• About

Rabbi John Rosove's Blog

Rabbi John Rosove's Blog

Tag Archives: democracy

Living with Uncertainty and Doubt in this Era of Increasing Autocracy

23 Sunday Nov 2025

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

democracy, donald-trump, news, politics, trump

To say we are living in a confusing, destabilizing, polarizing, and dangerous era is stating the obvious. In thinking back over the past thirty years, I offer an expanded list of events that I believe contributed to bringing us to this inflection moment in American history, mostly negative events (sorry to say), but many positive ones too (I have not included foreign happenings except for those that have affected directly the United States and the stability of our nation).  

The positive events:

  • The election of the first African American president of the United States;
  • The recovery from the 2008-9 economic crisis;
  • The normalization of LGBTQ rights;
  • The passage of the Affordable Care Act;
  • The Iran Nuclear deal;
  • The largest march in American history for women’s rights following the installation of Donald Trump as President on January 21, 2017;
  • The galvanizing of the Me-Too and Black Lives Matter movements;
  • The passage of climate change legislation and the international Paris Climate Accord;
  • The nomination of the first woman of a major political party for president of the United States and the installation of the first woman and person of color as vice-president in US history;
  • The multiple and successful law suits brought against unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by the Trump Administration;
  • The end of the Gaza War and the return of the Israeli hostages;
  • The November elections in New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and California;
  • The “No Kings” march.

The negative events:

  • The 9/11/2001 terrorist attack;
  • The Afghan and Iraqi wars in which 7000 Americans, 200,000 Afghanis, and 600,000 Iraqis were killed during the United States’ longest wars against Al Qaida and extremist Muslim terrorists;
  • The 2008-9 US economic meltdown, mortgage crisis, and bank failures;
  • The rulings of the Roberts’ Supreme Court that have compromised American democracy including Citizens United, the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade, the discarding of key elements of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the gutting of affirmative action in college decisions, the expansion of gun rights, the granting of presidential immunity, and the MAGA assault on voting rights;
  • Multiple mass shootings in cities across the country;
  • Increasing income inequality, the accumulation of massive wealth of the top one percent, regressive tax policies, and the exploding federal debt;
  • The rise of social media (for better and worse) reflecting negative and positive human impulses;
  • The spread of opinion-laced “information” through media bubbles and the diminishing viability of   classic news sources (e.g. newspapers, network evening news broadcasts, etc.);
  • The rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement;
  • The multiple indictments and double-impeachment of a sitting American president;
  • The Covid plague and death of 1.2 million Americans;
  • The violent rebellion against the legitimate election of a president on January 6, 2021 led by the sitting president who refused to accept his electoral defeat;
  • Russia’s aggression and nearly four-year war against Ukraine;
  • The Hamas invasion of Israel and the murder of 1200 Israelis and foreign workers on October 7, 2023, the taking of 250 hostages, and the ensuing 2-year Israel-Hamas war resulting in the death of more than one thousand Israeli soldiers and tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians;
  • The dramatic rise in antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Israel hatred on the far political right and far political left;
  • The rise in racism, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia;
  • Trump’s pardoning of all those tried and sentenced for violence and sedition against the United States on January 6, 2021;
  • The return of Trump 2.0 in the 2024 presidential election that has brought a systematic attack on American democracy and norms, the Constitution, media, the Justice and Defense departments, most federal agencies, American foreign aid, the State Department, EPA, HHS, the American military and intelligence services, the human rights of immigrants and peoples of color, the killing of people without due process in international waters based on the assertion that they are narco-terrorists, the threat of ICE and the use of the military in cities and states, Trump’s weaponizing of the Justice Department against his political critics and enemies, and Trump’s call for the execution of six members of Congress (all distinguished military veterans and intelligence officers) who cut a video telling service members not to follow illegal orders;
  • Trump’s cancellation of the Iran Deal, Biden’s Climate Change legislation, and the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord;
  • The attack from the far political right-wing on the Judeo-Christian ethic;
  • The normalization of white Christian nationalist supremacy in the US;
  • The massive grift and enrichment of the President, his family and wealthy friends in the amount of billions of dollars in an ongoing violation of the US Constitution’s Emolument clause.

Like so many of you, I have responded with disgust, anger, anxiety, exhaustion, and despair at the plethora of bad news, the cruelty, inhumanity, indecency, and ongoing assault against the US Constitution and American democratic norms that permeates our politics and culture in these days. I have asked myself why millions of Americans and their congressional representatives accept without protest the developing autocracy of Donald Trump who has in these first ten months of his second presidency done so much damage to American democracy and our democratic traditions.

I am reminded of the Irish poet William Butler Yeats’ (1865-1939) famous poem The Second Coming that he wrote in 1919 shortly after the First World War ended and as the Irish War of Independence began. The poem was inspired by that era’s turmoil, chaos and societal collapse (not unlike our own times):

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. / The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, / And everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; / The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

It seems to me that there are two primary motivating needs of tens of millions of Americans who have supported or acquiesced to Trump’s growing autocracy and immorality. In times of flux and chaos, people crave, on the one hand, certainty, and on the other a sense of security with like-minded culturally similar others.

My childhood Rabbi Leonard Beerman (1921-2014) offered a profound bit of wisdom, as he always did, long ago when he wrote:

“I live with uncertainty and doubt. But what I have learned is that doubt may be the most civilizing force we have available to us, for it is doubt that protects us from the arrogance of utter rightness, from the barbarism of blind loyalties, all of which threaten the human possibility.”

The writer Kathryn Schultz (b. 1954) explains in her book Being Wrong why certainty is so appealing to so many:

“The simplest truth about certainty is that it feels good. It gives us the comforting illusion that our environment is stable and knowable, and that therefore we are safe within it. Just as important, it makes us feel informed, intelligent, and powerful…Uncertainty leaves us stranded in a universe that is too big, too open, too ill-defined…Where certainty reassures us with answers, doubt confronts us with questions, not only about our future but also about our past: about the decisions we made, the beliefs we held, the people and groups to whom we offered our allegiance, the very way we lived our lives…the unconsulting fact [is] that …we can’t shield ourselves and our loved ones from error, accident, and disaster…our attraction to certainty is best understood as an aversion to uncertainty.” (p. 169)

That is where autocrats step in. They claim certainty about everything, contrary to what the French philosopher Charles Bernard Renouvier (1815-1903) poignantly said: “Properly speaking, there is no certainty; there are only people who are certain.”

Of course, there are always options, some are better and some are worse, but it’s upon us, an informed citizenry, to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each based upon the facts, science, reason, human rights, and the principles of equality, justice, compassion, empathy, and peace.  

As elections begin to appear on the political horizon, it’s important for us all to consider what constitutes great leadership. As concisely as I can characterize it, great leadership requires not just vision and high moral rectitude, but the love of truth and a sacred commitment to further the common good. There are times when all leaders must stand up against the crowd, take a political risk knowing that they can lose everything, power, position, and the respect of their followers. Great leaders, however, bear the responsibility to act on behalf of the best interests of the public and to set a high moral standard for themselves and their colleagues.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his superb book that I highly recommend, Lessons in Leadership – A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2015) put it simply: “To lead is to serve. Greatness is humility.” (p. 190)

As the election season begins in the United States, and would-be leaders announce their candidacies, polls rejecting the Trump administration’s positions on virtually all the issues of concern to American voters, along with the millions who turned out to march on “No Kings Day,” and the important work of so many American lawyers and judges who have advocated for and ruled on behalf of American constitutional and state law and against autocratic over-reach, ought to give us a measure of hope and remind us how much agency we still have.

In electing candidates worthy of our support as servant-leaders, we can reverse the anti-democratic actions and trends that have plagued the United States in recent decades, and begin to restore American democracy despite the horrific damage that has been done.

Go to a No Kings Rally

17 Friday Oct 2025

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

democracy, donald-trump, news, politics, trump

I am 75 years old. The last time I attended a massive march was in 1987 in Washington, D.C. on behalf of the right of Soviet Jews to immigrate to Israel or to the United States. Before that I was a frequent public protester against American involvement against the Vietnam War and in civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s. Since then, after serving as a congregational rabbi for more than 40 years, my social justice activism has been expressed in the context of my community’s activism and in my writings. But, I will be at one of Los Angeles’ No Kings Rallies with my children and grandchildren this weekend because my outrage at what Trump is doing to innocent Americans and to our democracy needs outward expression.

The only actions that are now making a difference and protecting our democracy are the many court cases and judges who are rejecting in rulings Trump’s illegal executive orders. Also, we have to be grateful to the many Democratic state governors who are courageously resisting Trump in their states and the Democratic Congressional Representatives and Senators who are doing everything they can to resist the malignancies of Trump.

The only action we American citizens can take before the mid-term election that might begin to persuade Trump and his sycophantic Congress and the many voters who voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who are now appalled by his excesses and immorality is to participate in non-violent demonstrations throughout the country and support financially candidates for election in the mid-terms whose values align with our own.

I am at once excited and anxious to participate in a No Kings Rally this weekend. I’m not anxious for my own safety, but on account of my fear that Trump’s minions will be sent deliberately in plain clothes to violently disrupt peaceful demonstrations and give Trump the excuse he wants to send more federal soldiers into “blue cities and states” to quell what he characterizes as “anti-American traitors.”

I urge everyone to attend one of these rallies. If more than ten million Americans turn out, which I heard is one goal of the organizers, we will be furthering the movement to take back our democracy in the mid-terms and to break through the “ice” of the MAGA movement.

No matter what the provocations we might encounter, everyone who attends these rallies must remain absolutely non-violent.

Why the Electoral College Should be Abolished or Effectively Nullified

22 Sunday Sep 2024

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

democracy, election, elections, electoral-college, politics

I love reading about American and world history, but the Electoral College system that elects the President of the United States has always confused me. This past week, Heather Cox Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College, laid out clearly the history of the Electoral College. Before I quote her complete missive below, I want to explain for those (like me) who have found the workings of the Electoral College so confusing, how it works and why the national Republican Party is so fixated on eliminating one Electoral College vote in the State of Nebraska in order to even more advantage the Republican Party over the Democratic Party than is currently built into the Electoral College system thereby denying the principle of one person-one vote that is the hallmark of democracy.

How does the Electoral College work?

Each state is granted 2 votes in the Electoral College for each State Senator plus votes equaling the total number of congressional districts in the state (e.g. the largest State of California has 54 Electoral College votes including 2 Senators and 52 congressional seats; the smallest State of Wyoming has 3 Electoral College votes including 2 senators and 1 congressional seat). 270 Electoral College votes are needed to win the presidential election and if neither party receives 270 Electoral College votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives with each state delegation having one vote. In such a case, the largest State of California, with a population of 39,128,162, and the smallest state of Wyoming, with a population of 586,485, would each have 1 vote. A majority of states (26) in the House is needed to win the presidential election. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote. A majority of Senators (51) is needed to win.

What is so important to the national Republican Party about Nebraska’s one Electoral College vote?

There are more Republican Party dominated States than Democratic Party dominated States which is why the national Republican Party has put so much pressure on the Nebraska State Legislature to fold the one “blue” congressional district into the winner-take-all Electoral College count for that “red” State, thus eliminating the “blue” congressional district from the Electoral College. For the same reason, the Republican Party refuses to give residents in the territory of Puerto Rico the vote in American presidential elections, even though Puerto Rico is an American protectorate and has a population of 3,268,802, more than the population in 20 States. The District of Columbia (with a population of 678,972) is also not a State, but its citizens do vote in the presidential election. D.C. is given 1 electoral vote for its 1 congressional district but no electoral votes for 2 Senators (which it does not have), as opposed to the smallest state of Wyoming that has 3 electoral votes (2 senators and 1 congressional representative). DC and Puerto Rico are both dominated by the Democratic Party.

How can the Electoral College be abolished and turn the Presidential election into the winner of the popular vote?

To abolish the Electoral College and allow the country to directly elect the US President would take a constitutional convention. Under Article 5 of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

To do this, obviously, is a far stretch given the strong resistance of the many small states (though some small states are “blue”, far more are “red”). Reaching a two-thirds vote of the States is next to impossible as the “red” states would be forced to give up their un-democratic advantage over large populated “blue” states should there be a tie in the Electoral College (269 votes each), and they would never do that.

Is there an alternative to changing the Constitution and making the presidential election based on the popular vote as is the case with every other election for every other office in the United States?

Yes – it is called “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” in which States pledge to award all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of whether that State voted for the winner. To date, 16 states and the District of Columbia have joined the Compact for a total of 205 electoral votes. Once additional states, with a total of 65 more electoral votes (enough to reach 270 votes), join the Compact, it will go into effect and the next President will be effectively the winner of the national popular vote. To see which states have agreed to join, see https://citizenstakeaction.org/how-to-fix-the-electoral-college/.

I hope the above clarifies how the Electoral College is a corruption of democracy. Here is Heather Cox Richardson’s excellent review of the history of the Electoral College and how the framers of the US Constitution came to this unique system of electing our nation’s most important and powerful leader.

“On September 16, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten wrote that while it’s “[p]retty clear that [Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala] Harris is ahead nationally right now… [h]er advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil. Average it all, Harris’[s] chance of winning the popular vote is 70%. Her chance of winning the electoral college is 50%.” Two days later, on September 18, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) skipped votes in the Senate to travel to Nebraska, where he tried to convince state legislators to switch the state’s system of allotting electoral votes by district to a winner-take-all system. That effort so far appears unsuccessful. 

In a country of 50 states and Washington, D.C.—a country of more than 330 million people—presidential elections are decided in just a handful of states, and it is possible for someone who loses the popular vote to become president. We got to this place thanks to the Electoral College, and to two major changes made to it since the ratification of the Constitution. 

The men who debated how to elect a president in 1787 worried terribly about making sure there were hedges around the strong executive they were creating so that he could not become a king. 

Some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to choose the president, but this horrified others who believed that a leader and Congress would collude to take over the government permanently. Others liked the idea of direct election of the president, but this worried delegates from smaller states, who thought that big states would simply be able to name their own favorite sons. It also worried those who pointed out that most voters would have no idea which were the leading men in other states, leaving a national institution, like the organization of Revolutionary War officers called the Society of the Cincinnati, the power to get its members to support their own leader, thus finding a different way to create a dictator.

Ultimately, the framers came up with the election of a president by a group of men well known in their states but not currently office-holders, who would meet somewhere other than the seat of government and would disband as soon as the election was over. Each elector in this so-called Electoral College would cast two votes for president. The man with the most votes would be president, and the man with the second number of votes would be vice president (a system that the Twelfth Amendment ended in 1804). The number of electors would be equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state in Congress. If no candidate earned a majority, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation casting a single vote.

In the first two presidential elections—in 1788–1789 and 1792—none of this mattered very much, since the electors cast their ballots unanimously for George Washington. But when Washington stepped down, leaders of the newly formed political parties contended for the presidency. In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won, but Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republicans (which were not the same as today’s Democrats or Republicans) was keenly aware that had Virginia given him all its electoral votes, rather than splitting them between him and Adams, he would have been president. 

On January 12, 1800, Jefferson wrote to the governor of Virginia, James Monroe, urging him to back a winner-take-all system that awarded all Virginia’s electoral votes to the person who won the majority of the vote in the state. He admitted that dividing electoral votes by district “would be more likely to be an exact representation of [voters’] diversified sentiments” but, defending his belief that he was the true popular choice in the country in 1796, said voting by districts “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the US. were they assembled together.” 

Virginia made the switch. Alarmed, the Federalists in Massachusetts followed suit to make sure Adams got all their votes, and by 1836, every state but South Carolina, where the legislature continued to choose electors until 1860, had switched to winner-take-all. 

This change horrified the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who worried that the new system would divide the nation geographically and encourage sectional tensions. He wrote in 1823 that voting by district, rather than winner-take-all, “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” He proposed a constitutional amendment to end winner-take-all.

But almost immediately, the Electoral College caused a different crisis. In 1824, electors split their votes among four candidates—Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford—and none won a majority in the Electoral College. Although Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, when the election went to the House, the state delegations chose Adams, the son of former president John Adams.

Furious Jackson supporters thought a developing elite had stolen the election, and after they elected Jackson outright in 1828, the new president on December 8, 1829, implored Congress to amend the Constitution to elect presidents by popular vote. “To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate,” he wrote; “it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or…the House of Representatives.” 

Jackson warned that an election in the House could be corrupted by money or power or ignorance. He also warned that “under the present mode of election a minority may…elect a President,” and such a president could not claim legitimacy. He urged Congress “to amend our system that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.”

But by the 1830s, the population of the North was exploding while the South’s was falling behind. The Constitution counted enslaved Americans as three fifths of a person for the purposes of representation, and direct election of the president would erase that advantage slave states had in the Electoral College. Their leaders were not about to throw that advantage away.

In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery (except as punishment for a crime) and scratched out the three-fifths clause, meaning that after the 1870 census the southern states would have more power in the Electoral College than they did before the war. In 1876, Republicans lost the popular vote by about 250,000 votes out of 8.3 million cast, but kept control of the White House through the Electoral College. As Jackson had warned, furious Democrats threatened rebellion. They never considered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, whom they called “Rutherfraud,” a legitimate president. 

In 1888 it happened again. Incumbent Democratic president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes out of 11 million cast, but Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison took the White House thanks to the 36 electoral votes from New York, a state Harrison won by fewer than 15,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. Once in office, he and his team set out to skew the Electoral College permanently in their favor. Over twelve months in 1889–1890, they added six new, sparsely populated states to the Union, splitting the territory of Dakota in two and adding North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming while cutting out New Mexico and Arizona, whose inhabitants they expected would vote for Democrats.

The twentieth century brought another wrench to the Electoral College. The growth of cities, made possible thanks to modern industry—including the steel that supported skyscrapers—and transportation and sanitation, created increasing population differences among the different states.

The Constitution’s framers worried that individual states might try to grab too much power in the House by creating dozens and dozens of congressional districts, so they specified that a district could not be smaller than 30,000 people. But they put no upper limit on district sizes. After the 1920 census revealed that urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, the House in 1929 capped its numbers at 435 to keep power away from those urban dwellers, including immigrants, that lawmakers considered dangerous, thus skewing the Electoral College in favor of rural America. Today the average congressional district includes 761,169 individuals—more than the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska—which weakens the power of larger states.  

In the twenty-first century the earlier problems with the Electoral College have grown until they threaten to establish permanent minority rule. A Republican president hasn’t won the popular vote since voters reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when his popularity was high in the midst of a war. The last Republican who won the popular vote in a normal election cycle was Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, 36 years and nine cycles ago. And yet, Republicans who lost the popular vote won in the Electoral College in 2000—George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote by about a half a million votes—and in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump. 

In our history, four presidents—all Republicans—have lost the popular vote and won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy appears to be to do it again (or to create such chaos that the election goes to the House of Representatives, where there will likely be more Republican-dominated delegations than Democratic ones).

In the 2024 election, Trump has shown little interest in courting voters. Instead, the campaign has thrown its efforts into legal challenges to voting and, apparently, into eking out a win in the Electoral College. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives to which each state is entitled (100 + 435) plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. A winning candidate must get a majority of those votes: 270.

Winner-take-all means that presidential elections are won in so-called swing or battleground states. Those are states with election margins of less than 3 points, so close they could be won by either party. The patterns of 2020 suggest that the states most likely to be in contention in 2024 are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, although the Harris-Walz campaign has opened up the map, suggesting its internal numbers show that states like Florida might also be in contention. Candidates and their political action committees focus on those few swing states—touring, giving speeches and rallies, and pouring money into advertising and ground operations. 

But in 2024 there is a new wrinkle. The Constitution’s framers agreed on a census every ten years so that representation in Congress could be reapportioned according to demographic changes. As usual, the 2020 census shifted representation, and so the pathway to 270 electoral votes shifted slightly. Those shifts mean that it is possible the election will come down to one electoral vote. Awarding Trump the one electoral vote Nebraska is expected to deliver to Harris could be enough to keep her from becoming president.

Rather than trying to win a majority of voters, just 49 days before the presidential election, Trump supporters—including Senator Graham—are making a desperate effort to use the Electoral College to keep Harris from reaching the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. It is unusual for a senator from one state to interfere in the election processes in another state, but Graham similarly pressured officials in Georgia to swing the vote there toward Trump in 2020.”

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 365 other subscribers

Archive

  • December 2025 (3)
  • November 2025 (6)
  • October 2025 (8)
  • September 2025 (3)
  • August 2025 (6)
  • July 2025 (4)
  • June 2025 (5)
  • May 2025 (4)
  • April 2025 (6)
  • March 2025 (8)
  • February 2025 (4)
  • January 2025 (8)
  • December 2024 (5)
  • November 2024 (5)
  • October 2024 (3)
  • September 2024 (7)
  • August 2024 (5)
  • July 2024 (7)
  • June 2024 (5)
  • May 2024 (5)
  • April 2024 (4)
  • March 2024 (8)
  • February 2024 (6)
  • January 2024 (5)
  • December 2023 (4)
  • November 2023 (4)
  • October 2023 (9)
  • September 2023 (8)
  • August 2023 (8)
  • July 2023 (10)
  • June 2023 (7)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (8)
  • March 2023 (5)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (8)
  • December 2022 (10)
  • November 2022 (5)
  • October 2022 (5)
  • September 2022 (10)
  • August 2022 (8)
  • July 2022 (8)
  • June 2022 (5)
  • May 2022 (6)
  • April 2022 (8)
  • March 2022 (11)
  • February 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (7)
  • December 2021 (6)
  • November 2021 (9)
  • October 2021 (8)
  • September 2021 (6)
  • August 2021 (7)
  • July 2021 (7)
  • June 2021 (6)
  • May 2021 (11)
  • April 2021 (4)
  • March 2021 (9)
  • February 2021 (9)
  • January 2021 (14)
  • December 2020 (5)
  • November 2020 (12)
  • October 2020 (13)
  • September 2020 (17)
  • August 2020 (8)
  • July 2020 (8)
  • June 2020 (8)
  • May 2020 (8)
  • April 2020 (11)
  • March 2020 (13)
  • February 2020 (13)
  • January 2020 (15)
  • December 2019 (11)
  • November 2019 (9)
  • October 2019 (5)
  • September 2019 (10)
  • August 2019 (9)
  • July 2019 (8)
  • June 2019 (12)
  • May 2019 (9)
  • April 2019 (9)
  • March 2019 (16)
  • February 2019 (9)
  • January 2019 (19)
  • December 2018 (19)
  • November 2018 (9)
  • October 2018 (17)
  • September 2018 (12)
  • August 2018 (11)
  • July 2018 (10)
  • June 2018 (16)
  • May 2018 (15)
  • April 2018 (18)
  • March 2018 (8)
  • February 2018 (11)
  • January 2018 (10)
  • December 2017 (6)
  • November 2017 (12)
  • October 2017 (8)
  • September 2017 (17)
  • August 2017 (10)
  • July 2017 (10)
  • June 2017 (12)
  • May 2017 (11)
  • April 2017 (12)
  • March 2017 (10)
  • February 2017 (14)
  • January 2017 (22)
  • December 2016 (13)
  • November 2016 (12)
  • October 2016 (8)
  • September 2016 (6)
  • August 2016 (6)
  • July 2016 (10)
  • June 2016 (10)
  • May 2016 (11)
  • April 2016 (13)
  • March 2016 (10)
  • February 2016 (11)
  • January 2016 (9)
  • December 2015 (10)
  • November 2015 (12)
  • October 2015 (8)
  • September 2015 (7)
  • August 2015 (10)
  • July 2015 (7)
  • June 2015 (8)
  • May 2015 (10)
  • April 2015 (9)
  • March 2015 (12)
  • February 2015 (10)
  • January 2015 (12)
  • December 2014 (7)
  • November 2014 (13)
  • October 2014 (9)
  • September 2014 (8)
  • August 2014 (11)
  • July 2014 (10)
  • June 2014 (13)
  • May 2014 (9)
  • April 2014 (17)
  • March 2014 (9)
  • February 2014 (12)
  • January 2014 (15)
  • December 2013 (13)
  • November 2013 (16)
  • October 2013 (7)
  • September 2013 (8)
  • August 2013 (12)
  • July 2013 (8)
  • June 2013 (11)
  • May 2013 (11)
  • April 2013 (12)
  • March 2013 (11)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (9)
  • December 2012 (12)
  • November 2012 (11)
  • October 2012 (6)
  • September 2012 (11)
  • August 2012 (8)
  • July 2012 (11)
  • June 2012 (10)
  • May 2012 (11)
  • April 2012 (13)
  • March 2012 (10)
  • February 2012 (9)
  • January 2012 (14)
  • December 2011 (16)
  • November 2011 (23)
  • October 2011 (21)
  • September 2011 (19)
  • August 2011 (31)
  • July 2011 (8)

Categories

  • American Jewish Life (458)
  • American Politics and Life (417)
  • Art (30)
  • Beauty in Nature (24)
  • Book Recommendations (52)
  • Divrei Torah (159)
  • Ethics (490)
  • Film Reviews (6)
  • Health and Well-Being (156)
  • Holidays (136)
  • Human rights (57)
  • Inuyim – Prayer reflections and ruminations (95)
  • Israel and Palestine (358)
  • Israel/Zionism (502)
  • Jewish History (441)
  • Jewish Identity (372)
  • Jewish-Christian Relations (51)
  • Jewish-Islamic Relations (57)
  • Life Cycle (53)
  • Musings about God/Faith/Religious life (190)
  • Poetry (86)
  • Quote of the Day (101)
  • Social Justice (355)
  • Stories (74)
  • Tributes (30)
  • Uncategorized (818)
  • Women's Rights (152)

Blogroll

  • Americans for Peace Now
  • Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA)
  • Congregation Darchei Noam
  • Haaretz
  • J Street
  • Jerusalem Post
  • Jerusalem Report
  • Kehillat Mevesseret Zion
  • Temple Israel of Hollywood
  • The IRAC
  • The Jewish Daily Forward
  • The LA Jewish Journal
  • The RAC
  • URJ
  • World Union for Progressive Judaism

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Rabbi John Rosove's Blog
    • Join 365 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Rabbi John Rosove's Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar