Friday, July 18, 2008
Cracker abuse
This post is about a group of Catholics who are very, very angry because a college student left Mass carrying the transubstantiated host in his mouth. This, apparently, is not allowed, and gives great offense to the creator of heaven of earth. Those of you who imagine God is insulted if the torah reader at shabbos mincha dons a talis take comfort: There are people nuttier than you.
Surprise! The leader of this band of reality-challenged crybabies is Bill Donohue, who won his first mention on this blog by announcing that Hollywood Jews prefer anal sex. (any similarity between what Bill said and some comments once made by Toby Katz is 100 percent coincidental)
Surprise! The leader of this band of reality-challenged crybabies is Bill Donohue, who won his first mention on this blog by announcing that Hollywood Jews prefer anal sex. (any similarity between what Bill said and some comments once made by Toby Katz is 100 percent coincidental)
Frum satire asks an interesting question. . .some of the answers though. . .
A guest post by TikunOlam
So I clicked on Jacob Da Jew's homepage and followed a link to Frum Satire's blog. I found some of FS's posts quite interesting. One, in particular, asked whether readers would go to a wedding between a Jew and a non-Jew. He has apparently been following Abandoning Eden's blog where she has been discussing her upcoming marriage to a man who is not Jewish. Frum Satire handles this topic very well. In his post and his follow-up comments he remains committed to his own belief system while respectfully posing the question to others, clearly with an ability to treat differing perspectives with interest and respect.
In reading some of the comments though, I came across a couple that really irritated me. Here are a couple of excerpts. I think you will see why I found them so annoyingly ignorant. Some of the comments are rather lengthy - follow the links to Frum Satire's blog if you want to read them in their entirety.
Shoshi says:
"Why does the person have a wedding ceremony in the first place? If you are a true atheist (in the sense of the 70ies anti-establishment movement), you do not believe in marriage, so why celebrate it…? … and why insist that certain persons (close friends, parents, family) should attend it…"
The "utube fan" comes in with this comment of brilliant psychological insight:
"Shoshi, I was thinking the same thing. If she truly is an atheist, then why the need for a wedding which is a religious ritual and if she wants this because as she writes in one of her posts, it’s a girl thing, then why be annoyed at the parents for not coming to a meaningless party. Do her parents come to other parties she throws? If it is because she wants their stamp of approval of this party, then that would be quite unreasonable of her to expect. The whole thing doesn’t make sense, but then again neither does her feeling of complete happiness without Judaism. And the reason I say that is because I have taken the time to read her posts and I feel that something is missing. While I understand like Rich says that some people just don’t believe in Orthodox tenets, I usually know more about the choice especially when the person has such an extensive Orthodox background as she does. I can’t help it, but the lifestyle affords so many options within it–options she says she considered–so I wonder why a person would be “happy” to turn away from it. It is–when properly explored–an extremely rich lifestyle choice. I know a few intellectuals who can’t come to grips with the rules or the thought process behind them, but they choose to marry Jewish because they want to give their children the rich, positive experiences of Judaism. I would love to know more about her youthful experiences in Judaism. For some MO young people, the Judaism they are presented is cold, materialistic, and disconnected. And sometimes it’s the middleman of the religion–the parents or the schools–that disappoint the person in their approach or lack of caring and then the whole thing goes to atheism in a handbasket masked as intellectual questioning. . . "
Fortunately Abandoning Eden has more tolerance for this complete ignorance than I do and had the patience to coming up with the following response:
“. . .Marriage (in my atheistic view) is not a religious thing. To me it is a commitment that no matter what happens in the future, you will honor the love you had for each other at the onset by trying your hardest and best to be good to one another, and to have a working relaitonship. And weddings aren’t s0me mystical thing, but rather a public declaration of those intentions.
Also in terms of the anger thing- I was a lot angrier when I wrote my latest blog post than I am now (after a few days have gone by). And I understand why my parents are sad/angry about my decision. That doesn’t mean I can’t still be sad/angry about their’s.”
So I clicked on Jacob Da Jew's homepage and followed a link to Frum Satire's blog. I found some of FS's posts quite interesting. One, in particular, asked whether readers would go to a wedding between a Jew and a non-Jew. He has apparently been following Abandoning Eden's blog where she has been discussing her upcoming marriage to a man who is not Jewish. Frum Satire handles this topic very well. In his post and his follow-up comments he remains committed to his own belief system while respectfully posing the question to others, clearly with an ability to treat differing perspectives with interest and respect.
In reading some of the comments though, I came across a couple that really irritated me. Here are a couple of excerpts. I think you will see why I found them so annoyingly ignorant. Some of the comments are rather lengthy - follow the links to Frum Satire's blog if you want to read them in their entirety.
Shoshi says:
"Why does the person have a wedding ceremony in the first place? If you are a true atheist (in the sense of the 70ies anti-establishment movement), you do not believe in marriage, so why celebrate it…? … and why insist that certain persons (close friends, parents, family) should attend it…"
The "utube fan" comes in with this comment of brilliant psychological insight:
"Shoshi, I was thinking the same thing. If she truly is an atheist, then why the need for a wedding which is a religious ritual and if she wants this because as she writes in one of her posts, it’s a girl thing, then why be annoyed at the parents for not coming to a meaningless party. Do her parents come to other parties she throws? If it is because she wants their stamp of approval of this party, then that would be quite unreasonable of her to expect. The whole thing doesn’t make sense, but then again neither does her feeling of complete happiness without Judaism. And the reason I say that is because I have taken the time to read her posts and I feel that something is missing. While I understand like Rich says that some people just don’t believe in Orthodox tenets, I usually know more about the choice especially when the person has such an extensive Orthodox background as she does. I can’t help it, but the lifestyle affords so many options within it–options she says she considered–so I wonder why a person would be “happy” to turn away from it. It is–when properly explored–an extremely rich lifestyle choice. I know a few intellectuals who can’t come to grips with the rules or the thought process behind them, but they choose to marry Jewish because they want to give their children the rich, positive experiences of Judaism. I would love to know more about her youthful experiences in Judaism. For some MO young people, the Judaism they are presented is cold, materialistic, and disconnected. And sometimes it’s the middleman of the religion–the parents or the schools–that disappoint the person in their approach or lack of caring and then the whole thing goes to atheism in a handbasket masked as intellectual questioning. . . "
Fortunately Abandoning Eden has more tolerance for this complete ignorance than I do and had the patience to coming up with the following response:
“. . .Marriage (in my atheistic view) is not a religious thing. To me it is a commitment that no matter what happens in the future, you will honor the love you had for each other at the onset by trying your hardest and best to be good to one another, and to have a working relaitonship. And weddings aren’t s0me mystical thing, but rather a public declaration of those intentions.
Also in terms of the anger thing- I was a lot angrier when I wrote my latest blog post than I am now (after a few days have gone by). And I understand why my parents are sad/angry about my decision. That doesn’t mean I can’t still be sad/angry about their’s.”
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Jewish-American Saga of Gitty Grunwald and Her Daughter
I do not like that Satmar man
I do not like his Satmar clan
I do not like how he treats his wife
I do not agree with how he lives his life
I do not like that Satmar clan
No, I do not like them Sam-I-an
Hat tip: Most all of you
My opinion on the Satmar is that they are morons making Judsaism mornoic with their institutional bigotry, their triumphalism, and their backwards and benighted takes on life, science, history, Chumash and halacha.
I'm siding with the woman in the story you'll reach via the link above. Yes, she stole the girl first, but it seems beyond dispute that the her daughter will be happier outside of the Satmar enclave. See, the little girl is tainted. Her mother is OTD. She's played with Barbie dolls, and seen women wearing pants. For the not-so-good people of Kiryas Joel this makes her damaged goods. You might as well slap a scarlet T for treif on her forehead.
What lies ahead for this little girl, if she remains in KJ, is a life of soul-breaking misery. She's the olderst daughter, and in the land of the Satmar oldest daughters are junior mommies, chasing after dozens of siblings. And because she'll be the eldest daughter in a blended family, she's have no real mother to protect her. It'll be like Cinderella, but instead of a handsome prince, she'll be "rescued" probably at age 17 (though 15 isn't impossible) by a man she'll likely meet in her wedding bed. Anyone deserves better, but unlike her Satmar sisters this girl has a chance at something better because her brave mother saved herself and escaped the shtetl. She should be allowed to save her daughter, too.
I do not like his Satmar clan
I do not like how he treats his wife
I do not agree with how he lives his life
I do not like that Satmar clan
No, I do not like them Sam-I-an
Hat tip: Most all of you
My opinion on the Satmar is that they are morons making Judsaism mornoic with their institutional bigotry, their triumphalism, and their backwards and benighted takes on life, science, history, Chumash and halacha.
I'm siding with the woman in the story you'll reach via the link above. Yes, she stole the girl first, but it seems beyond dispute that the her daughter will be happier outside of the Satmar enclave. See, the little girl is tainted. Her mother is OTD. She's played with Barbie dolls, and seen women wearing pants. For the not-so-good people of Kiryas Joel this makes her damaged goods. You might as well slap a scarlet T for treif on her forehead.
What lies ahead for this little girl, if she remains in KJ, is a life of soul-breaking misery. She's the olderst daughter, and in the land of the Satmar oldest daughters are junior mommies, chasing after dozens of siblings. And because she'll be the eldest daughter in a blended family, she's have no real mother to protect her. It'll be like Cinderella, but instead of a handsome prince, she'll be "rescued" probably at age 17 (though 15 isn't impossible) by a man she'll likely meet in her wedding bed. Anyone deserves better, but unlike her Satmar sisters this girl has a chance at something better because her brave mother saved herself and escaped the shtetl. She should be allowed to save her daughter, too.
We get email
Chardal says:
I have a great source for you for progressive tax rates from Jewish history. See Making of a Godol p. 28 where he writes that some Jewish communities put a tax on meat of about 5%. They felt that if someone was wealthy enough to purchase meat, then there responsibility towards the poor was great enough that the community would tax them. Just don't turn this into a post on how Torah values support the dems. You know full well that it is silly to say that Torah values support any political party!
I have a great source for you for progressive tax rates from Jewish history. See Making of a Godol p. 28 where he writes that some Jewish communities put a tax on meat of about 5%. They felt that if someone was wealthy enough to purchase meat, then there responsibility towards the poor was great enough that the community would tax them. Just don't turn this into a post on how Torah values support the dems. You know full well that it is silly to say that Torah values support any political party!
Want a T-Shirt?
Torturous
Newsweek, a mainstream, liberal-ish publication proves the terrorists have won by arguing for blanket pardons for administration officials who sanctioned torture. This is crazy talk and Sadly No explains why (beware of four-letter words.)
For the record
I oppose the trade Israel made yesterday - and for all the obvious reasons. You don't fight terrorism by making it clear and obvious that even the most vicious murderers will eventually be sent home to a hero's welcome.
The burqa is a prison cell
A Guest Post by Rafi G.
(cross posted from LII)
A Muslim minister in the French government was behind the rejection of citizenship, which was later upheld by the High Court of France, of a Muslim immigrant applying for citizenship.
the reason for the rejection?
Because she wears a burqa. While claiming religious needs as the reason for her wearing a burqa, the French Muslim minister says the burqa has nothing to do with religion, rather it is a form of forced submission and is like a prison. She says that the woman cannot possibly integrate into French society while wearing a burqa and her practice of radical Islam is not cohesive with French society and its norms.
On the one hand, being raised with Democrat (rather than Republican) values, to me this is reprehensible. To discriminate against someone just because of what she wears? They did not see in her behavior anything specific linking her to radicalism or anti-French sentiments. What if a religious Jew wants to become a citizen of France - will they reject such an appilcation as wll, because the applicant wears tzitzis and a kippa, or a hat and jacket, or a shtreimel and long coat?
On the other hand, having seen the effects of radical Islam, after seeing the effects of radicalism in general, both by living in an ever increasing radical society of frumkeit, and by living in the Middle East in general, it seems to me to be a good move, even if it impinges on this individuals personal rights. By giving too much in the way of freedoms and rights, by being too liberal with people who are anti-liberal, that is how it came to be that radical Islam has been gaining power in Europe, and even in the USA (though less so). The threat is real, so perhaps certain liberal rights need to be curtailed in order to fend off the deterioration of any specific nations identity.
If this court decision will be one that deters radical Islam from gaining a foothold in French society, perhaps it is worth curtailing her rights, and perhaps France made a good move, from the nations perspective.
I wonder if either the USA or Israel would be able to get away with rejecting someone for such a reason....
(cross posted from LII)
A Muslim minister in the French government was behind the rejection of citizenship, which was later upheld by the High Court of France, of a Muslim immigrant applying for citizenship.
the reason for the rejection?
Because she wears a burqa. While claiming religious needs as the reason for her wearing a burqa, the French Muslim minister says the burqa has nothing to do with religion, rather it is a form of forced submission and is like a prison. She says that the woman cannot possibly integrate into French society while wearing a burqa and her practice of radical Islam is not cohesive with French society and its norms.
On the one hand, being raised with Democrat (rather than Republican) values, to me this is reprehensible. To discriminate against someone just because of what she wears? They did not see in her behavior anything specific linking her to radicalism or anti-French sentiments. What if a religious Jew wants to become a citizen of France - will they reject such an appilcation as wll, because the applicant wears tzitzis and a kippa, or a hat and jacket, or a shtreimel and long coat?
On the other hand, having seen the effects of radical Islam, after seeing the effects of radicalism in general, both by living in an ever increasing radical society of frumkeit, and by living in the Middle East in general, it seems to me to be a good move, even if it impinges on this individuals personal rights. By giving too much in the way of freedoms and rights, by being too liberal with people who are anti-liberal, that is how it came to be that radical Islam has been gaining power in Europe, and even in the USA (though less so). The threat is real, so perhaps certain liberal rights need to be curtailed in order to fend off the deterioration of any specific nations identity.
If this court decision will be one that deters radical Islam from gaining a foothold in French society, perhaps it is worth curtailing her rights, and perhaps France made a good move, from the nations perspective.
I wonder if either the USA or Israel would be able to get away with rejecting someone for such a reason....
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Who said it?
"Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”"
The answer
What his supporters will say: But, but, but CLINTON
The answer
What his supporters will say: But, but, but CLINTON
Favor Request
Bodies handed over by Hezbollah
Guest post by TikunOlam
Haaretz 7/16/08:
"Two years after Israeli reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were abducted by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid, the Lebanon-based guerilla group transferred coffins containing their bodies from Lebanon to Israel as part of a prisoner exchange. "
To see the article in Haaretz click.
Haaretz 7/16/08:
"Two years after Israeli reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were abducted by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid, the Lebanon-based guerilla group transferred coffins containing their bodies from Lebanon to Israel as part of a prisoner exchange. "
To see the article in Haaretz click.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Another famous New Yorker cover
This one is my all-time favorite. [Click to enlarge]
Thought it over: The Obama cover (below) works. It's meant to satire the media's habit of dumbing things down. The New Yorker is part of the media, so by going over the top with their own cover, one that might be titled "The GOP's worst nightmare," the magazine successfully skewers those who have published Obama caricatures. It isn't funny (or offensive) but if you look at it from this perspective, at least its satire.
New Yorker Cover
Discussion:
1 - What, exactly is the joke, and who is it on? If it's satire, shouldn't there be some kind target? Is the scene meant to be a GOP Jew's thought balloon? Even so: Showing how the opposition thinks isn't satire.
2 - Next month, the cover should depict doddering old John McCain as a 400 year old man with anger veins throbbing on his temple. For good measure, let a line of discarded lovers disappear into the distance behind him. Instead of bin Ladin, a protrait of some fat biblebelt theocon should be on the wall, and instead of a flag, put the Constitution in the fireplace. (Note: This wouldn't be any funnier, or any more succesful at satire.)
3 - Perhaps, this is meant as commentary on how the press cheapen political discourse by presenting presidential candidates as broad caricatures. If the New Yorker is attempting to satire its own industry, in effect, they are saying: See? This is what irresponsible magazines do! Unlike us! (Note: Still isn't funny)
Monday, July 14, 2008
Big Jew
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Talmud Singing | The Daily Show | (from 1999)
Friday, July 11, 2008
Bizarro Bush
In the interest of doing what I can to dumb down the already-dumb election, let me make the case that Barak Obama is the Bizarro George Bush. The two men are opposites in ways that are almost spooky: Where one is polished, the other is rough; where one is too-cowboy, the other threatens to be too conciliatory. The man from Chicago has a manner that is measured and slick in a way some find condescending. The owner of the fake ranch has a clumsy locution that suggests an indifference to his audience at times crossing into contempt. One thinks too much about his words, the other too little.
Bush is scion of an old family, a child of money and power who pretends to be an ordinary guy. Obama acts elite, though he grew up poor, with no father. Even their names are Bizarro-opposites of one another. “George Bush” sounds wholesomely patrician; “Barak Obama” is ethnic, almost sinisterly so.
Does this portends an Obama victory in November. Perhaps (but remember, we're still trying to dumb things down) The pendulum has a way of swinging back. The liberal 60s and 70s gave way to the button-downed 80s and the neo-conservative 90s. Last year we had SUVs; today we drive hybrids. The Yankees are down; the Rays are up. And perhaps too-stupid Bush will likewise be followed by his Bizarro antithesis.
Bush is scion of an old family, a child of money and power who pretends to be an ordinary guy. Obama acts elite, though he grew up poor, with no father. Even their names are Bizarro-opposites of one another. “George Bush” sounds wholesomely patrician; “Barak Obama” is ethnic, almost sinisterly so.
Does this portends an Obama victory in November. Perhaps (but remember, we're still trying to dumb things down) The pendulum has a way of swinging back. The liberal 60s and 70s gave way to the button-downed 80s and the neo-conservative 90s. Last year we had SUVs; today we drive hybrids. The Yankees are down; the Rays are up. And perhaps too-stupid Bush will likewise be followed by his Bizarro antithesis.
