A day late, and a dollar behind, the New York Times (finally) weighs in on NYC's water tumult.
Click here to read the article
Money quote:
"The controversy is indicative of deepening religious conservatism in the American Orthodox world. William B. Helmreich, a professor of sociology and Judaic studies at the City University of New York Graduate Center, said that "in a society where people feel via the Internet and television their very values are under constant attack, there's a need for people to reassert their level of religiosity, and one way this is done is by discovering new restrictions which give people the opportunity to demonstrate their adherence to their faith."
The Times further reports that filters are being installed all over the city, ranging in cost from $99 to $1,150.
The sure winners? Plumbers and water filter entrepreneurs.
"A day late, and a dollar behind"? "Finally"?
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times first reported on this issue on June 1!
There's Something in the Water, And It May Not Be Strictly KosherBy MICHAEL BRICK; PATRICK HEALY CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FOR THIS ARTICLE. (NYT) 870 words
Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 1 , Column 4
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 870 WORDS - New York City seems a fine place for an observant Jew to keep kosher. There are specialty shops for the ultra-Orthodox and for those of less strict beliefs. ... And it all works out just fine, provided you don't get thirsty. Some rabbis now say that New York City tapWhat was that about needing glasses? Using search engines?
Sheesh... something about pots and kettles comes to mind...
Ok, but unlike the laziness of some "American-Israeli Modern-Orthodox religious-Zionist politically-conservative yeshiva-educated happily-married Ivy-League software engineer not from New York" I know, my own laziness didn't slander an organization, or undermine it's good works and reputation.
ReplyDeleteIt's not slander if it's true. If HRW acts in ways that undercut its own credibility, I'm not at fault for pointing that out.
ReplyDeleteOf course it's slander. Your post suggested the HRW turns an indifferent eye to attacks on civillian, when nothing could be further from the truth.
ReplyDelete