Earlier this week I had lunch with a good friend, a lady with whom I’d pointedly decided – several years ago – to avoid any talk of politics. Everything about her seemed to indicate that she’d be on the left side of things, and because I enjoyed her company and friendship for so many other reasons, it seemed wise to just avoid political talk, Israeli or American.

But this week, it happened. I’m not sure how it started, but we finally got into politics. Just as I expected, she’d started life as a liberal. “I always leaned toward the left,” she said. “But in the last several years, I’ve changed. Gradually I started seeing how wrong I was. I’d still like to be a liberal, you understand, but I can’t. That’s not where my heart is now.”

As I walked home, I had to laugh. She’d also been a vegetarian at one point in her life, but our last two lunches have included serious hunks of red meat. If she doesn’t watch out, pretty soon she’ll be grunting and dragging her knuckles on the ground just like the rest of us conservative Neanderthals.

In her movement away from the left, she’s hardly alone. The shift in demographics in the US is particularly astonishing – and certainly for good reasons. With the frightening Socialistic policy shifts the Community Organizer seems intent on imposing, there’s good reason for people to become much more adamant about their preference for the conservative platform of ‘less government, more individual responsibility and a better world.’

What’s interesting is that in Israel, the same paradigm shift is taking place – with far less outside impetus. Yes, our hostile neighbors still have us under constant attack, but that hasn’t changed in recent years. If anything, the terrorist threat is down. Not because they aren’t trying, but because the IDF has become so skilled at ferreting out the terrorists before they launch themselves into the carnal delight of 72 virgins. Because of the skill of the IDF, things have actually become calmer.

But still, there’s a strong shift to the right – and nothing proves it so much as a new poll by Haaretz.

For you outside of Israel, the Hebrew daily newspaper Haaretz is now and always has been the official organ of the Israeli left. Sometimes known as “the only Hebrew-language Arab newspaper in the Middle East”, Haaretz has long dominated the local newspaper scene, spreading leftist ideas on virtually every topic they address.

But today, Haaretz is shaking in its cumulative boots over a poll they themselves commissioned on Groundhog Day, February 2.

True to form, Haaretz tried to load the dice and make it come out differently. But even though they skewed the questions put to 491 Israelis, they still didn’t get the results they expected. The poll showed a strong shift to the right among Israelis – and yes, Israeli Arabs were included in the poll sample.

One of the questions touched on the timely topic of “the settlements”, otherwise known as that part of Israel called Judea and Samaria. The clumsy question Haaretz posed was, "May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?"

(A bi-national state – i.e., “a state of all of its citizens”, including the roughly 50% Arabs who would be present, is code language for a state devoid of all Jewish identity.)

What was the result? Yes - 28%, No - 53%.

Wow. That wasn’t the answer they expected. Or wanted.

In fact, it was so bad Haaretz didn’t report the poll results at all in the English version of the newspaper. In the Hebrew version, they tried to downplay it, showing the poll results only in tables, with no reference whatever in the text.

Bottom line: Israelis don’t buy into the idea of “demographic threat” in the slightest. As the Manhigut Yehudit analysis noted, in spite of the heavy indoctrination Haaretz and the long line of other leftist proponents have tried to instill – that Jewish Israel is losing ground, population-wise, to a growing Arab presence – Israelis simply don’t believe it.

For years, the left has advocated pulling out, getting rid of, Judea and Samaria because, they say, if Israel were to officially annex that area, the number of Arabs living there would overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel. That’s not true – those demographic numbers have been disproven again and again -- but still the left tries to scare Israelis: ‘Get out of Judea and Samaria! If you don’t, Arabs will become the majority population!”

Now we know: Israelis aren’t buying it.

Is there really no demographic threat? Really and truly, there isn’t. The Jewish population in Israel is NOT losing ground to the Arab population, much as the left would like us to believe it. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. The Jewish population is growing as compared to Arabs. Not diminishing.

For a full analysis of the fake “demographic threat” -- and how the numbers were manipulated by double counting and other tricks of the trade -- see several accounts, including that of Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, at http://www.globalpolitician.com/24590-israel

Why does the left want Israelis to believe in the “demographic threat”? Because that’s the only way they can get the voting public to submit to the “two state solution” – better known as the ONE state solution, where an Arab state would replace Israel.

And now, Haaretz – the voice of the left – has found, to their dismay, their Big Lie isn’t working. Israelis – including Israeli Arabs – don’t believe.

Interesting, isn’t it, how the general public – in much of the world – is catching on to the numbers men. The fake “global warming” has been exposed for what it is, people have taken to laughing at the Community Organizers “jobs saved” statistics, and Israelis are refusing to accept the notion that we have to jettison Judea and Samaria to remain a Jewish state.

It’s about time.

Oh-oh, there he goes again. Israel’s Foreign Minister, Thank-Gd-for-Loose-Canons Avigdor Lieberman, saying things he’s not supposed to be saying.

Not that what he said isn’t true, mind you. Just that he’s not supposed to say it. Just like when Education Minister Limor Livnat noted that the Obama administration was “awful” and “not a friend of Israel”, Lieberman voiced an inconvenient truth, words not included in the lexicon of diplomacy.

So what did the delightfully plain speaking Lieberman say this time? He warned Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad that if he dared to attack Israel, he’d see his own regime collapse.

What’s wrong with that? Seems like a truism. Barring some monumental catastrophe, if Assad did attack Israel, it’s highly likely he’d lose the war. (If he thought he could win, he’d have attacked already.) And if Assad pushed his country into a losing war, it’s highly likely he’d lose his throne where, many commentators say, he’s not sitting all that securely anyway. What’s the big deal?

Ah, but it was another gratuitous tidbit of commentary that Lieberman threw in that really set Israel’s liberals all a-twitter. Simply stated, Lieberman told Syria they better forget about ever getting the Golan Heights away from Israel.

Now there’s an inflammatory statement – to the leftists of the world. To suggest that any part of the “West Bank” – Judea and Samaria – will forever remain part of Israel is incendiary at best and war-mongering at worst.

Let’s put the whole thing in context:

Assad kicked off the back-and-forth between Lieberman and himself – not directly, of course – both were speaking to others, not each other. Assad fired the first volley when he told the Spanish Foreign Minister that “Israel was pushing the Middle East into a new war.”

(Which, we have to note, by Assad’s lights, is also true. By refusing to lay down and die, Israel is indeed “forcing” its enemies in the neighborhood to attack it again, if they want to get rid of the pesky Jewish entity.)

Lieberman, never one to back away from a challenge, responded in a speech at Bar-Ilan University: "Our message should be that if Assad's father lost a war but remained in power, the son should know that an attack would cost him his regime," Lieberman continued. "This is the message that must be conveyed to the Syrian leader by Israel."

"Whoever thinks territorial concessions will disconnect Syria from the axis of evil is mistaken," Lieberman went on. "Syria must be made to understand that it has to relinquish its demand for the Golan Heights."

Whoa! There we have it – the words that set the leftists into a tailspin. What? Israel intends to keep the Golan Heights forever? That can’t be – the only path to peace is via territorial concessions! Only by giving up land – all of it, eventually, but most certainly the Golan Heights for a starter – can Israel ever expect peace.

Which is also true: if Israel gives up the Golan Heights, it will have peace. The peace of the grave.

(Why? Military defensibility, certainly, but in a single word, water. Almost all of Israel’s fresh drinking water originates in the Golan Heights. No country can survive for very long if it turns its source of drinking water over to its enemies.)

But Lieberman wasn’t permitted to say such a thing. The Forces of Diplomacy went into overdrive to insist that 1. Lieberman didn’t mean to say what he said, followed by 2. If Lieberman did mean what he said, he should be fired. Bibi started by telling his cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser to phone all the ministers and tell them that they should not comment to the media, in any way, on the subject of Syria.

The brouhaha continues. The people who want Lieberman gone continue to call for his firing, resignation or ritual seppuku, whichever can be accomplished first.

The rest of us applaud the Foreign Minister for saying what he did. It’s heartening to know that in Bibi’s cabinet, there’s at least one minister who openly voices support for the Land of Israel.

When it comes to snow, I’m pretty hard to impress.

To me – growing up on the North Dakota prairie – a “snowstorm” means blinding snow, driving winds and below-freezing temperatures. It means 10’ high snow banks banked against the side of the house, high enough to block the windows. It means not being able to leave the house because snow drifts block the car inside the garage. It means shoveling many feet of the stuff off the porch until you can open the front door.

A proper snowstorm should result in something like this:




But all that said, a snowstorm -- Israeli version – is predicted for today, or more properly last night and today. I will say this – the rain has been impressive. It rained pretty constantly all night last night, which was a total delight. It was so lovely, peaceful and restful I slept almost six hours, two hours longer than my norm. Such a deal!

We all loved the rain -- even my roommates slept soundly all night. Rachel, the mostly-Poodle, usually feels compelled to bark at the feral cats who normally run and play (not to mention mate) on the roof during the night, but with the steady rain, there were no cats to distract her. Molly Goldberg, the mostly-Border Collie, didn’t even stir when I finally got up. If Molly had thumbs, she’d still be in bed, reading a book.

The real fun is supposed to start today. Sometime this morning, some weather reports say, the rain will turn to snow – even here in the “northern Negev.” But as I say, when snow is concerned, I’m hard to impress.

The Jerusalem Post this morning features a video – you can watch it here, on the “JPost Video” http://www.jpost.com/ . It's almost funny.

They show this enormous bulldozer scraping up about an inch of snow from the roadway, paired with an interview with some official who’s talking about all the precautions the city is taking. Schools will close, as will many businesses. It makes me giggle – a few swipes with a broom would have handled that snow as well as a bulldozer, but then, they didn’t ask me…...

Still, as I recall from my California days, snow in places like California or Israel is much more dangerous than it is in places like North Dakota. Not because of the snow itself, but because hardly anyone who decides to go out and drive in it knows how. Then too, Jerusalem is seriously hilly – driving on those hills when they’re wet or slippery, let alone snowy, is indeed something to be concerned about. The thing to worry about is other people – not so much the snow itself.

Here in Beersheba, the weather forecast for today says our incipient snowstorm “will be preceded by a sandstorm.” That sounds like fun. I have to admit, though, even as I write this, the wind is picking up – could be we’re in for a blast.

I have a little trouble imagining sandstorms after all this rain, but maybe someone who’s lived here longer than I have can chime in. Can you really have a sandstorm mixed with torrential rain?

The storms are predicted to continue through Shabbat, Saturday. Fine with me – “He who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” should be blessed.

There’s a disconnect in what Bibi’s doing – it doesn’t make any sense at all. The only thing I can think of is that he’s adopted Jerry Brown’s ‘Canoe’ theory of politics: “Paddle on the right, paddle on the left, you keep going straight down the middle.”

On Friday, Bibi went to Ariel -- it’s in Samaria, what the Community Organizer likes to call the “West Bank” when he’s feeling generous, and “the future state of Palestine” when he’s not. Anyway, Bibi went to plant trees in Ariel in honor of Tu B’Shavat, the Jewish New Year for Trees.

So Bibi planted the tree in Samaria and referred to Ariel as “The capital of Samaria” adding that it was “an indisputable part of Israel”. "Everyone who sees the geography here understands how important" Ariel and the surrounding areas are, he said – which is certainly a truism. Here’s a map – of course Ariel is an indisputable part of Israel.



Moreover, Bibi said he wasn’t just planting a tree, but instead setting forth three principles: “Growing strength, Jewish settlement and culture in the heart of our land of our forefathers and where we will remain and build."

Huh?

Hey – great to have the Prime Minister recognize that indeed Samaria – and Judea, and Jerusalem – are the heart of our land, and that we will remain and build there. Good to know he agrees with that – because when he paddles on the left, he appears not to understand that concept.

But this is the same Prime Minister who knuckled under to the Community Organizer’s demented and illogical demand for a building freeze in..... you guessed it, Samaria. (And Judea and Jerusalem, of course). When Bibi finally gave in to Washington’s pressure machine and agreed to a ten month freeze on all “building” and “settlement activity” he was admitting, tacitly or otherwise, that Samaria, Judea and parts of Jerusalem would, at some point, be handed over to the terrorists who surround us, so that they could create yet another terrorist state from which to attack. That was the alleged point of the building freeze: Jews would no longer build in those areas, because they were about to become part of the “Palestinian” terror state.

So now, the Prime Minister plants trees in Ariel, pictured below, “the capital of Samaria”, averring that “this is the land of our forefathers... where we will remain and build.”



As I said, Huh?

Ariel was an interesting place for Bibi to make his quizzical comments – Ariel University, founded in 1982, and today, home to some 11,000 students, including Jews, Arabs, Druze and Circassian Israelis. As it happens, it’s the fastest growing university in Israel.



For what it’s worth, Bibi also planted trees in Gush Etzion and Ma'ale Adumim, two other Israeli communities that also happen to lie over the infamous “green line” and hence are subject to US, UN and Arab demands for inclusion in some future terrorist state.

There must be some logic to what the Prime Minister is doing and saying, but it’s not obvious – unless it really is as simple as Jerry Brown suggested: paddle on the right, paddle on the left….

The problem with Brown’s kind of political pragmatism is that it rarely wins you any friends. Much more common is for the canoe to spring a leak, and leave you alone in the lake, gasping for breath.

As Matt Drudge says, “developing…”

I made a mistake. I knew better, and I went ahead and did it anyway. Now I’m suffering the consequences.

The story starts long ago, and if you want the whole real story, go read Eli Evans’ magnificent book, “The Lonely Days were Sundays”, because that was indeed the origin of the underlying problem.

Evans writes about the problem of Sundays where he grew up in North Carolina, but the issues he identified – boredom, loneliness, feeling of isolation -- were oddly similar to those I experience in North Dakota. Sunday as a day by itself was deadly – and worse yet, it was coupled with the threat of school the next day. I developed a system for distracting myself from Sundays. In North Dakota, it involved stacks of books I’d purposely save for that day. I'd spend the day holed up in my room, reading.

When I got to San Francisco, Sundays had become quite tolerable. I’d walk out by the Bay, talk to some of the Italian fishermen angling off the coastline. Or I’d go shopping at Cost Plus, the original store, where stuff from all over the world was simply offered, still in the packing boxes and shipping crates, at ridiculously low prices even a starving student could afford. Or I’d go walking in one of the City’s neighborhoods I wasn’t familiar with. I found a lot of delights – especially in the Mission District. I love that part of the City.

Then came Sacramento. When the kids were little, the days -- all of them -- were too busy to have time to fret about Sundays. But once they had become more or less independent, with friends and activities of their own, I was back to my original problem: what to do on long and frequently dismal Sundays.

Because San Francisco offered so many diversions, I took to driving the two hours back to Baghdad by the Bay and enjoying the day there, just as I had when I lived there. Sometimes the kids came along, sometimes they didn’t. The dogs always did, but with the kids or without, the dogs and I had a fine old time in San Francisco again, Sunday or not. We’d do pretty much the same things I used to do when I lived there – Cost Plus had turned into a regular store with regular prices, so that wasn’t much fun anymore. But sometimes we’d go to the beaches, watch the kite flyers in the Marina, go shopping downtown looking for bargains, or head out to the Friends of the San Francisco Library book sale places. There were always lots of interesting places to go in San Francisco.

No matter what we chose to do with the day, driving-home time came right at about 5:00 pm. And because Sunday was Sunday, there wasn’t much of interest on the radio, either, to fill up the two hour trip home. This was well before the advent of books on tape, although it was right about then that I started to lie, telling the ‘books for the blind’ people that I was blind so I could get books on tape – read (sometimes massacred) by amateurs. That’s where my addiction to audio books started, actually. Those long drives home from San Francisco on Sundays.

Before that, though, I was limited to whatever was on the radio for diversion. Then, as now, I suspect, the radio programs on Sundays exemplified Newton Minnow’s “vast wasteland” every bit as perfectly as TV. There were no political talk radio shows, the kind of thing I loved. All that existed were a handful of ‘self-help’ programming thick enough to make you gag.

The one tolerable show that came on late on Sunday afternoon was a real estate program hosted by Bruce Williams. People would call in with their housing and real estate questions, and he’d give advice – most of it relatively interesting.

Insofar as housing was concerned, Bruce Williams had a mantra that he drilled into the heads of his listeners: “Never fall in love with something that can’t love you back.” In other words, keep in mind that a house is just a house. It’s a place to live. Don’t invest too much emotional energy in it – it can’t love you back.

Good advice. I should have been paying attention and remembering that during the last 18 months, because I did the dirty: I committed the cardinal violation of the Bruce Williams Law. I fell in love with the house I was renting, hoping to buy.

So last Friday morning, one week ago, I was stunned to get a call from someone I didn’t know: “Hi”, the man began. “We’re the new owners of your house. We’re wondering if we could come over and take some measurements – and by the way, when do you think you’ll be able to move?”

Good grief.

My problem was two-fold: first was the obvious problem of finding a new place to live, in a city where the real estate market is so hot an awful lot of other renters are also out pounding the pavement, trying to find a new place – any place – to live, their homes having been sold out from under them, too.

But second -- and far worse -- was that I’d fallen in love with this house.

It’s stupid, I know that. The house is small, old, and nothing at all to look at. It’s just that for me, as a single person with dogs and birds, it’s perfect. It’s the right size, in the perfect location, with neighbors I both enjoy and appreciate. Right after moving in, I started to realize how much I loved this place. I know now I should have acted sooner to do what I could to buy it myself – but who knew?

Anyway. I’ve spent the last week going through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief – which applies just as well to emotional devastation as it does to physical death, by the way.

At first, I denied it: Surely there was a mistake. They didn’t really sell the place, did they?

Second, I was angry – unreasonably so, with no actual grounds. The truth is, I have a valid lease until June. The owner – or owners, because they are five adults, in their 40’s and 50’s who inherited the place -- understandably want to sell now while the market is so hot. Rationally, I don’t blame them at all, and they’re being very generous about my actual moving time – but, I was angry. No question about it.

Third, I tried bargaining: Surely we could work this out. Could I outbid the new owners? It didn’t take long for that stage to pass – the new owners loved the place as much as I did, and had considerably more money. That wasn’t going to work.

Then depression set in. Woe is me. How can I ever leave this wonderful place? Depression, by the way, includes panic attacks, especially those that bloom best sometime after midnight. What will become of me?

Now, a week later, I’ve moved into acceptance – or almost, anyway. I’ve turned the corner from ‘what a disaster’ to thinking of this as an adventure. The possibility exists that I will find something I like even better – why not? That’s perfectly possible. (And this time – trust me! I will buy something if I like it. This moving business is no longer fun.)

So here I am: I violated a rule I knew to be true: I fell in love with a house that couldn’t love me back. Dumb, dumb, dumb, but I did it anyway. Now I’m looking for some other place to live – and this time, I will be far more philosophical.

A house is, after all, just a place to live. Whatever I find will be just fine – it’s just going to take some time.

Shabbat shalom, everyone! (And on Sunday? I’m going to Jerusalem! Now there’s a sure cure for the blues!)

Yossi Katz, Philadelphia native, a former Israeli boxing champion and 30-year veteran teacher at Alexander Muss High School in Hod HaSharon, has written a fascinating book, “A Voice Called: Stories of Jewish Heroism”.

Published by the venerable Gefen Publishing House, it’s a fascinating little book, mostly because for each of the 32 Jewish heroes Katz chose, he includes a little personal story about how, why or where this person or his story came to touch his heart.

The chapters include the frequently-listed “great” Jewish heroes – Herzl, Hannah Senesh, Natan Sharansky – but even more interestingly, some lesser-known heroes are also presented, people like Roi Klein, Tal Brody, Naomi Shemer. Even a couple of notable Jewish boxers who were heroic for something in addition to boxing have their stories told.

I had a chance to interview Katz yesterday, and without scooping a formal book review that will be published next month in UpFront Magazine, something Katz said about heroes in general came to mind this morning as I was reading the Internet news.

First off, I was following links, moving from one thing to another, and came across a video of some numbnuts rapper named “T I” who was sharing his expertise on the sad state of the US economy. Try as I might, I can’t get the video itself to upload, but you can see it here: http://www.cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/ydnznzqGSU

The rapper “T I” – who almost but not quite manages to pronounce the word “prevalent” -- tells us that President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year is the best way to create jobs. With what’s apparently intended to be a deep-thinking, nay wise, scowl on his face, he pontificates as to how that will work: raising taxes will mean that the government has more money, he says, so then it can hire more people. Therefore raising taxes will create jobs.

Uh huh.

Shaking my head, I moved along to another website, where I see that Mel Gibson is coming out with yet another anti-Semitic movie, this one to open in March. Gibson, of course, is famous for supporting his father’s belief that the Holocaust never happened. All major studios passed on this newest film, called “The Edge of Darkness” which was co-written, directed and co-produced by Gibson, but one smaller studio has agreed to distribute the $25 million film for a fee.

According to one review, “The movie has probably created more controversy than any other movie in recent years. Some commentators have charged that the movie is anti-Semitic because it blames the Jews for the death of Christ. The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of G-d and the locus of evil... “

Well, that sounds enlightening. I can hardly wait.

All of this sends my mind reeling into the past, when the likes of Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins -- the list is endless – also ‘shared’ their political wisdom with us, speaking from their vast wisdom and knowledge about economics and public policy. Worst of all, they reveled in all the positive attention their adoring publics lavished on them, all courtesy of the equally slavish media.

During the interview, I asked Yossi Katz why he’d decided to write a book about Jewish heroes. “Heroes and heroines are the people who inspire us, who shape us into what we are. They’re our role models, people we look up to,” he said. “I’m worried because kids today – both American and Israeli – look up to people like Kim Kardashian or Bar Rafaeli (Israeli model and IDF-service dodger, best known for her relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio) as their heroes. It’s fine to watch a TV show, but when these performers become a national obsession and focus of hero worship, then there’s something wrong with society. When I was a kid we looked up to astronauts and national leaders, but there’s less and less of that today. So I wanted to put together a book that would give both adults and young people worthy role models, people who would inspire them.”

Boy, he’s right about that. For a little insight into some real heroes, people worthy of learning from, go buy “A Voice Called” by Yossi Katz.

Read just one story a day – they’re short, 3-4 pages each. Keep the Kleenex handy.

On Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Voice-Called-Stories-Jewish-Heroism/dp/9652294802/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264485569&sr=8-1

Tsk tsk, those Democrats in Congress are getting touchy.

A very interesting exchange occurred on the Dom Giordano Show, a Pittsburgh radio station, 1210 AM, between Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Spector and Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann. It was a worthy matchup, almost guaranteed to spark fireworks: Spector is old-line-liberal regardless of which party he calls home, while Bachmann is a feisty young Republican upstart.

For me, it brings up memories of Madeline Albright, President Bubba’s Secretary of State, known primarily for her amusingly revealing mini-skirts that made many an Arab head of State gasp, not to mention the fact that she claimed she never knew she was Jewish.

But first, here’s what happened on the talk radio show (you can hear the exchange itself at Real Clear Politics)

Michelle Bachmann spoke first when Spector interrupted her. Then she interrupted him, so Spector told Bachmann to “Stop interrupting”, adding, “I didn’t interrupt you.”

"Now, wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk," Spector said. "I'll treat you like a lady. Now act like one."

"Well, I am a lady," Bachmann responded, sounding almost amused.

They go at it again, talking over each other. Then Spector repeats the “lady” thing again, telling Bachmann she should "act like a lady."

Specter responds, "I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one. But just don't interrupt me."

The program continues for a moment, then erupts again. Specter complains that Bachmann, who insisted she voted for "prosperity" when Specter asked her about a specific vote, is "talking from talking points.” Spector again repeats his line, “"Now, wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk. I'll treat you like a lady. Now act like one."

So. Is anyone out there offended? That Sen. Spector pulled the “act like a lady” thing on a female member of the US House of Representatives? A woman elected to her office just as he is elected to his?

Personally, I’m virtually impossible to offend – if someone is crude or insulting, I tend not to take offense so much as I question the sanity of the person who said it. So for me, I can’t read “offended” into this, but in that I seem to be alone. Most of the commentary – especially from women – is that Spector was profoundly “offensive”.

As for the politics of interrupting, that’s a different story. This is where Madeline Albright comes into the picture.

Back in the days when I was a CSPAN junkie, I very clearly remember an interview with Mrs. Albright when she was Secretary of State. The interviewer asked her what her advice would be to young women who wanted to get into politics. “I would advise them to interrupt,” Albright said. “Women should not wait to ask permission to speak.”

That struck me as interesting – like most children of my generation, girls and boys both – I was taught not to interrupt. Breaking into someone else’s speech was rude, we were told – not to mention counterproductive. You only get respect when respect is given, was the line of thought.

This was mindboggling. Here was the United States Secretary of State telling women that it was their obligation to interrupt! That they needed to be aggressive in making their presence known if they want to get ahead.

Recently, Mrs. Albright repeated that advice on a Women’s Media forum:

“I tell women to act in a more confident manner. You need to learn to interrupt. Ask questions when they occur to you and don’t wait to ask. Also, you don’t need to ask permission to ask a question. Be a risk taker; business appreciates risk takers. This trait is desirable in prospective leaders.”

Today two elected officials battled it out. Each interrupted the other, not once but several times. Then the male of the pair, the much-embattled Sen. Spector – who in his own race for reelection is trailing Republican Pat Toomey 49 percent to 40 percent – played the gender card: “Act like a lady.”

So here’s the question: if a woman interrupts, is she not a “lady”?

Maybe this is just a variation on an old joke. Madeline Albright counsels women to interrupt. Sen. Spector says that when they do, they aren’t “ladies”.

Maybe Madeline Albright isn’t a lady -- “That ain’t no lady. That’s the Secretary of State”

Maybe the Congresswoman from Minnesota isn’t a lady either. Maybe she doesn’t need to be.