together, etc.

Nothing about Hanukkah. Not even in the background of the house.

No menorah, no decorations, nothing.

When the family ventured out of the house, yes, you did see Christmas decorations at the mall and at the movie theater where they saw "E.T., The Extra Terrestrial," which, as you know, was a film by the very Jewish Steven Spielberg.

But nothing about Hanukkah.

Nothing.

The show is a production of Adam F. Goldberg, purported to show a similar type of family that he grew up in. In fact, at the end of the show, they included some actual video of his family celebrating the New Year--not Hanukkah.

Look, even Jewish families who have a very tenuous connection with their religion at least have a menorah up and glowing during the holiday season.

But for this show, nothing.

ABC is missing the point here, missing a perfect opportunity to show that Jews are just like everyone else, but they do have their own end of the year holiday.

They are missing the point, entirely--I mean the show is called "The Goldbergs," and we're not talking about Whoopi Goldberg here.

Most importantly, they are missing an opportunity to educate. As we all know, crime against Jews and Jewish institutions are on the rise not only in the U.S., but around the world.

Just this past week, there was an incident at a Jewish institution in Brooklyn, where an assailant attacked a rabbinical student, and was shot to death by police in an episode that will never be lumped into the latest anti-cop rhetoric we are hearing.

And the assailant allegedly was yelling anti-Semitic slurs, although the incident is not being looked at as a hate crime because the person had a history of mental illness, I presume.

Entertainment is the way we relax, and it is also the way we learn about things we didn't know much about.

And yes, I do blame the entertainment industry for hiding the fact, that we are not so homogenous as they would like us to believe.

I also blame my Jewish brethren, who often want to fit in so much into the fabric of this country and the world that they readily forget who they are.

I know a lot of Jews would take me to task for that, but sorry, I have found that often the most virulent anti-Semites are the Jews themselves.

And it really pains me to say that, too.

Again, I enjoy the holiday season, enjoy all the goings on revolving around the season, but when it comes down to it, I celebrate the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.

Christmas is simply a day off for me, a day where my family goes to the movies and eats Chinese food.

We do not have a phony "Hanukkah bush" up in our house.

We have a menorah burning very brightly.

I had high hopes for "The Goldbergs," but they are simply sidestepping the entire situation. I don't know if ABC put pressure on them to do so, or the producers and writers on the show--who are mainly Jews--have simply decided that this will not be the show to be the groundbreaker that I feel it should be.

And that is really, really sad, because it could be a platform, in a comedic way, of helping viewers learn about something not necessarily new, not necessarily different, but something that maybe they didn't know too much about.

It might even help us understand each other a bit better, and maybe, just maybe, stem the tide of anti-Jewish sentiment that always comes up around this time of year.

All this through a mere TV show? Yes, why not? If millions watch it each weak, you start with those millions, and the feeling can spread to everyone they touch, and then spread to everyone they come in contact with, and so on and so on.

And yes, I am a bit hurt that the show doesn't do that and I have to ask, what is stopping them?

What a missed opportunity!

(I have to go for my twice-annual eye exam, so in order to prepare for this test, I am not going to be writing my column tomorrow. Please check back here on Monday. Speak to you then.)

Rant #1,339: Some People Should Be Ashamed of Themselves

I read about this late yesterday, and I still cannot believe that this has actually been put into place.

Columbia Law School is allowing students to request postponements of their final exams if they are suffering from what are being called the "traumatic effects" of two recent grand jury decisions in Ferguson, Missouri and New York, where police were not indicted in the deaths of two unarmed black men.

Robert E. Scott, the school's interim dean, announced this policy in an email, and according to the New York Times, a small number of students have had their exams pushed back because they have been "traumatized" by these decisions.

Scott said the law school consulted with Columbia administrators to gain approval for this policy, which he said is in accordance with the school's procedures for accommodating students who are experiencing trauma during exam periods.

Well, as far as I am concerned, Columbia University, their law school, and just about every lawyer worth his or her salt should be ashamed of themselves and their profession at this decision.

Law school is not easy, nobody said it was. It is not easy to become a lawyer, nor is it easy to become a doctor, a teacher, a writer, or a garbage man (sanitary worker in these PC times).

Why are people so traumatized that they cannot take their exams? Is it because they are out marching against the "social injustices" supposedly perpetuated by these instances, and haven't had time to study?

I am not a lawyer, but can you imagine a lawyer going into court and telling a judge that he or she was "traumatized" by something, and due to their "trauma," asked for a postponement of a trial? What would a judge say in that instance?

To me, we are coddling people who have been coddled their entire lives. Unfortunately, this generation has been given everything to them on a silver plate, seemingly, and the university is coddling to them again by allowing them to put off their exams.

The most interesting thing about this is that while the law, as it stands, supports the police in both unfortunate instances, those shirking their exams are the future lawyers of this country, the lawyers who could actually help change the laws so these incidences never happen again.

Yet they want to postpone their exams ... because they are traumatized?

More likely many of them are so tired from marching and yelling and screaming about something that they do not yet understand that they haven't had time to crack open the books and study.

I guess that is what is called being "traumatized" today.

Maybe I will use that at my place of business.

I am so "traumatized" at these events that I cannot work. I need to put off working for a few days while I get my head together.

Yes, hello unemployment line, because that is where I will be going, and most of us will be going, if we ever pulled that canard.

Again, there is a lot of shame to go around here, and it starts with Columbia University itself.

What a joke. It is time, yes it really is time, to get back to reality, don't you think?

Rant #1,338: Pugsley

In a year where we have experienced some major deaths in the entertainment field--namely Joan Rivers and Robin Williams--this passing isn't on the same level, but for some, it probably is.

Ken Weatherwax died, and if that name doesn't ring a bell if you are not a Baby Boomer, here is why we mourn his death today.

He was Pugsley, yes, Pugsley Addams of the TV show "The Addams Family."

As fat, short and pretty weird looking brother to comely Wednesday Addams, Pugsley was rarely the focus of any of the shows on the classic sitcom, but he was there, setting fires, eating bugs and doing other things that in the world of this ghoulish family, were perfectly normal.

No, this show could never run today, because the PC police would be all over it.

But back in 1965 and 1966, Pugsley fit right in with this family, which was led by dad Gomez and mother Morticia.

And all the while, with the prune face that looked like it was extra disturbed by someone eating a lemon, Weatherwax played Pugsley perfectly.

Could you ever imagine anyone else playing that role?

Weatherwax came from something of a theatrical family, with his aunt being actress and dancer Ruby Keeler. His brother played the best friend of Jeff on the original Lassie TV show, and he was also related to some other Hollywood stars.

He earned a few early roles in toothpaste commercials and on TV in shows like "Wagon Train," but his signature role was to come.

But if there was ever anyone who did not fit the Hollywood glamor profile, it was Weatherwax, and it ended up hurting him as far as roles after "The Addams Family" show ended.

When work dried up, he went back to being a "normal" kid, which was difficult after being Pugsley, and kids he went to school with never let him forget who he had been. He reportedly went from school to school, bullied by kids for his former role.

He sought his escape through joining the Army, and that is reportedly where he got his "real" life back.

Afterwards, he moved onto the other side of the screen, being a technical worker on dozens of TV shows and movies, as a grip and set builder, and he pretty much faded into obscurity, only being brought up during revivals of the show as a "whatever happened to ... " question.

He passed away on Sunday at age 59. The first time I looked, he evidently passed away in his sleep, and it hadn't been determined what was the cause of death. Later, I found out that he died of a heart attack.

Whatever the case, Weatherwax, sort of like Butch Patrick, lived in all Baby Boomers' psyches as that kid, who was pretty much our age, who was one of the stars of one of those two "monster" shows that we loved when we were kids, the other being "The Munsters," of course.

Oh, how we would have loved to live in those families, but we did it through Weatherwax, and Butch Patrick as Eddie.

So R.I.P. Ken Weatherwax, you did a great job.

Although the actor that portrayed Pugsley is now gone, because of TV reruns ...

Pugsley lives!

Rant #1,337: Royal Flush

So the Royals are in New York City.

No, not the American League Champion Kansas City Royals, who will be in New York City during the 2015 baseball season.

We are talking about the British Royals, who are staying at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan during their brief stopover in Manhattan.

All the fascination over the Royals in this country really throws me for a loop.

Why we care about this is beyond me.

We could have had our own Royals in this country, but George Washington did not want to be called "King" here. He wanted to be called "President," and the rest is history.

But seemingly since that time, we have been intrigued by the Royal Family over here as much as we are intrigued by the family of whoever the sitting President and his family is.

Why are we so interested in the Royals, I ask?

I really think that this is a gender-based thing.

Yes, I am going to sound like a male chauvinist pig, which I am anyway, but women seem to be fascinated with the Royals way more than men are.

I think it has to do with that "fantasy" that a lot of women grow up with that their "prince in shining armor" is going to come and whisk them away in the most romantic fashion.

Somehow, that translates to the Royal Family, and everything they bring to the table.

And then there are the pregnancies, the ups, the downs--Princess Diana, for one--the failures, the triumphs.

This appears to me to be a female thing, something that men don't get into, and from what I saw on television last night, applies once again.

I would say that the crowd that had been waiting for hours for them to come was about 98 percent female, and I bet the only males there tagged along with their other half.

But whatever the case, they will be at the Brooklyn Nets game, where I am sure they will meet up with our own royalty, in the name of Lebron James, affectionately known as "King."

That is the only "royal" that men care about, for sure.

Rant #1,336: "SmElements"

Online retailer Amazon.com has announced that it will soon be premiering its own line of products, under the "Elements" brand name.

It will only be available to Amazon Prime members, and will feature a full line of products.

It is starting off with diapers and baby wipes--hence the title of this Rant--and other products will follow.

I don't know about you, but for the life of me, why would anybody buy diapers and baby wipes online?

I know that people do buy these things electronically, but to me, these are two items that I would buy in my local, brick and mortar store, but so removed from having a real little one in the house, what do I know?

When my kids were small, we always had stacks of this stuff in the house, at the ready when they were needed.

There are plenty of good brands available locally--and Amazon, by the way, will still offer those too--so why would you order such products online?

I guess if you had a stack of diapers, and plenty of wipes, and the need wasn't immediate, you could wait a few days to get such items, so online ordering would be OK for you.

More importantly, Amazon.com will be pretty much entering the electronic grocery business with this line, and for the life of me, I don't understand how people can do their grocery shopping that way, either.

It is a rapidly growing industry. Even the military stores offer online ordering.

But to me, the grocery experience is a one on one experience between yourself and your local store.

I certainly could not buy produce online--you have to really see, feel, and touch produce to know what you are getting--but people do buy this stuff this way.

No, it is not for me, but I guess that people who don't think they have enough time to visit a supermarket will do their shopping this way.

Not having an hour's time a week to go to your local supermarket, at least to me, translates into laziness.

My wife often works on the weekend, and I do, too, during the summer.

Nonetheless, we find the time--at least one of us--to do real, live grocery shopping.

We do not order these things online. I don't think I would ever order these things online.

But people do, and Amazon is counting on their high-ticket customers--Amazon Prime customers who pay a premium for this service--to make a go of this.

I wish them luck, but I am not an Amazon Prime customer, so it won't affect me right now at least.

And tomorrow morning, my wife and I will do what we always do on Saturday morning--or at least one of us does if the other is working--and we will do our shopping in the local supermarket.

Good luck, Amazon, but I don't think I will be doing any online grocery ordering using your service.

Now as for other things ... can you clean a dirty tushy with a new CD?

Speak to you on Monday.

Rant #1,335: No Indictment

Once again, a white police officer has not received an indictment in a case where a black man was killed.

And it happened in my neck of the woods, which brings it up close and personal to myself and everyone who lives in the New York Metropolitan area.

In this case, Eric Garner, another person with a criminal history as long as your arm, was put into a choke hold when he was apprehended for selling cigarettes on a street in the New York City borough of Staten Island.

He had asthma, could not breath, told the five officers who were on top of him that he could not breath, and he died.

All of it was recorded on a cell phone, and honestly, I personally thought that he officer in question would be indicted for reckless endangerment, the lesser of the charges.

He was not.

Some people say that based on the video alone, this was a total miscarriage of justice.

And if you simply take the video alone, it probably was.

However, a jury heard testimony of 22 witnesses, saw other evidence that the public has not seen, heard from the police officer that applied the hold, and came up with no indictment.

What happened?

Again, I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the 22 witnesses may have painted a different picture of what happened to Garner than what the video showed.

And the police officer must have made an extremely compelling argument about why he had to apply such a hold on Garner.

The video showed the last few moments of Garner's life. But what precipitated what happened before the video was shot?

Was there just cause for the police to act the way they did?

Did Garner physically threaten them, either with his words or by actually having a physical altercation with them?

Did he do anything else to make the police act the way they did?

Evidently so, because no indictment was made. The feds are now looking into this situation, but the proof of the pudding can be found in what the witnesses said happened prior to the video being shot.

The police do not go out to kill people, but they will if such an act is necessary.

In this case, unlike the Ferguson case, there was no reason for Garner to have died.

But what were his actions before the video was made that led the policeman to apply such a hold on Garner?

I do believe that that is where we find out what led to this unfortunate situation.

This case is so different than what happened in Ferguson, but it will be lumped together, of course, as situations where police may have not have used their best judgment.

But did they actually use the only judgment that they possibly could, under these circumstances, in each of the cases?

I do believe in Ferguson that the officer was threatened with bodily harm, and he did make the correct choice, the only choice he could make under the circumstances.

In New York, the whole thing from top to bottom was unfortunate, but evidently, the evidence found no reason to indict.

Yes, I was quite surprised that the police officer was not indicted on the lesser charge, but he was not indicted, so the evidence must have pointed in his favor in some way, shape or form.

Let the feds look into it now. I am sure they will find something that the local court could not find.

And that is what scares me, and should scare you, too.

They are going to be under intense pressure to find something, and with that pressure over their heads, you can bet that this case is one that is far, far from over.

[And the one constant in the two cases is again the Rev. Al Sharpton, who feeds off these incidents like the leech that he is.

He is truly the Martin Luther King of the Bizzarro World, and his mere presence makes his ignorant flock seem so righteous.

Please, please, put this tax evader away in jail, where he belongs, not sitting with the President of the United States, who doesn't appear to have a clue that all of this nonsense is going on during his watch, and that makes him somewhat responsible for the lax environment we currently live in.

And if people are calling for New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton's head, how about Mayor Bill deBlasio's head too? The Garner incident happened under his watch. I get the increasing suspicion that deBlasio is being given a bye on matters like this because he married a black woman and has a bi-racial family. He used the race card to perfection to get into office, and I do believe that people are willing to forgive and forget with him because of his living situation. Believe me, I hope that I am wrong, and both Bratton and deBlasio are held to the same level of responsibility in this and other similar matters.]