Friday, April 1, 2011


First, I again want to apologize to all those at JFNA, those on the JFNA Board, at JAFI, at the Federations, who have been accused by JFNA's "leaders" of being the source(s) for this Blog. It is amusing, in a sad way, that so many (most of whom claim they "...never read the damn Blog") are so obsessed with discovering "...who told Wexler about that?" Best I can tell, anyone known or suspected of ever having had a single conversation with me is believed to be my source for something. It's this leadership's version of the Salem Witch Trials (and you all know how well that turned out). Remember, no one argues that what I have written isn't true; it's just that they...they...want nothing written about JFNA at all...nothing that they don't totally control. And, also, please remember that the same people engaged in the witch hunt never ever read the Blog. Never. Ever. Makes as much sense as anything else at JFNA.

I read with interest The Forward front page article (March 11, 2011) -- Did D.C. Editor Lose Her Job Because of Politics? The Washington Jewish Week was purchased seven months earlier by a group that included current, former and future D.C. Federation leaders. These new owners dismissed the long-time editor of the paper, apparently finding the paper insufficiently supportive of the federation. It goes without saying that with the exception of a few owners of newspapers, news content has been considered to be "sacred," safe from the interference of the publication's owners. Even the most strong-willed, as is Sam Zell, who took control of Chicago's Tribune, the LA Times, etc., a while back, have restrained themselves. But not these folks; they own it, they will deal with it as they wish.

Unfortunately, for some, they confuse their federation leadership roles with ownership of the enterprise. They have forgotten the public trust associated with their leadership roles -- that we, the donors and members, are the "owners," "they," our elected leaders, serve the institution and us; they don't own either. Out of this confusion arises so much of the hate and bile addressed to this Blog and this writer. They just don't like to be reminded of their fiduciary obligations.

As I have written before, no one who has been accused of being a source, is one. I have told the CEO time and again that any time that he, the Board Chair and/or Executive Chair want to discuss the Blog with me, all they need do is call me. Never happened, never will. Want the Blog to go away? You know what you have to to do.



Anonymous said...

Have you seen this?

joebrown42 said...

I take Caroline Glick with a LARGE chunk of salt. She has stated that she will do anything, even publish not-whole-truths, to defend her stance.
She has lied (for instance her piece about BTselem) and has played the game in a way she claims is not legitimate when played for the leftist factions.
This is not to say that what she wrote here is 100% off, it just means that she is a blatantly biased reporter, admittedly so.

RWEX said...


I always take Glick with a large grain. But when Jerry cites her column in another strange reference (because Federations are referenced - even with disdain)in his "eclectic" disjointed Daily Media thing, what is one to think?

joebrown42 said...

Richard...I don't know, either...
I would appreciate (even if not posted here),. your opinion on my post -

paul jeser said...


Forgetting who the author of this column is, if the facts are correct, what is the response?????

Anonymous said...

Understanding Israeli politics has never been a strong suit of the federation system but the present and last administration have raised pandering and tone deafness to an art form. For example the current Israel advocacy initiative will be under constant attack from the right for not defending the occupation. When they cowardly throw their detractors an uncalled for ideological bone or two they will end up alienating the target constituencies on the left who are most vulnerable to the arguments of the de-legitimators. It's not that the effort is not called for its just that in typical fashion it is not thought out and communicated smartly.

joebrown42 said... (I don't know where to send you these links, if a all)