"Asher" writes:
The soon-to-be divorced Mr. Prager is back doing what he loves to do best: serving as self-appointed spokesman of Judaism and all things Jewish. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something in the way that he seeks to ingratiate himself to his largely christian audience that really rubs me the wrong way. He relishes the role of "house Jew" far too much.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
How's that for brass?
That is why the “Blog Awards” contest is so important—not for our egos, but for our goal of becoming an important outlet for Torah thought to the world. --YAAKOV MENKEN
Nope, nothing egotistical about that goal at all.
Look, Yaakov, by all means, encourage your readers to support you in the JIBs. We all do it. Even me. I have no quarrel with a little flag-waving.
But for the love of all that is holy and pure, don't tell them to vote for you because your blog is a "well-articulated Torah perspective" when, in truth, your perspective is little more than GOP-talking points, and your articulation is (at best) long-winded and redundant.
Nope, nothing egotistical about that goal at all.
Look, Yaakov, by all means, encourage your readers to support you in the JIBs. We all do it. Even me. I have no quarrel with a little flag-waving.
But for the love of all that is holy and pure, don't tell them to vote for you because your blog is a "well-articulated Torah perspective" when, in truth, your perspective is little more than GOP-talking points, and your articulation is (at best) long-winded and redundant.
2005 JEWISH & ISRAEL BLOG AWARDS
Go start your voting...now! Okay, how about ...now!
Still here, eh?
Thanks to you and your clicky fingers, DovBear has advanced to the finals in 6 categories:
Best Overall
Best Jewish Culture
Best Series (It was awsome)
Best Post (eh... It was ok)
Best Religion (!)
Best Current Events (duh)
Nice work, clicky fingers, but you aren't done yet: Please go back (using the links, helpfully provided above) and see what you can do about getting me another banner for my sidebar. Thanks in advance.
Our motto: Vote your conscience! (If you have no conscience vote DovBear)
Still here, eh?
Thanks to you and your clicky fingers, DovBear has advanced to the finals in 6 categories:
Best Overall
Best Jewish Culture
Best Series (It was awsome)
Best Post (eh... It was ok)
Best Religion (!)
Best Current Events (duh)
Nice work, clicky fingers, but you aren't done yet: Please go back (using the links, helpfully provided above) and see what you can do about getting me another banner for my sidebar. Thanks in advance.
Our motto: Vote your conscience! (If you have no conscience vote DovBear)
What will the children think?
This, my friends, is a "Terrible Tree." It stands outside the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh, festooned in yellow and black, to celebrate the achievments of the local football team.
The ACLU, naturally is silent (they probably financed it, in fact, the commie football-ists) but why haven't we heard from old Bill O'Reilly and the rest of his merry band of Christian Crusaders?
A beloved religious symbol has been secularized! Traditions are eroding! The Lord's flora has been mocked! Progressive football-lovers are on the march, and our morals are under seige! Oh, won't anyone please stand up for Christmas?
Monday, January 23, 2006
Mr Pot? I have a kettle for you on line 2
After a long absence, Eytan Kobre returns to Cross Currents today with an absurd post about newspapers, a post in which he rips the New York Times for everything up to and including sunspots.
The fusillade begins because when Eytan spots an editing error. Then, not content with a legitimate gripe, Eytan goes full throttle: The underwear ads are no good. Their publisher is too sensitive and too much the humanist. Oh, and the Time's corrections column doesn't confess error as boldly as Rabba once did. Yes, he means Rabba from the Talmud. Was he also patron saint of newsmen?
As the column's absurdity intensifies, Kobre carries on as if these "problems" are unique to the Times; yet are they? Sure, the paper runs underwear ads next to articles which describe great human tragedies, but so would any newspaper. Sure, the browbeating in the Times' corrections column is mild next to Rabba's exquisite self-effacement, but does any newspaper make its confessions unambiguously? Every paper makes mistakes as the ample and daily correction column at the WSJ testifies.
His many and elaborate descriptions of the Time's staff as "sensitive humanists" tempts me to dismiss the whole thing as satire or as just another cheap shop. Still, I can't ignore the possibility that Eytan Kobre is too deep in the grips of right-wing propaganda to see that the absurd accusations he's directs at one paper apply equally to them all.
The fusillade begins because when Eytan spots an editing error. Then, not content with a legitimate gripe, Eytan goes full throttle: The underwear ads are no good. Their publisher is too sensitive and too much the humanist. Oh, and the Time's corrections column doesn't confess error as boldly as Rabba once did. Yes, he means Rabba from the Talmud. Was he also patron saint of newsmen?
As the column's absurdity intensifies, Kobre carries on as if these "problems" are unique to the Times; yet are they? Sure, the paper runs underwear ads next to articles which describe great human tragedies, but so would any newspaper. Sure, the browbeating in the Times' corrections column is mild next to Rabba's exquisite self-effacement, but does any newspaper make its confessions unambiguously? Every paper makes mistakes as the ample and daily correction column at the WSJ testifies.
His many and elaborate descriptions of the Time's staff as "sensitive humanists" tempts me to dismiss the whole thing as satire or as just another cheap shop. Still, I can't ignore the possibility that Eytan Kobre is too deep in the grips of right-wing propaganda to see that the absurd accusations he's directs at one paper apply equally to them all.
A sigh of relief
Well, those of you who worried that President Bush might have stumbled by mistake into a screening of Brokeback Mountain ("Lookie Laura! A cowboy movie!") can go back to sleep. He hasn't seen it.
That's a good thing, I think.
Why? Because according to the Fundementalist Agenda Brokeback Mountain is Hollywood's latest attempt to deliver America into the clutches of the Gay Agenda. (Gasp if you wish) A talker on Straight Talk Radio even said that this movie was part of the plan to "homosexualize America."
Much as I might dislike the president, I can't deny that he seems the sugestible type. He's just the sort of person who might go into Brokeback Mountain and come out dressed in fetish gear or mincing about the fake ranch. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
That's a good thing, I think.
Why? Because according to the Fundementalist Agenda Brokeback Mountain is Hollywood's latest attempt to deliver America into the clutches of the Gay Agenda. (Gasp if you wish) A talker on Straight Talk Radio even said that this movie was part of the plan to "homosexualize America."
Much as I might dislike the president, I can't deny that he seems the sugestible type. He's just the sort of person who might go into Brokeback Mountain and come out dressed in fetish gear or mincing about the fake ranch. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
What does it mean to be an American?
Mail Call:Newsweek: "As an orthodox Jewish rabbi with a beard and payos (earlocks) whose grandparents came to America more than a century ago, I absolutely do not want a European, African or Asian immigrant as my president.
Why not? Yes, I know that the Constitution says the President can't be an immigrant, but what's the reason for this requirement? Is it rooted in more than nativism, or fear of the other? Do you support the constitution on this point out of a simple respect for the law of the land, or because it speaks to your particular bias?
It takes at least one generation to not only be a legal American, but to feel and think like an American.
Says who? The Founders banned new arrivals from the nation's highest office because they were afraid some European might seize control and turn the young country into an adjunct of Europe. They weren't concerned with the quality of "feeling or thinking like an American" because no such thing existed in 1789. And, so long as we're on the subject, what does it mean to "feel or think like an American?" Is there really any one quality some 295,734,134 people share? If so, what do you propose we do with the American's who might lack it? Strip them of their citizenship? Ban them from public office?
My daughter went to law school at St. John's in her wig and long dresses, and is one of the youngest graduates in its history. Only in America could a third-generation Orthodox Jewess successfully attend a Roman Catholic school that is run by real democratic Americans who truly understand freedom of religion and make allowances for her.
Yes, I agree it would be strange, indeed, if she found herself in an Italian or British school run by "real democratic Americans." However, Americans aren't the only ones who understand freedom of religion. Europe has many schools like the nominaly Roman Catholic St John's, schools where your daughter might have thrived without compromising her values.
I am a proud American, and my involvement with 'new' Americans demonstrates to me that they need the time to fully become Americanized so that they feel and think like Americans."
I am also a "proud American." One of the things that makes me most proud is that the quality of being an American is not fixed, but dynamic. It changes to reflect the will and the action of each generation of Americans. Those there customs and ideas commonly identified with this country, none are intrinsic to being American. The country, and our identity as citizens, it whatever we make of it.
Why not? Yes, I know that the Constitution says the President can't be an immigrant, but what's the reason for this requirement? Is it rooted in more than nativism, or fear of the other? Do you support the constitution on this point out of a simple respect for the law of the land, or because it speaks to your particular bias?
It takes at least one generation to not only be a legal American, but to feel and think like an American.
Says who? The Founders banned new arrivals from the nation's highest office because they were afraid some European might seize control and turn the young country into an adjunct of Europe. They weren't concerned with the quality of "feeling or thinking like an American" because no such thing existed in 1789. And, so long as we're on the subject, what does it mean to "feel or think like an American?" Is there really any one quality some 295,734,134 people share? If so, what do you propose we do with the American's who might lack it? Strip them of their citizenship? Ban them from public office?
My daughter went to law school at St. John's in her wig and long dresses, and is one of the youngest graduates in its history. Only in America could a third-generation Orthodox Jewess successfully attend a Roman Catholic school that is run by real democratic Americans who truly understand freedom of religion and make allowances for her.
Yes, I agree it would be strange, indeed, if she found herself in an Italian or British school run by "real democratic Americans." However, Americans aren't the only ones who understand freedom of religion. Europe has many schools like the nominaly Roman Catholic St John's, schools where your daughter might have thrived without compromising her values.
I am a proud American, and my involvement with 'new' Americans demonstrates to me that they need the time to fully become Americanized so that they feel and think like Americans."
I am also a "proud American." One of the things that makes me most proud is that the quality of being an American is not fixed, but dynamic. It changes to reflect the will and the action of each generation of Americans. Those there customs and ideas commonly identified with this country, none are intrinsic to being American. The country, and our identity as citizens, it whatever we make of it.
What's new* in the New Republic?
The New Republic's Jan 23 edition cements it's already iron-clad reputation as the most-Jewish of the political magazines. Three articles (out of 15) are about Shraon and his legacy, and for good measure, the issue's movie review trashes Munich. Not quite what the rest of the blogosphere might lead you to expect from the media, right?
We begin with Leon Wieseltier's Unsettled, which has in it moments of eulogy and moments of argument:
*I'm a week behind. My New Republic arrives on Friday, but a new issue is published on Monday.
We begin with Leon Wieseltier's Unsettled, which has in it moments of eulogy and moments of argument:
The only peace that is available to Israel is a premature peace, and the Israeli center, the mixture of prudence and decency that Sharon (Arik melekh yisrael!) [sic] represented, is wagering that a premature peace may not be a counterfeit peace. There are good reasons for such a wager. Israel is spectacularly strong; and the peace with Egypt and Jordan has withstood two intifadas and an American war in Iraq; and the Soviet Union is still dead; and the requirements of Israeli safety have nothing to do with the requirements of Jewish eschatology... But the best reason for the wager, of course, is that the demographic inevitabilities between the river and the sea are now incontrovertible. No, that's not right: they were incontrovertible decades ago. But at last they have been acknowledged by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert and other figures on the right who have more important things to be than right. I overcame my skepticism about Sharon's change of heart on April 14, 2004, when he came to Washington to tell President Bush that Israel will insist upon retaining five settlement blocs on the West Bank. Five! The press exploded that an American president had for the first time acceded to Israeli settlements. They missed the scoop, which was that the foreign policy of Israel had been emancipated from the fantasies and the stratagems of the settlers by the man who was once their god. Of all the people to establish a political basis for a practicable peace! But that is precisely what this grand and brutish man has done.Yossi Klein Halevi's Past Perfect is dedicated to Ehud Olmert, the man who will be asked to implement Sharon's vision. The article which discusses Olmert's journey from right to center tells us that the man who was once a local Betar commander and committed Revisionist rethought his lifelong political commitments during his tenure as Jerusalem's mayor:
Miki Cohen, one of Olmert's mayoral aides, suggests that Olmert was transformed by his repeated exposure to terrorist attacks. "He went to every terror site as soon as the attack happened and saw the most terrible things," says Cohen. "He also went to most of the funerals, and then visited the families. Over the years, I often heard Revisionist ideas from him. But my sense is that those experiences convinced him that we had to try a different way.And where does this "different way" leave the Palestenians? On the outside. As the third article, Isabel Kershner's Disengaged tells it, a spirit of fatalism has overtaken Palestine
Having been "disengaged" from Israel, the Palestinians are focusing on themselves. "Palestinians think Israel and the United States will do what they want anyway. They don't see any solution, so this is not a priority in casting their vote for parliament," says Bashar Hamayel, the owner of a hardware store in El Bireh. Shikaki concurs. As he explained to me, at the moment, economics, corruption, and law and order rank as top priorities. Then comes the issue of how to deal with the occupation, through violence or not. The peace process--namely the consideration of who can best deliver or reach agreements--comes last.This, finally, is why Ariel Sharon is entitled to the admiration of all Israel. His habit for unilateralism may have upset the right (as it once infuritated the left) but who can object to the result? Thanks to Ariel, Israel has clear, defined borders. It has a Jewish majority, without relying on the immoral and unpalatable approach of denying votes and a voice to a conquered majority. And the Palestenians, at last, seem ready (however resignedly) to turn inward and to focus on their own problems and on building their own state.
*I'm a week behind. My New Republic arrives on Friday, but a new issue is published on Monday.
Friday, January 20, 2006
In the begining....
"The woman conceived and bore a son. She saw that he was good and she kept him hidden for three months. " (Exodus 2:2 )
On this verse Rashi tells us (citing Sotah 12A) that when Moshe was born the whole house filled with light. Why? (Not "why light and not, marshmallows;" but "why doesn't Rashi take the verse at face value?")
Well, if you read closely, like Rashi did, you'll see that the verse seems to say that Moshe was saved because he was good. Strange, no? Doesn't every Jewish mother think her children are good? And yet, not every Jewish child was saved. This suggests (to Rashi, at least, who had a gift for catching subtle suggestions) that there was something odd about this particular child. A house full of unexplained light, you will agree, is seriously odd.
A second midrash says that Moshe was born circumcised and though we can easilly imagine Moshe's mother recognizing that as a sign that her son was worth saving, Rashi rejects it in favor of the house of light. According to someone who's name I forget, Rashi prefers the first midrash because the words themselves support it: On the day of his birth Yocheved looks at her son, and she saw he was good (vatera oto ki tov hu) ; on the first day of creation, God looks at the light, and he sees that it was good. (vayare elokim et ha'or ki tov.)
It's as if we're meant to understand that the birth of Moshe represents the begining of a second creation.
On this verse Rashi tells us (citing Sotah 12A) that when Moshe was born the whole house filled with light. Why? (Not "why light and not, marshmallows;" but "why doesn't Rashi take the verse at face value?")
Well, if you read closely, like Rashi did, you'll see that the verse seems to say that Moshe was saved because he was good. Strange, no? Doesn't every Jewish mother think her children are good? And yet, not every Jewish child was saved. This suggests (to Rashi, at least, who had a gift for catching subtle suggestions) that there was something odd about this particular child. A house full of unexplained light, you will agree, is seriously odd.
A second midrash says that Moshe was born circumcised and though we can easilly imagine Moshe's mother recognizing that as a sign that her son was worth saving, Rashi rejects it in favor of the house of light. According to someone who's name I forget, Rashi prefers the first midrash because the words themselves support it: On the day of his birth Yocheved looks at her son, and she saw he was good (vatera oto ki tov hu) ; on the first day of creation, God looks at the light, and he sees that it was good. (vayare elokim et ha'or ki tov.)
It's as if we're meant to understand that the birth of Moshe represents the begining of a second creation.
Exercising discretion
Strange Bedfellows
Guess who's working together to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers?
The Catholic Church (duh) and Agudath Israel!
According to Zweibel, the Chief Rabbi of Agudah, their concerns are very noble:
The Catholic Church (duh) and Agudath Israel!
According to Zweibel, the Chief Rabbi of Agudah, their concerns are very noble:
The ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America, however, said it was wary of the legislation, which would require clergy to "report to authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused," according to a March 19 statement by Morgenthau. David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Aguda, said he feared that the proposal could infringe on "religious freedom.Which freedom would that be? The freedom to smack kids around? Well no. Apparently, the religious issue Zweibel wishes to protect is mesira, a category of law concerning when one Jew may inform on another to the secular government. The old mobsters, incidently, called it omerta and you can just bet they're wishing that they had had the foresight to wrap it up in religion.
A Point Worth Sharing
balabusta in blue jeans: ...is [Avi Shafran] seriously proposing that halacha holds that the democratically elected head of state must not exist in a democracy, but be considered a divinely empowered ruler? This despite the fact that his power derives SOLELY from the same democratic system that puts on him checks and balances and gives the rights of dissent to the people who elected him and can darn well unelect him if necessary?
My head is spinning. This proposes that democracy has NO function at all, except as a device to bestow non-democratic powers. I have only one other question. Did Rabbi Shafran hold this belief when Bill Clinton was in office, or is there another statement by Maimonides that a king fooling around on his wife and being a Democrat is grounds for believing the divine annointment has gone away?
My head is spinning. This proposes that democracy has NO function at all, except as a device to bestow non-democratic powers. I have only one other question. Did Rabbi Shafran hold this belief when Bill Clinton was in office, or is there another statement by Maimonides that a king fooling around on his wife and being a Democrat is grounds for believing the divine annointment has gone away?
Why do they pick on me?
A round-up of some of the very stupid things peoople have said to me over the last 24-hours.
HirshelTzig: "Using page loads rather than unique visitors as a counter is deceiptful and cheap. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, man.
HirshelTzig Homepage 01.20.06 - 9:57 am
Yes, which is why I resisted doing it for almost a year. However, every other bigish blog counts its visitors that way, so my choices were (a) play by their rules or (b) continue to look bad.
Warren: Shilling for votes is beyond acceptable. If I cared about awards, I'd write to the people who run this one, whoever they are, I haven't bothered to click on their link, and suggest that next year anyone who puts a "Welcome voters" on top of their page, or asks for votes, should be disqualified. Get back to work, all of you, and whoever wins, don't make a big deal about it.
Warren 01.20.06 - 6:03 am
You're aware of course (or perhaps you're not) that most every blog does this, including Cross Current, the one and only blog I really want to beat (and not for the privlage of putting some banner on my sidebar, by the way.). Cross Currents has had a whiny little message begging for support at the top of their site for almost two weeks. I resisted doing that until yesterday (though I did indulge in a not-very-whiny blogad) Have you objected to Cross Current's practice? Threatened to snitch on them? (It isn't againt the rules to shill) If not, please STFU.
Moishe Potemkin: ...every time we libertarians pop our heads up, guys like Charlie and DovBear assure us that the government only wants what's best for us, and that they're incorruptible so long as they're Democrats. Uh-huh. Sure.
Moishe, you have never heard that argument here. One of the themes of this blog is that men can't be trusted. They are all corruptable. Which is one reason why we find it so frusterating that GOP libertarians like you have handed the president a blank check. As for the government, see Madison (If men were angels... etc.) Government, a necessary evil, works best when it is transparent and inclusive, with rules of procedure that are fair and respected. Not when it's all reduced to the will of the executive.
HirshelTzig: "Using page loads rather than unique visitors as a counter is deceiptful and cheap. But hey, whatever makes you feel good, man.
HirshelTzig Homepage 01.20.06 - 9:57 am
Yes, which is why I resisted doing it for almost a year. However, every other bigish blog counts its visitors that way, so my choices were (a) play by their rules or (b) continue to look bad.
Warren: Shilling for votes is beyond acceptable. If I cared about awards, I'd write to the people who run this one, whoever they are, I haven't bothered to click on their link, and suggest that next year anyone who puts a "Welcome voters" on top of their page, or asks for votes, should be disqualified. Get back to work, all of you, and whoever wins, don't make a big deal about it.
Warren 01.20.06 - 6:03 am
You're aware of course (or perhaps you're not) that most every blog does this, including Cross Current, the one and only blog I really want to beat (and not for the privlage of putting some banner on my sidebar, by the way.). Cross Currents has had a whiny little message begging for support at the top of their site for almost two weeks. I resisted doing that until yesterday (though I did indulge in a not-very-whiny blogad) Have you objected to Cross Current's practice? Threatened to snitch on them? (It isn't againt the rules to shill) If not, please STFU.
Moishe Potemkin: ...every time we libertarians pop our heads up, guys like Charlie and DovBear assure us that the government only wants what's best for us, and that they're incorruptible so long as they're Democrats. Uh-huh. Sure.
Moishe, you have never heard that argument here. One of the themes of this blog is that men can't be trusted. They are all corruptable. Which is one reason why we find it so frusterating that GOP libertarians like you have handed the president a blank check. As for the government, see Madison (If men were angels... etc.) Government, a necessary evil, works best when it is transparent and inclusive, with rules of procedure that are fair and respected. Not when it's all reduced to the will of the executive.
Go Go Google!
If one side in a dispute takes "Don't be evil" as it's watchword, what might we presume about the other player? We're speaking, of course, of the Justice Department's argument with Google, the fine and magnanimous company which delivers DovBear to you, day after day, at no charge.
According to the newspapers, the humorless drones in Justice want Google to hand over information about what people seek when they use the search engine. Google's response? Stuff it. Meanwhile, Yahoo and Microsoft both rolled over and went to fetch the Attoreny General's slippers.
As for the administration, can't they be content with listening in to our phone calls, B.S.-ing their way into a war, stealing money from Indians, and enriching Halliburton while frittering away a $650 billion cash surplus? Do they also need to know exactly who among us is looking at naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston? (Not me.)
According to the newspapers, the humorless drones in Justice want Google to hand over information about what people seek when they use the search engine. Google's response? Stuff it. Meanwhile, Yahoo and Microsoft both rolled over and went to fetch the Attoreny General's slippers.
As for the administration, can't they be content with listening in to our phone calls, B.S.-ing their way into a war, stealing money from Indians, and enriching Halliburton while frittering away a $650 billion cash surplus? Do they also need to know exactly who among us is looking at naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston? (Not me.)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
PSA
The community is advised that I've changed my stat counter. As of today it counts page views, not unique visitors, bringing the blog into line with the approach used by most other blogs. The counter itself, however, will remain at the bottom of the page and not up at the top where the insecure bloggers keep it. ;)
Glossary
Unique Visitor Count
A unique visitor is determined by cookies. If someone visits your website and does not have a cookie, or their cookie is older than an hour they count as being a unique visitor and a pageload.
Page Load Count
If someone visits your website and they have a cookie that is less than an hour old, their cookie is updated and they are only counted as a pageload. A pageload is simply the total number of times your page has been accessed, ignoring the unique aspect altogether. This naturally means your pageloads will always be greater than or equal to your unique visitors.
Glossary
Unique Visitor Count
A unique visitor is determined by cookies. If someone visits your website and does not have a cookie, or their cookie is older than an hour they count as being a unique visitor and a pageload.
Page Load Count
If someone visits your website and they have a cookie that is less than an hour old, their cookie is updated and they are only counted as a pageload. A pageload is simply the total number of times your page has been accessed, ignoring the unique aspect altogether. This naturally means your pageloads will always be greater than or equal to your unique visitors.
Final Push
If men were angels, no government would be necessary
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary"
-JAMES MADISON
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-THOMAS PAINE
A vile thought from Rabbi Avi Shafran is prominently displayed on Cross Currents this morning. He says, in part, that Geroge W. Bush must be fully supported by Jews because 800 yars ago Maimonides ruled that the power of a Jewish King to wage war was absolute.
Shafran fails to remember two things (aside from the rather obvious details about George being neither Jewish nor a king.)
First, a Jewish King was given this great power, because he was imagined to be the Pure and Humble Servant of God. His presumed goodness, and loyalty to the Torah was meant to function as a check on his power. An American president is entitled to no such presumption of Goodness, which is why the Founders imposed serious checks on his power. Second, as the Book of Kings dramitically demonstrates the king who is also a Pure and Humble Servant of God is a chimera. He never existed, not even when the Temple stood.
Shafran fails not because Bush is bad, or because the Rambam was wrong, but because the King who was worthy of the power Shafran wishes Bush to have, has never in human history existed.
-JAMES MADISON
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-THOMAS PAINE
A vile thought from Rabbi Avi Shafran is prominently displayed on Cross Currents this morning. He says, in part, that Geroge W. Bush must be fully supported by Jews because 800 yars ago Maimonides ruled that the power of a Jewish King to wage war was absolute.
Shafran fails to remember two things (aside from the rather obvious details about George being neither Jewish nor a king.)
First, a Jewish King was given this great power, because he was imagined to be the Pure and Humble Servant of God. His presumed goodness, and loyalty to the Torah was meant to function as a check on his power. An American president is entitled to no such presumption of Goodness, which is why the Founders imposed serious checks on his power. Second, as the Book of Kings dramitically demonstrates the king who is also a Pure and Humble Servant of God is a chimera. He never existed, not even when the Temple stood.
Shafran fails not because Bush is bad, or because the Rambam was wrong, but because the King who was worthy of the power Shafran wishes Bush to have, has never in human history existed.
Pataki's Plan
It's not often I disagree with my very good friend OrthoMom (Note to RenReb NYAH!) but today the MomOf4 is wrong about Governor Pataki plan to give a $500 tax credit to public and private school parents in underperforming school districts.
The idea sounds nice (Free money! Whoopie!) but handing out cash won't help Jewish families overcome monsterous tuition costs.
The instant more money becomes available our fine Jewish schools will raise their tuition, or they will facter this new money into their scholarship packages. Instead of offering prospective students "X" it will be "X minus the credit."
No-one - save the schools - will come out ahead.
The idea sounds nice (Free money! Whoopie!) but handing out cash won't help Jewish families overcome monsterous tuition costs.
The instant more money becomes available our fine Jewish schools will raise their tuition, or they will facter this new money into their scholarship packages. Instead of offering prospective students "X" it will be "X minus the credit."
No-one - save the schools - will come out ahead.
Frummer than the Pope?
I've often worried that my good friend Yaakov Menken might go too far in his rush to justify Judaism to the gentiles. Has his defense of Intelligent Design and criticism of judges who refuse to let it become part of public school curriculums crossed some sort of line?
Tip of the miter to Frummer?
The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.What does it mean when one of our leading Jewish pundits embraces a view of the world that is less scientific than the position advanced by the bishop of Rome?
Tip of the miter to Frummer?
Michael Brown: "I blew it"
This just in:
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown on Wednesday accepted a greater share of the blame for the government's failures after Hurricane Katrina, saying he fell short in conveying the magnitude of the disaster and calling for help.Among Brownie's other revelations yesterday: "The Earth is round, the moon is not made from green cheese and DovBear is generally right about everything."
"I should have asked for the military sooner. I should have demanded the military sooner," Brown told a gathering of meteorologists at a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada.
Luke Ford's Five Minutes
Is Luke Ford a someone? Apperently so. The man who, in 2005, brought us nearly five months of non-stop blogging about rabbinic indiscretions got a mention in Mark Steyn's rememberance of Moustapha Akkad. (Who? Moustapha gave us all eight Halloween movies, and tried valiently to rehabilitate our image of Muslims before being killed last November in a suicide bombing) The post-mortem, with the Ford citation, appears on page 208 (Bad luck Luke!) of the current Atlantic:
In an interview with Luke Ford for his 2002 book The Producers, [Moustapha] agreed with the author's estimate that Hollywood's muscle was "70 percent Jewish," but reckoned you got along fine as long as you steered clear of certain subjects. "The media runs the world," he said. "No tanks or planes. The media and the public companies. This is what The Protocols of Zion is all about. The Zionists, last century, were persecuted in Europe. So they immigrated to America. They had a target. They were united. They did not permit [statements] critical of Zion. They went all the way to control the world and to control the minds of the people through the media. There's a lesson to learn from them."And look at that: Stephen I Weiss's old blog, Protocols, the place where Luke did most of his most memorable muckraking was remembered, too.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Foul Secularists
The death of a pope is not a laughing matter
Dancing maybe. Feasting perhaps. But not laughing.
[Tip of the smashing religious headgear to Mis-nagid, foulest secularist of them all]
Dancing maybe. Feasting perhaps. But not laughing.
[Tip of the smashing religious headgear to Mis-nagid, foulest secularist of them all]
Heads up
When I come across posts like this, I say to myself, "Lord I wish my wife read blogs, preferably mine."
Because now, if I print this out and bring it home, she won't respond to it with mirth and merriment, they way she might have had she discovered it on her own. Oh no. Instead, she is going to presume that I brought it home in support of some kind of agenda.
Because now, if I print this out and bring it home, she won't respond to it with mirth and merriment, they way she might have had she discovered it on her own. Oh no. Instead, she is going to presume that I brought it home in support of some kind of agenda.
Gemarah is The Constitution is Gevaldik
The better magazines are debating the president's power to wage war in a manner that reminds me of the bes medrash. Here's how the argument might appear on a page of the Vilna Shas:
MISHNA: The Congress shall have Power to... declare War
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoo says: "declare" not "engage in" From this we learn the power to engage in war resides with the president, and because our Torah proscribes no check on his war making power, he may do as he pleases. As we learn from Blackstone ,"the monarch had no need to declare war before beginning hostilities against another nation."
Rabbi Sunstein says: Ah, but our Sages have specifically rejected Blackstone, for example Rav Washington says: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure." And Rav Kent said "war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress."
DovBear says: The textual argument of Rabbi Yoo is very strong, but we do not rule by the text alone. Our traditions along with the view of the founders appear to support Rabbi Sunstein: The president may not do as he pleases during the prosecution of war.
RASHI
Declare: A declaration recognizes the state of affairs, rather than authorizing the creation of that state of affairs
Engage In: Elsewhere (Article I, Section 10) it says that states may not "engage in War" suggesting that the Framers meant a difference between the two terms.
Our Torah: The Constitution
No Check: Save the Power of the Purse. War must be paid for by the House.
As he pleases: Wiretapping, detaining enemy combatants without hearings, and torture, included.
Our sages: James Wilson, et al.
Our traditions: On many occasions, the courts have required explicit congressional support for presidential action, even when national security was at risk.
The view of the founders: Per Sunstein: "James Madison wrote that the Constitution has, "with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ature]." Alexander Hamilton said that the legislature "can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility." John Marshall declared that "the whole powers of war" are constitutionally "vested in Congress." Thomas Jefferson wrote that under the Constitution, "one effectual check to the Dog of war" was "transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body." In the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, James Wilson noted that under the Constitution, the decision whether to go to war "will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men." In South Carolina, Pierce Butler, an active participant in the original debates, explicitly said that the Constitution denied the power of "making war or peace" to the president, because it was "objected to, as throwing into his hands the influence of a monarch, having an opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her destruction." There are not many issues on which James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Wilson, John Adams, and Pierce Butler can be said to agree.
MISHNA: The Congress shall have Power to... declare War
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoo says: "declare" not "engage in" From this we learn the power to engage in war resides with the president, and because our Torah proscribes no check on his war making power, he may do as he pleases. As we learn from Blackstone ,"the monarch had no need to declare war before beginning hostilities against another nation."
Rabbi Sunstein says: Ah, but our Sages have specifically rejected Blackstone, for example Rav Washington says: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure." And Rav Kent said "war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress."
DovBear says: The textual argument of Rabbi Yoo is very strong, but we do not rule by the text alone. Our traditions along with the view of the founders appear to support Rabbi Sunstein: The president may not do as he pleases during the prosecution of war.
RASHI
Declare: A declaration recognizes the state of affairs, rather than authorizing the creation of that state of affairs
Engage In: Elsewhere (Article I, Section 10) it says that states may not "engage in War" suggesting that the Framers meant a difference between the two terms.
Our Torah: The Constitution
No Check: Save the Power of the Purse. War must be paid for by the House.
As he pleases: Wiretapping, detaining enemy combatants without hearings, and torture, included.
Our sages: James Wilson, et al.
Our traditions: On many occasions, the courts have required explicit congressional support for presidential action, even when national security was at risk.
The view of the founders: Per Sunstein: "James Madison wrote that the Constitution has, "with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl[ature]." Alexander Hamilton said that the legislature "can alone actually transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of hostility." John Marshall declared that "the whole powers of war" are constitutionally "vested in Congress." Thomas Jefferson wrote that under the Constitution, "one effectual check to the Dog of war" was "transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body." In the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, James Wilson noted that under the Constitution, the decision whether to go to war "will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men." In South Carolina, Pierce Butler, an active participant in the original debates, explicitly said that the Constitution denied the power of "making war or peace" to the president, because it was "objected to, as throwing into his hands the influence of a monarch, having an opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her destruction." There are not many issues on which James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Wilson, John Adams, and Pierce Butler can be said to agree.
Glass Houses Watch
What would MLK Day be without a bogus racial brouhaha?
"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about." ---Hillary Clinton
"I've never run a plantation before. I'm not even sure of what kind of association she's trying to make. If she's trying to be racist, I think that's unfortunate, but I'm not going to comment any further on that." --Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress
"It's definitely using the race card. It definitely has racist connotations. She knows it. She knew the audience. She knew what she was trying to say, and it was wrong. And she should be ashamed." -- Peter King, Member of Congress.
Uh huh
"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about." ---Hillary Clinton
"I've never run a plantation before. I'm not even sure of what kind of association she's trying to make. If she's trying to be racist, I think that's unfortunate, but I'm not going to comment any further on that." --Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress
"It's definitely using the race card. It definitely has racist connotations. She knows it. She knew the audience. She knew what she was trying to say, and it was wrong. And she should be ashamed." -- Peter King, Member of Congress.
Uh huh
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
...on the worship of Mammon
I've really been enjoying the Abramoff emails, because they show the minds of these pious fruads for what they are.
First, we learned that Jack-in-the-hat himself used nasty words like "troglodyte" to describe the Indians he was defrauding to the tune of $82 million. He also called them "lower form[s] of existance," "plain morons" and the "stupidest idiots in the world for sure."
Then came the Lapin Letters, with the revelation that the good Rabbi and hawker of "Thou Shall Prosper: Ten Commandments for Making Money " had given his blessing to a credential fraud.
Now we have Ralph Reed, Christian par excellance, and former head of the Christian Coalition, saying, "I need to start humping in corporate accounts! . . . I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts." Reed has also been revealed to have once run an anti-gambling campaign against one casino, that was financed by a second casino.
Ah, how hard it is to serve the lord.
First, we learned that Jack-in-the-hat himself used nasty words like "troglodyte" to describe the Indians he was defrauding to the tune of $82 million. He also called them "lower form[s] of existance," "plain morons" and the "stupidest idiots in the world for sure."
Then came the Lapin Letters, with the revelation that the good Rabbi and hawker of "Thou Shall Prosper: Ten Commandments for Making Money " had given his blessing to a credential fraud.
Now we have Ralph Reed, Christian par excellance, and former head of the Christian Coalition, saying, "I need to start humping in corporate accounts! . . . I'm counting on you to help me with some contacts." Reed has also been revealed to have once run an anti-gambling campaign against one casino, that was financed by a second casino.
Ah, how hard it is to serve the lord.
Christian crybabies
If you're the sort of liberal who thinks activist judges should be imposing standards on public instiutions, head over to Cross Currents where Yaakov Menken is urging the California courts to force the University of California to accept a set of courses the college has already judged inadequate.
Those of you who watch Cross Currents closely, have already understood that it is Christians, and not Jews, who Yaakov is defending. And, of course, you are right. To quickly summarize, a Christian high school and the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) are suing the University of California system, because it won't accept credits from private Christian high school courses that don't "adequately teach the subject matter."
Yaakov would have you believe that "the public university —in California, at least— is trying to get religion out of the religious schools also [sic]" but that's nonesense. Students are free to continue attending Christian schools, and the private Christian schools are free to continue educating their students as they see fit. And students from the bible schools who qualify are still admitted to the University of California. The issue here isn't admission, but course credit. (The college created a course, and asked UC to credit it. The college reviewed the material, and said, sorry, no, this sucks. The kid can still get into UC. He just can't get credit for biblical math, or whatever.)
If the University of California believes that the courses at these schools are inadequate that is a question of academic standards, best left to be answered by the College itself. No university - state universities included - is required at provide credit for courses that don't meet standards, even arbitrary standards. Rather then running to court hoping for a friendly judge who will lower the bar, the bible schools should go back to the drawing board and make their courses more rigorous. As any opponent of affirmative action will tell you, there is no protected right to receive college credit. The Bible schools can do as the like, but they must live with the consequences of those choices
If someone must be sued in this sorry case, let the parents sue the Bible School for providing a sub-standard education, one that includes courses that are ineligible for credit at some universities.
[A word about bonafides: I have always opposed affirmative action, and I believe that a public univeristy has not just the right, but also the obligation to mantain standards. Yaakov and the crew at Cross Currents, on the other hand have, in the past written against activist judges, and his collegue Toby Katz has published more that one stinging critique of Woman's Study Programs. If the high school was skewing its courses to accomodate a woman's perspective instead of a Christian perspective, you can bet Yaakov and his gang would be (correctly) siding with the college.]
Those of you who watch Cross Currents closely, have already understood that it is Christians, and not Jews, who Yaakov is defending. And, of course, you are right. To quickly summarize, a Christian high school and the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) are suing the University of California system, because it won't accept credits from private Christian high school courses that don't "adequately teach the subject matter."
Yaakov would have you believe that "the public university —in California, at least— is trying to get religion out of the religious schools also [sic]" but that's nonesense. Students are free to continue attending Christian schools, and the private Christian schools are free to continue educating their students as they see fit. And students from the bible schools who qualify are still admitted to the University of California. The issue here isn't admission, but course credit. (The college created a course, and asked UC to credit it. The college reviewed the material, and said, sorry, no, this sucks. The kid can still get into UC. He just can't get credit for biblical math, or whatever.)
If the University of California believes that the courses at these schools are inadequate that is a question of academic standards, best left to be answered by the College itself. No university - state universities included - is required at provide credit for courses that don't meet standards, even arbitrary standards. Rather then running to court hoping for a friendly judge who will lower the bar, the bible schools should go back to the drawing board and make their courses more rigorous. As any opponent of affirmative action will tell you, there is no protected right to receive college credit. The Bible schools can do as the like, but they must live with the consequences of those choices
If someone must be sued in this sorry case, let the parents sue the Bible School for providing a sub-standard education, one that includes courses that are ineligible for credit at some universities.
[A word about bonafides: I have always opposed affirmative action, and I believe that a public univeristy has not just the right, but also the obligation to mantain standards. Yaakov and the crew at Cross Currents, on the other hand have, in the past written against activist judges, and his collegue Toby Katz has published more that one stinging critique of Woman's Study Programs. If the high school was skewing its courses to accomodate a woman's perspective instead of a Christian perspective, you can bet Yaakov and his gang would be (correctly) siding with the college.]
Who said it?
''Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country.''
a) Rabbi Ovadya Yosef
b) Pat Robertson
c) Sultan Knish
d) NOLA Mayor Ray Nagin
Answer
a) Rabbi Ovadya Yosef
b) Pat Robertson
c) Sultan Knish
d) NOLA Mayor Ray Nagin
Answer
Monday, January 16, 2006
Go, Go, Gore
Al Gore celebrated the holiday with a stemwinder of a speech in which he called for an independent counsel to investigate whether Bush broke the law in authorizing domestic eavesdropping without court approval. Money quote:
Afterthought: Maybe the network suits were keeping their away teams close to home, in case they were needed to report on another shark attack on a runaway blond.
Of course there was no sign of this on the nightly news broadcast I watched, and I'll bet the cable news networks also gave it no coverage. [I have high hopes for Jon Stewart, though] So much for the liberal media. I guess it isn't news when a former vice president all but calls the president of the United States a lawbreaker. The minority in this country might as well be invisible."The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors.
The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
Afterthought: Maybe the network suits were keeping their away teams close to home, in case they were needed to report on another shark attack on a runaway blond.
Quote of the day:
From time to time, I find something that sounds like it could have come out of my own head. Here, for example, is Mobius of JewSchool:
...i want to make a point that the reason i draw comparisons between israeli policies and south african policies under the apartheid regime; and the reason i allege that israel's acts of collective punishment constitute war crimes is not because i seek to empower or embolden israel's "enemies" and detractors, but rather because as a jewish person living in israel, i am insensed and outraged by israel's actions in the occupied territories and wish to see an end to the occupation. i do not believe that israel is inherently bad, nor that the israeli leadership is motivated by racism, ethnic supremacism, or messianic delusions. rather i think they are motivated by nationalistic goals that are an outgrowth of 2,000 years of persecution. it is entirely understandable, but the lengths to which they go to secure an ethnic majority are unacceptable. i raise the issue not to call for israel's destruction, but rather to foster internal dialogue within the jewish community and within the israeli community. to do so, one must counteract pro-israel propaganda which dismisses allegations of apartheid and war crimes as unfounded. once we can see what is going on and be honest and upfront about it, we can work to address it and change it.Amen brother. I sign on to this statement 100 + ten percent.
Dear DovBear
DovBear, I’ve been reading your blog for some time, but this is (I think) the first time that I’ve posted a comment. If I may switch tracks for a moment – I found Lazer Brody’s messages to you quite disturbing. He asserts that, “Many lightweights use 'Machlokess' …among the orthodox as an excuse for not observing the Torah.”
Yes, many of us who are not frum do use that as part of our rationale, and I think that it’s valid. It’s simply incorrect that, in the Orthodox world, “we have no argument about Shabbos, kashrus, tefillin, and family purity.” The abundance of divergent opinions within the Jewish blogosphere alone would tend to invalidate his claims that “We have no disagreement as to all 613 mitzvas of Torah.” and “Orthodox Jewish unity is for real.” However, I think that an equally significant (if not greater) reason that so many of us eschew Orthodoxy is that people like Brody simply make us feel unwelcome. When I read “the enemies of the Jewish people in general, and the enemies of Orthodox Judaism in particular”, I come away with the distinct impression that he means me.
Of course, I realize that he doesn’t speak for you. I just wanted to say something about it in a venue in which some frum people would be paying attention. I didn’t want to comment on his site or email him about it, because I don’t think that he’d listen.
01.16.06 - 11:57 am
Thanks for the note. If you're reading "The DovBear Dialoges," a series currently running on Lazer's blog, you know that I've been doing my part to make it clear that a multiplicity of legitimate opinions exist within Judaism:
I also think you're wrong to presume that Lazer's thinks you're his enemy. If you're a non-Orthodox Jews, he may consider you misled or mistaken, but you are still his brother. He decries the forces of assimilation (and he's careful to single out the forces of right-wing assimilation) but I believe he has no animosity for its victims. Orthodox unity is real, not because we all practice and think about our religion in the same way, but because we recognize that we have more in common than not. And, not incidently, Jewish unity is real for the same reason. I pound other Jews more than anyone should but that is "open rebuke, and hidden love." I may express disgust that Jews often fall short of our own creed; I may chafe at displays of conformity at the expense of the rest of our tradition; and I may accept arguments from the outside about our politics, history and practice; but I roundly reject the contention that politics, history and practice are all that Judaism has. There is something distinctive about being a Jew, and it belongs to every Jew who wishes to share in it.
Yes, many of us who are not frum do use that as part of our rationale, and I think that it’s valid. It’s simply incorrect that, in the Orthodox world, “we have no argument about Shabbos, kashrus, tefillin, and family purity.” The abundance of divergent opinions within the Jewish blogosphere alone would tend to invalidate his claims that “We have no disagreement as to all 613 mitzvas of Torah.” and “Orthodox Jewish unity is for real.” However, I think that an equally significant (if not greater) reason that so many of us eschew Orthodoxy is that people like Brody simply make us feel unwelcome. When I read “the enemies of the Jewish people in general, and the enemies of Orthodox Judaism in particular”, I come away with the distinct impression that he means me.
Of course, I realize that he doesn’t speak for you. I just wanted to say something about it in a venue in which some frum people would be paying attention. I didn’t want to comment on his site or email him about it, because I don’t think that he’d listen.
01.16.06 - 11:57 am
Thanks for the note. If you're reading "The DovBear Dialoges," a series currently running on Lazer's blog, you know that I've been doing my part to make it clear that a multiplicity of legitimate opinions exist within Judaism:
"The only answer is that the way we preform our rituals are not inevitable, but contingent. The rituals, like most everything else, evolved - sometimes according to the rules set forth by halacha, sometimes not. The trouble with "simple faith" by my lights is, that in this case at least, it obscures the fact that ideas develop and change over time. And I am not sure why that fact needs to be hidden."Lazer has been perfectly accepting of my points, which, I must say, surprised me: Like you, I assumed that he was someone who denied that Judaism has a history, someone who imagines that our rituals and thinking did not evolve over time. To his credit, he acknowledges that Judaism has developed, and though he objects to my use of the word "change," I think this is semantics. His history is still imperfect, and he has much too much faith in the efficacy of the written word as a vehicle of human communication over long periods of time, but he knows that men in 2006 can't possibly think about the world in the same way that men in 106 did, and he accepts the implications.
I also think you're wrong to presume that Lazer's thinks you're his enemy. If you're a non-Orthodox Jews, he may consider you misled or mistaken, but you are still his brother. He decries the forces of assimilation (and he's careful to single out the forces of right-wing assimilation) but I believe he has no animosity for its victims. Orthodox unity is real, not because we all practice and think about our religion in the same way, but because we recognize that we have more in common than not. And, not incidently, Jewish unity is real for the same reason. I pound other Jews more than anyone should but that is "open rebuke, and hidden love." I may express disgust that Jews often fall short of our own creed; I may chafe at displays of conformity at the expense of the rest of our tradition; and I may accept arguments from the outside about our politics, history and practice; but I roundly reject the contention that politics, history and practice are all that Judaism has. There is something distinctive about being a Jew, and it belongs to every Jew who wishes to share in it.
Martin Luther King, Jr: Selected Readings
He was the greatest orator of his generation, and second only to Lincoln when it came to putting words together. Some excerpts:
We are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together. --Martin Luther King, Jr., Address at the Freedom March on Washington D.C, 28 August 1963
"...when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. --Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
More:
I've Been to the Mountaintop
I Have a Dream
Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
Letter from Birmingham Jail
We are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together. --Martin Luther King, Jr., Address at the Freedom March on Washington D.C, 28 August 1963
"...when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. --Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
More:
I've Been to the Mountaintop
I Have a Dream
Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
Letter from Birmingham Jail
Mississippi 2006
Last year, Wonkette reported that the Mississippi Tax Commission's (601-923-7000) answering maching announced that the office was closed, "...in observance of Robert E Lee's and Martin Luther King's birthdays."
At the time, I asked incredulously if a rebellion-leader like Lee was entitled to a holiday, but I acknowledged that "this Mississippi compromise was probably just a way to get the fine, backwards, incest-committing people of the South to acknowledge - however backhandedly - MLK and all the good he did to make our country a better, safer place to live."
Well, I called Mississippi again this morning, and today the answering machine says simply that the office is closed "...in observance of a state holiday."
It is a message that sounds a little like the announcment our Hassidic gabbai makes when he tells us that the minyan times have been changed on July Fourth or Memorial Day "because of the Federal Holiday." And I am sure the sentiment is similar: Not to name the holiday is a way of undermining it. (Ladies, when men can't seem to remember your boyfriend's name they are playing a similar game. Be advised.)
At the time, I asked incredulously if a rebellion-leader like Lee was entitled to a holiday, but I acknowledged that "this Mississippi compromise was probably just a way to get the fine, backwards, incest-committing people of the South to acknowledge - however backhandedly - MLK and all the good he did to make our country a better, safer place to live."
Well, I called Mississippi again this morning, and today the answering machine says simply that the office is closed "...in observance of a state holiday."
It is a message that sounds a little like the announcment our Hassidic gabbai makes when he tells us that the minyan times have been changed on July Fourth or Memorial Day "because of the Federal Holiday." And I am sure the sentiment is similar: Not to name the holiday is a way of undermining it. (Ladies, when men can't seem to remember your boyfriend's name they are playing a similar game. Be advised.)
Sunday, January 15, 2006
In Rashi's Bes Medrash
"During those many days, the king of Egypt died, and the Jewish people moaned because of the bondage, and they cried. And their cry for help from the slavery rose up to God." (Exodus 2:23)
"Pharaoh had leprosy," said my teacher, citing Rashi on this verse, and when the young DovBear wanted to know why Rashi disagreed with the verse itself, he received the stock reply:"Rashi had ruach hakodesh [a kind of low grade prophecy.]"
All together now: ARGH!
Fun fact to know and tell: The top several sites returned by a Google search for ruach hakodesh are Christian sites which translate it as "Holy Spirit."
All together now: ARGH!
In his mission statement, (Genesis 3:8) Rashi says he "I have come only to teach the plain meaning of the passage and such Aggadah which explains the words of the Bible,” yet everywhere in his commentary we find instances where Rashi does the opposite.
Our verse, for example, says the king died, but rather than leave well enough alone, Rashi digs up Shemot Rabbah 1:34 where the bit about the leprosy is found. But why is this needed? Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim, and in this case the midrash doesn't appear to give the plain meaning of the text but to obfusicate it. Dead people aren't leperous. How is this the "literal meaning of scripture?"
lit·er·al adj.
Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.
Years later I studied under a wise man who introduced a twist to the stock answer so many teachers before him had given me: "Rashi had ruach hakodesh, " he would say, "but we can have ruach hakodesh, too. Let's see if we can see what Rashi saw."
"The king of Egypt died... and they cried."
Cry? Odd isn't it, that the slave people might shed tears over the death of Pharoh. Look, for example, at the Palestenians who rejoiced at the news of Sharon's stroke, or the Jews who scheduled celebratory kidushim when Yassar Arafat finally went to his punishment. But when Pharoh died, the Jews of Egypt cried. Seem weird to you? It appears to have bothered Rashi. [Siftei Chachamim]
"During those many days..."
During? Death comes in an instant, yes here we're told the king died over a great many days. Not "after", but during [Malbim]
"...the king of Egypt died..."
King? Everywhere in the bible, Kings lose their title when their death is reported. King David, becomes "David" on the day of his death, and the same is true for them all. So how can this king, this Egyptian, retain his dominion in death? [Vilna Gaon.]
"...we can have ruach hakodesh, too. Let's see if we can see what Rashi saw."
If you're Rashi, you have the gift of second sight. You're a close reader of complicated texts who can see things that most others miss. As you look as this verse, with these three anamolies you know you aren't seeing the simplest meaning of the text, because if we're meant to know that the King left this mortal coil, the grammar and diction just don't add up.
How does leprosy solve the problems? Well, to begin with "a leper is considered as dead” (Avodah Zarah 5a)." But that's not enough to change the meaning of our verse (no other dead person is said to be a leper instead.) However, when you take into account the drawn out "death" [Malbim] the unexpected use of the word "King" [Vilna Gaon] and the fact that the slaves didn't rejoice at the death of their oppresor [Vilna Gaon] the Midrash's teaching seems to fit.
To Rashi, this is the simplest meaning of the text because it addresses the text's inconsistancies.
"Pharaoh had leprosy," said my teacher, citing Rashi on this verse, and when the young DovBear wanted to know why Rashi disagreed with the verse itself, he received the stock reply:"Rashi had ruach hakodesh [a kind of low grade prophecy.]"
All together now: ARGH!
Fun fact to know and tell: The top several sites returned by a Google search for ruach hakodesh are Christian sites which translate it as "Holy Spirit."
All together now: ARGH!
In his mission statement, (Genesis 3:8) Rashi says he "I have come only to teach the plain meaning of the passage and such Aggadah which explains the words of the Bible,” yet everywhere in his commentary we find instances where Rashi does the opposite.
Our verse, for example, says the king died, but rather than leave well enough alone, Rashi digs up Shemot Rabbah 1:34 where the bit about the leprosy is found. But why is this needed? Rashi is not an anthology of midrashim, and in this case the midrash doesn't appear to give the plain meaning of the text but to obfusicate it. Dead people aren't leperous. How is this the "literal meaning of scripture?"
lit·er·al adj.
Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.
Years later I studied under a wise man who introduced a twist to the stock answer so many teachers before him had given me: "Rashi had ruach hakodesh, " he would say, "but we can have ruach hakodesh, too. Let's see if we can see what Rashi saw."
"The king of Egypt died... and they cried."
Cry? Odd isn't it, that the slave people might shed tears over the death of Pharoh. Look, for example, at the Palestenians who rejoiced at the news of Sharon's stroke, or the Jews who scheduled celebratory kidushim when Yassar Arafat finally went to his punishment. But when Pharoh died, the Jews of Egypt cried. Seem weird to you? It appears to have bothered Rashi. [Siftei Chachamim]
"During those many days..."
During? Death comes in an instant, yes here we're told the king died over a great many days. Not "after", but during [Malbim]
"...the king of Egypt died..."
King? Everywhere in the bible, Kings lose their title when their death is reported. King David, becomes "David" on the day of his death, and the same is true for them all. So how can this king, this Egyptian, retain his dominion in death? [Vilna Gaon.]
"...we can have ruach hakodesh, too. Let's see if we can see what Rashi saw."
If you're Rashi, you have the gift of second sight. You're a close reader of complicated texts who can see things that most others miss. As you look as this verse, with these three anamolies you know you aren't seeing the simplest meaning of the text, because if we're meant to know that the King left this mortal coil, the grammar and diction just don't add up.
How does leprosy solve the problems? Well, to begin with "a leper is considered as dead” (Avodah Zarah 5a)." But that's not enough to change the meaning of our verse (no other dead person is said to be a leper instead.) However, when you take into account the drawn out "death" [Malbim] the unexpected use of the word "King" [Vilna Gaon] and the fact that the slaves didn't rejoice at the death of their oppresor [Vilna Gaon] the Midrash's teaching seems to fit.
To Rashi, this is the simplest meaning of the text because it addresses the text's inconsistancies.
Word to a bitter man
Received by email:
I don't believe a word of "It's painful to see Orthodox Jews being criticized by outsiders," you are quite happy to. [sic]
Are you inside my head? Do you know what I think and feel? You've never engaged me for a polite conversation on the subject, never written me asking for a clarification of a point. From here it looks like this unsupported blast is just unsubstantiated whining from a RWer who thinks *any* criticism of Israel makes you are an enemy of Israel. That's sad.
Why aren't you just the Ibn Ezra?.
I appreciate the reference. That post, incidently, is one of my favorites. It sums up my views on blogging in particular and the clash of ideas in general. Brighter lights than you have understood that. Take, for example, Rabbi Lazer Brody who said, after reading that post "For background material on "ritcha d'oraissa" [anger for Torah - DB], see [that post] and learn how two Orthodox Jews can confront each other with flaming swords in the mutual search for truth."
The difference between you and the Ibn Ezra is that he actually identified who he was.
Also, he lived in 12th century Spain, and I have indoor plumbing.
You are a coward who hides behind a pseudonym and lobs rhetorical grenades at anyone you disagree with
Now there's something unethical about blogging anonymously? I expect that will be unwelcome news to Orthomom, the RenReb, Godol Hador, AidelMaidel, Ben Chorin, the Westen Jew, Ben Chorin, Mirty, LamidZayin, S, the shaigetz, Zman Biur, and countless others. Is it possible this rule, like the voices, exists nowhere but in your own mind?
What is it? Are you hurt that you didn't make the cut for the Israel Advocacy award?
There was a cut? Not according to the rules: Self-nominating is allowed. If I was upset at being excluded, I would have nominated myself.
Did that hurt your oversized ego?
I do have a distinctive shtick, it's true, but most people are smart enough to realize it shouldn't be taken seriously, that it's mostly something I do just to keep the blog interesting. Besides, anyone who blogs has an ego. It's only our ego that allows us to believe we have something worth writing in the first place.
I'll give you a hint: someone who compares Israel to pre-Mandela South Africa is not advocating for Israel. If you say that Israel pursues "apartheid" policies, you are not helping Israel. You are using a label that means that Israel is illegitimate. Don't hide behind your " ... I wasn't saying that Israel is an apartheid state just that some of its policies are ..." type rhetoric. If you didn't mean it don't write it. YOU are the one who is harming Israel by giving Israel's enemies ammunition to use against the Jewish state.
I appreciate the compliment, but I find it difficult to accept that the idea that Israel, at one time, permitted apartheid-like conditions in the territory it conquered and controlled originated here, at DovBear. And though I agree with you that someone who tells lies about Israel can't be called an "advocate" that statment cuts both ways. The far left has its lies, but so does the far-right. Shibboleths are everywhere, even here, at DovBear I'm afraid. A good discussion about this topic is already underway here, beneath a post where my thoughts on what is not advocacy for Israel can be found. (and here's a friendly tip in return: Blogs that make fun of Rachel Corrie aren't advocating for Israel either. If you had any guts you'd write them angry letters about the damge they do to the reputation of Israel and Judaism.)
If you're so interested in fairness why not at least defend us? Why not say that the General went too far.
I don't think he went too far. Though some of his examples were sloppy, his argument was not.
You know that he was quoting me out of context.
Actually, I didn't know that. I don't really read your blog. But once you called attention to the error, I went back, confirmed it, and posted a clarification
And when he said that right wing supporters of Israel were "genocidal" it didn't bother you?
He didn't say RW supporters of Israel were genocidal. That claim is even more outrageuous and out of context than what he said about you. Anyway, I'd advise you to read a little more of the General's blog tYou may notice that he is a satire site "designed to represent the ignorance, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, racism and hypocrisy of George Bush's Christian conservative base." For this reason he often makes outrageous remarks, but insiders, careful readers and those of us who are paying attention understand that he is playing a part.
You owed it to us to take issue with his hyperbole if you didn't agree with it. If you don't believe we are monsters then correct your ally.
Um, for the record, I did correct my "ally" when I wrote: "They aren't monsters (obviously) but you wouldn't know it from reading some of their posts."
(BTW, how did get these choice quotes? I bet you fed him the selected quotes, because I really doubt that he would have taken the time search our blogs and come up with all of it.)
That's just stupid. But in case any of your supporters are equally stupid let me say categorically that I've never communicated with the General about Jewish blogs at any time.
Wasn't Leon Wieseltier so eloquent when he smugly gloated over fellow Jews losing their homes and livelihoods? But the moment he stepped away from the DB line of correct thinking he was an easily dismissed "professional Jew."
I think that actually speaks well of me. Rather than considering the source, I considered the argument. When I agreed with Leon's thinking, I said so. When I didn't, I pulled no punches. Some call that intellectual honesty.
You have no honor. You have no shame.
Please remove me from your blogroll, I do not wish to be associated with the likes of you. I had reversed myself before and put you back on my blogroll because I felt I owed you for your help early on with Haveil Havalim. But you've more than made up for that. You are siding with enemies of Israel. And you don't see it.
That's right. I don't see it, because it isn't true. The views you so carelessly dismiss as the ravings of an "enemy of Israel" are in fact supported by the majority of Israelis. Israelis supported the disengagment and so did I. They supported Sharon's fence, and so did I. They support land for peace and the creation of a Palestenian state, and so do I. Is every Jew and Israeli who disagrees with you your enemy?
That must be a very painful delusion to carry through life.
I don't believe a word of "It's painful to see Orthodox Jews being criticized by outsiders," you are quite happy to. [sic]
Are you inside my head? Do you know what I think and feel? You've never engaged me for a polite conversation on the subject, never written me asking for a clarification of a point. From here it looks like this unsupported blast is just unsubstantiated whining from a RWer who thinks *any* criticism of Israel makes you are an enemy of Israel. That's sad.
Why aren't you just the Ibn Ezra?.
I appreciate the reference. That post, incidently, is one of my favorites. It sums up my views on blogging in particular and the clash of ideas in general. Brighter lights than you have understood that. Take, for example, Rabbi Lazer Brody who said, after reading that post "For background material on "ritcha d'oraissa" [anger for Torah - DB], see [that post] and learn how two Orthodox Jews can confront each other with flaming swords in the mutual search for truth."
The difference between you and the Ibn Ezra is that he actually identified who he was.
Also, he lived in 12th century Spain, and I have indoor plumbing.
You are a coward who hides behind a pseudonym and lobs rhetorical grenades at anyone you disagree with
Now there's something unethical about blogging anonymously? I expect that will be unwelcome news to Orthomom, the RenReb, Godol Hador, AidelMaidel, Ben Chorin, the Westen Jew, Ben Chorin, Mirty, LamidZayin, S, the shaigetz, Zman Biur, and countless others. Is it possible this rule, like the voices, exists nowhere but in your own mind?
What is it? Are you hurt that you didn't make the cut for the Israel Advocacy award?
There was a cut? Not according to the rules: Self-nominating is allowed. If I was upset at being excluded, I would have nominated myself.
Did that hurt your oversized ego?
I do have a distinctive shtick, it's true, but most people are smart enough to realize it shouldn't be taken seriously, that it's mostly something I do just to keep the blog interesting. Besides, anyone who blogs has an ego. It's only our ego that allows us to believe we have something worth writing in the first place.
I'll give you a hint: someone who compares Israel to pre-Mandela South Africa is not advocating for Israel. If you say that Israel pursues "apartheid" policies, you are not helping Israel. You are using a label that means that Israel is illegitimate. Don't hide behind your " ... I wasn't saying that Israel is an apartheid state just that some of its policies are ..." type rhetoric. If you didn't mean it don't write it. YOU are the one who is harming Israel by giving Israel's enemies ammunition to use against the Jewish state.
I appreciate the compliment, but I find it difficult to accept that the idea that Israel, at one time, permitted apartheid-like conditions in the territory it conquered and controlled originated here, at DovBear. And though I agree with you that someone who tells lies about Israel can't be called an "advocate" that statment cuts both ways. The far left has its lies, but so does the far-right. Shibboleths are everywhere, even here, at DovBear I'm afraid. A good discussion about this topic is already underway here, beneath a post where my thoughts on what is not advocacy for Israel can be found. (and here's a friendly tip in return: Blogs that make fun of Rachel Corrie aren't advocating for Israel either. If you had any guts you'd write them angry letters about the damge they do to the reputation of Israel and Judaism.)
If you're so interested in fairness why not at least defend us? Why not say that the General went too far.
I don't think he went too far. Though some of his examples were sloppy, his argument was not.
You know that he was quoting me out of context.
Actually, I didn't know that. I don't really read your blog. But once you called attention to the error, I went back, confirmed it, and posted a clarification
And when he said that right wing supporters of Israel were "genocidal" it didn't bother you?
He didn't say RW supporters of Israel were genocidal. That claim is even more outrageuous and out of context than what he said about you. Anyway, I'd advise you to read a little more of the General's blog tYou may notice that he is a satire site "designed to represent the ignorance, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, racism and hypocrisy of George Bush's Christian conservative base." For this reason he often makes outrageous remarks, but insiders, careful readers and those of us who are paying attention understand that he is playing a part.
You owed it to us to take issue with his hyperbole if you didn't agree with it. If you don't believe we are monsters then correct your ally.
Um, for the record, I did correct my "ally" when I wrote: "They aren't monsters (obviously) but you wouldn't know it from reading some of their posts."
(BTW, how did get these choice quotes? I bet you fed him the selected quotes, because I really doubt that he would have taken the time search our blogs and come up with all of it.)
That's just stupid. But in case any of your supporters are equally stupid let me say categorically that I've never communicated with the General about Jewish blogs at any time.
Wasn't Leon Wieseltier so eloquent when he smugly gloated over fellow Jews losing their homes and livelihoods? But the moment he stepped away from the DB line of correct thinking he was an easily dismissed "professional Jew."
I think that actually speaks well of me. Rather than considering the source, I considered the argument. When I agreed with Leon's thinking, I said so. When I didn't, I pulled no punches. Some call that intellectual honesty.
You have no honor. You have no shame.
Please remove me from your blogroll, I do not wish to be associated with the likes of you. I had reversed myself before and put you back on my blogroll because I felt I owed you for your help early on with Haveil Havalim. But you've more than made up for that. You are siding with enemies of Israel. And you don't see it.
That's right. I don't see it, because it isn't true. The views you so carelessly dismiss as the ravings of an "enemy of Israel" are in fact supported by the majority of Israelis. Israelis supported the disengagment and so did I. They supported Sharon's fence, and so did I. They support land for peace and the creation of a Palestenian state, and so do I. Is every Jew and Israeli who disagrees with you your enemy?
That must be a very painful delusion to carry through life.
Department of Corrections
In his post last week about the JIBs, Jesus General made a general point about which I agreed, but some of his examples were sloppy.
PS: Thanks to all the commenters and letter writers who told me that you understand that criticizing Likud policies does not, by that very fact, make you an "enemy of Israel." I wish there were more of you.
[The] Mugata [sic] tells hitchiking tales:This quote is from the Muquata's comment thread, not the blog itself. Though I object to blogs that deliberately make themselves a home to the very worst sort of rascists, Jameel doesn't run that sort of website. He isn't responsible for the odd bit of idiocy that might appear on his threads and (to the best of my knowledge) it doesn't reflect his views.
Besides its pikuach nefesh to pick up a unarmed teenager by say tzomat eli at 11 at night. Because i have spent the night there... not to mention there are wild pigs there (the animals and the arabs)
In a post titled "Donating organs to the enemy," Soccer Dad responds to the news that a the family of a brown child killed by Israeli troops donated his organs to Israelis:Though it is not perfectly clear from the context of his post, SoccerDad was not defending the right of IDF soldiers to shoot people indiscriminately. What he was doing was reminding his audiences that teenagers with guns -in both Israel and America- are not benign, and that sometimes soldiers (and police officers) make mistakes that are justified errors.
And in what circumstances did those minors die? Ahmed, was carrying a toy rifle in a place where the Israeli army was operating. Hardly a wise decision. And even if Israel apologizes, was it wrong for the Israeli soldiers to shoot first and ask questions later?
PS: Thanks to all the commenters and letter writers who told me that you understand that criticizing Likud policies does not, by that very fact, make you an "enemy of Israel." I wish there were more of you.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A difficult post
A tip of the spudik to Gen. JC Christian for his post today about the JIBS. It's painful to see Orthodox Jews being criticized by outsiders, but I can't object to the general's point: The overwhelming majority of nominees in the Israel Advocacy category express opinions that (a) make the rest of us look bad and (b) aren't in line with the thinking of the majority of Jews or the majority of Israelis.
As I've said before, I don't understand how Israel's interests are served by blogs (and commenters) that insult Arabs. When well-meaning people visit those blogs they often see horrible and hateful comments directed at the whole of the Muslim world. As a result, many make the mistake of presuming that anyone who supports Israel is also horrible and hateful. (I've seen it happen. )
Are Israel's interests really served by blogs that makes Israel's supporters look like monsters? They aren't monsters (obviously) but you wouldn't know it from reading some of their posts.
Moreover, many of these blogs have terrible reputations among the centrist and left-leaning blogs. Does that help Israel? The people who need to be convinced of the rightness of Israel's position aren't reading righty blogs. Those readers are already sold on the subject. The people who need to know that the Israeli argument is, at bottom, a moral argument are reading the centrist and left leaning blogs and among many of those blogs names like LGF or Cox and Forkum are mud.
Next time you find yourself wondering why the media sometimes paints right-wing Israelis as genocidal maniacs ask yourself if your favorite "pro-Israel" blog is part of the solution --or part of the problem.
As I've said before, I don't understand how Israel's interests are served by blogs (and commenters) that insult Arabs. When well-meaning people visit those blogs they often see horrible and hateful comments directed at the whole of the Muslim world. As a result, many make the mistake of presuming that anyone who supports Israel is also horrible and hateful. (I've seen it happen. )
Are Israel's interests really served by blogs that makes Israel's supporters look like monsters? They aren't monsters (obviously) but you wouldn't know it from reading some of their posts.
Moreover, many of these blogs have terrible reputations among the centrist and left-leaning blogs. Does that help Israel? The people who need to be convinced of the rightness of Israel's position aren't reading righty blogs. Those readers are already sold on the subject. The people who need to know that the Israeli argument is, at bottom, a moral argument are reading the centrist and left leaning blogs and among many of those blogs names like LGF or Cox and Forkum are mud.
Next time you find yourself wondering why the media sometimes paints right-wing Israelis as genocidal maniacs ask yourself if your favorite "pro-Israel" blog is part of the solution --or part of the problem.
A Rare Sports Post
I am as a big a Messier fan as any other New Yorker, but I found last night's retirement ceremony to be longer and duller than even the very worst Bar Mitzvah. And the "jokes" those hockey players told were about what I would expect from my Uncle Marvin after his third hit of Chivas.
Still watching, all those old and balding former Rangers flanking their captain, the memories came rushing back. Along with the great moment when Gary Bettman called Messier up to accept Lord Stanley's cup, they include The Guarantee* and, of course, "Matteau, Matteau, Matteau!!!!" the greatest call by an announcer in the history of professional sports. (Not to be confused with "Buy a Porsche Potvin, Buy a Porsche" the greatest cheer in the history of professional sports.**)
* What Messier did was say "I guarantee we'll win tonight," on the eve of a cruicial playoff game, and then went out a threw a hat trick on Martin Brodeur, one of the greatest goaltenders in history. A hat trick.
** Second place in the cheer competition must go to "Two World Wars and One World Cup - doodah, doodah" a chant used by British soccer hooligans to taunt German soccer hooligans. It refers to the fact that England beat Germany in the 1966 World Cup final, in 1944 at the second war to end all wars, and in 1917 at the first war to end all wars. It brings to mind a great line, attributed to Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who upon being told that Germany had defeated England replied, "They may have beat us at our national game, but we beat them twice at their national game in the 20th century."
Still watching, all those old and balding former Rangers flanking their captain, the memories came rushing back. Along with the great moment when Gary Bettman called Messier up to accept Lord Stanley's cup, they include The Guarantee* and, of course, "Matteau, Matteau, Matteau!!!!" the greatest call by an announcer in the history of professional sports. (Not to be confused with "Buy a Porsche Potvin, Buy a Porsche" the greatest cheer in the history of professional sports.**)
* What Messier did was say "I guarantee we'll win tonight," on the eve of a cruicial playoff game, and then went out a threw a hat trick on Martin Brodeur, one of the greatest goaltenders in history. A hat trick.
** Second place in the cheer competition must go to "Two World Wars and One World Cup - doodah, doodah" a chant used by British soccer hooligans to taunt German soccer hooligans. It refers to the fact that England beat Germany in the 1966 World Cup final, in 1944 at the second war to end all wars, and in 1917 at the first war to end all wars. It brings to mind a great line, attributed to Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who upon being told that Germany had defeated England replied, "They may have beat us at our national game, but we beat them twice at their national game in the 20th century."
Thursday, January 12, 2006
We need a new word
Ok, when a blogger spouts on and on about how prayer is prohibited in the public school because the ACLU is ruining America, we have a word for that someone. The word is wingnut.
But what word do we have for someone who fills his blog with fact-free nonsense like this:
During the past year the New York City’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has engaged in an effort to undermine a sacred component of Mitzvas Milah. He and his department recently stepped up their activities in this regard and issued directives and advisories aimed at planting fear in the hearts and minds of parents who are about to bring their child into the holiest covenant in Judaism.The threat is not only against metzitzah b’peh. It is a slanderous and offensive diktat that undermines not only a specific element of Bris Milah, but assaults the entire concept of Bris Milah itself.He claims to be “educating.” What he is actually doing is far more sinister.
What he is actually doing is saving the lives of infants, you paranoid fear mongerer. Three kids have gotten herpes from their mohel; one died. Don't you think it's the health commissioner's job to make sure that stops happening? More to the point, metzitzah b’peh is not essential to mila according to anyone but the most mystical hasidim. Both the csam sofer and SRH permitted it to be abolished.
So what's our new word-- can we make a contest out of it?
But what word do we have for someone who fills his blog with fact-free nonsense like this:
During the past year the New York City’s health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has engaged in an effort to undermine a sacred component of Mitzvas Milah. He and his department recently stepped up their activities in this regard and issued directives and advisories aimed at planting fear in the hearts and minds of parents who are about to bring their child into the holiest covenant in Judaism.The threat is not only against metzitzah b’peh. It is a slanderous and offensive diktat that undermines not only a specific element of Bris Milah, but assaults the entire concept of Bris Milah itself.He claims to be “educating.” What he is actually doing is far more sinister.
What he is actually doing is saving the lives of infants, you paranoid fear mongerer. Three kids have gotten herpes from their mohel; one died. Don't you think it's the health commissioner's job to make sure that stops happening? More to the point, metzitzah b’peh is not essential to mila according to anyone but the most mystical hasidim. Both the csam sofer and SRH permitted it to be abolished.
So what's our new word-- can we make a contest out of it?
I bet her name is Shprintza
Nearly half of Ashkenazi Jews descended from just 4 women: South Florida Sun-Sentinel: "Some 3.5 million of today's Ashkenazi Jews _ about 40 percent of the total Ashkenazi population _ are descended from just four women, a genetic study indicates."
None of this is news to DovBear readers, who learned last year that we're all direct descendants of King David -- all of us, including non-Jews. We're all also probably descendants of Rashi and the Maharsha, too. Factor in rapes and intermarriage, and it's fair to argue that we're all also direct descendants of Mohammed, and Confucius. (Yes, that Mohammed.)
None of this is news to DovBear readers, who learned last year that we're all direct descendants of King David -- all of us, including non-Jews. We're all also probably descendants of Rashi and the Maharsha, too. Factor in rapes and intermarriage, and it's fair to argue that we're all also direct descendants of Mohammed, and Confucius. (Yes, that Mohammed.)
Am I a liberal or not?
I'm now officially bummed out about the JIBS. Not, god forbid because of my numbers, which are solid, but because the General neglected to endorse me.
PS: Look what a little love from the General can do: The column with the candidate he endorsed has more than 700 total votes; the other column just 536.
PS: Look what a little love from the General can do: The column with the candidate he endorsed has more than 700 total votes; the other column just 536.
Presidential Powers
A great moment from the President's Town Hall meeting in yesterday in Louisville
Q Hi. My name is Mario --
THE PRESIDENT: Hola -- en Mexico?
Q Monterrey.
As it turns out, Mario's question was about Mexico, suggesting one of two things: (1) The Town Hall meeting was staged, and the questions were scripted; or (2) The president has dope, spooky, mindreading powers.
Q Hi. My name is Mario --
THE PRESIDENT: Hola -- en Mexico?
Q Monterrey.
As it turns out, Mario's question was about Mexico, suggesting one of two things: (1) The Town Hall meeting was staged, and the questions were scripted; or (2) The president has dope, spooky, mindreading powers.
Alito's wife cries at confirmation hearing
It seems poor Mrs Alito couldn't take the heat and had to leave the kitchen when some Senators turned up the heat on her husband. And the media lapped it up.
Maybe Laura should start crying every time somebody asks Georgie about the Iraq war or illegal wiretapping.
The Dem response should be"I understand that it is difficult for Mrs. Alito to watch her husband struggle to explain 30 years of anti-choice views, and his membership in an organization that tried to reduce the presence of women and minorities on Princeton's campus. Perhaps she should stay home tomorrow."
Maybe Laura should start crying every time somebody asks Georgie about the Iraq war or illegal wiretapping.
The Dem response should be"I understand that it is difficult for Mrs. Alito to watch her husband struggle to explain 30 years of anti-choice views, and his membership in an organization that tried to reduce the presence of women and minorities on Princeton's campus. Perhaps she should stay home tomorrow."
Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz: WHY DO YOU WEAR THAT HAT?: "The black hat. It is what marks a Ben Torah, and distinguishes him from all other segments of Jewish society"
Got that everyone? It's your black hat that sets you apart as a Ben Torah. Not your character or your scholarship, but your hat. Your black hat. It's a fool-proof way of letting the world know that you live your life according to the Torah.
Explanation of the picture for the humor-impaired: Rabbi Pinchos said that a black hat was a sign of a ben torah. I am just testing his theory: Is it a piece of black rabbit felt that tells the world that you're a ben Torah? Or is it your brain and behavior?
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
JFK and his hat
Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz: WHY DO YOU WEAR THAT HAT?: "From the time President Kennedy shucked his fedora at his 1960 inauguration ceremony and replaced it with the new look of freedom, the black hat assumed a heightened significance in society at large."
I have no idea what that sentance means, but the facts are wrong. Here's a photo of JFK at his inauguration. As you can see, his head is covered. More from snopes:
[Hat tip Al Gore]
I have no idea what that sentance means, but the facts are wrong. Here's a photo of JFK at his inauguration. As you can see, his head is covered. More from snopes:
It is true that Kennedy almost never wore a hat after becoming president, but his hatlessness was much more likely the continuation of a trend that had long since begun, not its origin. Either way, the common claim that the shunning of hats by American men began because Kennedy declined to wear one to his inauguration is flat-out wrong.The rest of Pinchos's post is so stupid it could trip over a cordless phone. Perhaps a fisking tomorrow if I have the strength.
[Hat tip Al Gore]
Nitl Nonsense
I planned to post this last Sunday in honor of Nitl Nacht, but between Chardal, Lazar, and a dentist's appointment I got distracted.
My local Hasidic Rabbi took the night off last Friday night. He didn't speak before Kabalas Shabbos, and he didn't appear at his regular Friday night shiur. Why? Because it was Nitl Nacht, per the Orthodox calendar, and on Nitl Nacht it is his custom to act like a mourner and forgo all Torah learning.
A few notes on the practice:
1 - It's stupid. My local Hasidic Rabbi ignores July fourth. Memorial Day is not remembered. He goes to work on Thanksgiving. None of those days exist on his calendar. If he is going to ignore days that celebrate events from which he has benefited, how can he justify his recognition of Orthodox Christmas? Even a negative recognition is recognition. Memorial Day is not within a Hasid's ken; but Christmas is. That's topsy-tursvy.
2 - Orthodox Christmas? I understand the Rabbi's customs originated in lands where Orthodox Christmas is celebrated, but there are reasons for this custom and the most familiar reason does not adhere on on the sixth of January.
According to Miriam Shaviv, Hasidim abstain from Torah study because they "don't want to bring about such improvements [to the world through their Torah study] at a time when the Christian majority is devoutly steeped in their prayers, lest outsiders believe the improvement came from the Christian worship." Fabulous, only in America, Jan 6 is not a day of Christian prayer. If that's your concern, you should fast from Torah study on December 25 (or on Super Bowl Sunday when the betting halls probably contain as much prayer as any church)
A second justification for the custom is that often we dedicate Torah study to the memory of revered Rabbis and beloved ancestors. If we studied on Christmas, the argument goes, someone might mistake Jesus for a revered Rabbi. Worse, he might accrue credit on his heavenly account in the merit of our learning.
To the first concern I reply: Bwahaha. Not even the authors of Cross Currents would mistake Jesus for a revered Rabbi. (I hope) To the second concern, I say "so what?" The real Jesus was a Jew who cared about other Jews. He had no intention of abolishing Judaism, or of establishing a church that would seek to destroy his people. If the clerk in charge of divine credit is stupid enough to think that my Christmas Eve learning is meant to be deposited on Jesus' account, I have no objection. (though I will suggest that the Almighty hire a clerk who doesn't have his head up his ass)
3 - The common justification for the Heredi refusal to pause for the siren on Israeli Memorial day is that it is bitul Torah. Can you explain to me why two minutes to honor Israeli war dead is impossible, while a full night without learning has become accepted?
My local Hasidic Rabbi took the night off last Friday night. He didn't speak before Kabalas Shabbos, and he didn't appear at his regular Friday night shiur. Why? Because it was Nitl Nacht, per the Orthodox calendar, and on Nitl Nacht it is his custom to act like a mourner and forgo all Torah learning.
A few notes on the practice:
1 - It's stupid. My local Hasidic Rabbi ignores July fourth. Memorial Day is not remembered. He goes to work on Thanksgiving. None of those days exist on his calendar. If he is going to ignore days that celebrate events from which he has benefited, how can he justify his recognition of Orthodox Christmas? Even a negative recognition is recognition. Memorial Day is not within a Hasid's ken; but Christmas is. That's topsy-tursvy.
2 - Orthodox Christmas? I understand the Rabbi's customs originated in lands where Orthodox Christmas is celebrated, but there are reasons for this custom and the most familiar reason does not adhere on on the sixth of January.
According to Miriam Shaviv, Hasidim abstain from Torah study because they "don't want to bring about such improvements [to the world through their Torah study] at a time when the Christian majority is devoutly steeped in their prayers, lest outsiders believe the improvement came from the Christian worship." Fabulous, only in America, Jan 6 is not a day of Christian prayer. If that's your concern, you should fast from Torah study on December 25 (or on Super Bowl Sunday when the betting halls probably contain as much prayer as any church)
A second justification for the custom is that often we dedicate Torah study to the memory of revered Rabbis and beloved ancestors. If we studied on Christmas, the argument goes, someone might mistake Jesus for a revered Rabbi. Worse, he might accrue credit on his heavenly account in the merit of our learning.
To the first concern I reply: Bwahaha. Not even the authors of Cross Currents would mistake Jesus for a revered Rabbi. (I hope) To the second concern, I say "so what?" The real Jesus was a Jew who cared about other Jews. He had no intention of abolishing Judaism, or of establishing a church that would seek to destroy his people. If the clerk in charge of divine credit is stupid enough to think that my Christmas Eve learning is meant to be deposited on Jesus' account, I have no objection. (though I will suggest that the Almighty hire a clerk who doesn't have his head up his ass)
3 - The common justification for the Heredi refusal to pause for the siren on Israeli Memorial day is that it is bitul Torah. Can you explain to me why two minutes to honor Israeli war dead is impossible, while a full night without learning has become accepted?
Divine Justice
Pat Robertson: "This is my land," and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'"
Avi Hartuv, spokesman for Israel’s tourism minister: "We can’t accept this kind of statement. We will not do business with him."
Business? What sort of business?
Apparently, Rev Pat had plans to open $50 million theme park in the Galilee. Now, thanks to the good minister's intemperate statement Jesusland is in jeopardy:
Avi Hartuv, spokesman for Israel’s tourism minister: "We can’t accept this kind of statement. We will not do business with him."
Business? What sort of business?
Apparently, Rev Pat had plans to open $50 million theme park in the Galilee. Now, thanks to the good minister's intemperate statement Jesusland is in jeopardy:
"The contract is still open - just not with Mr Robertson. If there are other Christian leaders, they are most welcome to sign a contract to bring Christian tourists to the State of Israel.Or as God Himself might say the next time he confers with Pat, "The Galilee is mine and any two-bit pastor who thinks he can build a New Testament Disneyland there had better think twice."
A GOP Scandal
Abramhoff is all about the Republicans, and their culture of greed.
Says who? Rich Lowery of the National Review.
[For those not in the know, the National Review calls itself "America's conservative magazine," and it was established by Bill Buckly]
For years I have been waiting for the out-of-control Republican Congress to be exposed for what it is: a bunch of hypocrites who've defined incompetence, greed and corruption as the return of "moral values."
They may wrap themselves in the flag and their watered down religion, but a tsunami of truth is on the way, and it's name is Jack Abramoff.
Says who? Rich Lowery of the National Review.
[For those not in the know, the National Review calls itself "America's conservative magazine," and it was established by Bill Buckly]
For years I have been waiting for the out-of-control Republican Congress to be exposed for what it is: a bunch of hypocrites who've defined incompetence, greed and corruption as the return of "moral values."
They may wrap themselves in the flag and their watered down religion, but a tsunami of truth is on the way, and it's name is Jack Abramoff.
Ritual Assistance
CA writes:
With the extensive Torah knowledge that you and your readers have, perhaps they could help me understand why Jews have beeen starting to use the University of Texas 'Hook 'em Horns' cheerleading gesture during hagbah
I have proposed a possible reason, but any additional enlightenment would be helpful.
I know the gesture he means, but I don't know why so many Jews perform it. According to the Mishna Brurah you're supposed to bow when the Torah is lifted, not pledge allegiance to your favorite college football team.
With the extensive Torah knowledge that you and your readers have, perhaps they could help me understand why Jews have beeen starting to use the University of Texas 'Hook 'em Horns' cheerleading gesture during hagbah
I have proposed a possible reason, but any additional enlightenment would be helpful.
I know the gesture he means, but I don't know why so many Jews perform it. According to the Mishna Brurah you're supposed to bow when the Torah is lifted, not pledge allegiance to your favorite college football team.
Thinking Superstitiously about Ariel Sharon
A confession:
Though I have nothing but disdain for those who think Sharon's stroke was a punishment for Gaza, I understand the lure of superstitious thinking, and often I find myself flirting with it. But my superstitious thinking about Ariel Sharon takes a different form:
Israel finds itself in a mess today because for 30 years they stomped on Arab civillians. And when the chief stomper (Sharon) has, by the goodness and grace of God, a change of heart and realizes that separation not slaughter is the answer, the religious response should not be to scream "traitor" but to instead embrace the miracle of his teshuva.
We see the "hand of God" wherever it's most convinient for us. I understand that as well as anyone. Still, it must be noted that those of us who favor separation have as much of a claim on magical thinking as those of you who favor expullsion, or the continued policy of apartheid and colonization.
Though I have nothing but disdain for those who think Sharon's stroke was a punishment for Gaza, I understand the lure of superstitious thinking, and often I find myself flirting with it. But my superstitious thinking about Ariel Sharon takes a different form:
Israel finds itself in a mess today because for 30 years they stomped on Arab civillians. And when the chief stomper (Sharon) has, by the goodness and grace of God, a change of heart and realizes that separation not slaughter is the answer, the religious response should not be to scream "traitor" but to instead embrace the miracle of his teshuva.
We see the "hand of God" wherever it's most convinient for us. I understand that as well as anyone. Still, it must be noted that those of us who favor separation have as much of a claim on magical thinking as those of you who favor expullsion, or the continued policy of apartheid and colonization.
The Excellence of Arik
In a first-rate column in today's Times, Thomas Friedman explains why Arik Sharon should go down as one of the great men in history:
There are not many 77-year-old leaders who not only acknowledge that one of their greatest projects in political life was wrong and posed a dire threat to the future of their people, but then also risk their remaining lives and political careers to reverse it.... Leadership is not what you do to the other side. That's always easy. It is what you say to your own. Looking your own people in the eye and saying, in deeds if not words, "I was wrong. We have to reverse course" - now, that's leadership.The title of the piece, fittingly, is Wanted: An Arab Sharon and it concludes by arguing that it is time for another Anwar Sadat or King Hussein, an Arab leader willing "to look their peoples in the eye and tell them the campaign to destroy Israel was over." If you find yourself unable to imagine an elderly Arab leader making that gesture than you understand the greatness of Sharon.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
A HomeRun Rashi
S, of the Main Line, might not remember it but a few weeks ago he asked me for a Rashi I really liked. I told him I had one for Vayechi. Here it is:
Genesis 48:16
“The angel who redeemed me from all evil, shall bless the lads and let my name be called on them, together with the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac.”
Rashi:
He shall bless the lads: Menashe and Ephraim.
Bizzare, right? Don't we know from the context that the "lads" are Menashe and Ephraim. We do, but we might be forgiven for small doubts. Because in Midrash Bereishis Rabba (97:3) we find the following comment: He shall bless the lads: This is Joshua and Gideon
Additionally, Joshua and Gideon have points in common with Jacob’s blessing. Aside from the obvious (Joshua is from Ephraim and Gideon is from Menashe) both were met and blessed by angles(1), and both are called "lads."(2)
It seems that Rashi worried that someone who was familiar with the midrash and the rest of the Torah, might assume that Jacob's blessing was a prophecy referring to Joshua and Gideon. It isn't. Rashi's comment on Genesis 48:16, is not meant to point out the obvious, but to protect the simple meaning of the text from what, it appears, he thought was a likely error.
(1) Joshua 5:13 and Judges 6:12
(2) Exodus 33:11 and Judges 6:15
Genesis 48:16
“The angel who redeemed me from all evil, shall bless the lads and let my name be called on them, together with the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac.”
Rashi:
He shall bless the lads: Menashe and Ephraim.
Bizzare, right? Don't we know from the context that the "lads" are Menashe and Ephraim. We do, but we might be forgiven for small doubts. Because in Midrash Bereishis Rabba (97:3) we find the following comment: He shall bless the lads: This is Joshua and Gideon
Additionally, Joshua and Gideon have points in common with Jacob’s blessing. Aside from the obvious (Joshua is from Ephraim and Gideon is from Menashe) both were met and blessed by angles(1), and both are called "lads."(2)
It seems that Rashi worried that someone who was familiar with the midrash and the rest of the Torah, might assume that Jacob's blessing was a prophecy referring to Joshua and Gideon. It isn't. Rashi's comment on Genesis 48:16, is not meant to point out the obvious, but to protect the simple meaning of the text from what, it appears, he thought was a likely error.
(1) Joshua 5:13 and Judges 6:12
(2) Exodus 33:11 and Judges 6:15
I must be doing something right
Chardal has banned me.
Was it because I called him a chicken hawk? Or because I pointed out that (despite his endless blather about how he wants Israel to be a Torah state) he never posts about JEWS who break torah law. The only thing that gets him and his hooligans excited are Jews who tolerate Arabs.
That made-up law about not tolerating arabs is the only law he really cares about, and it's time we all called him on it.
Thread 1
Thread 2 (fun starts at the end)
Update: Charly the Chicken Hawk now says I was banned for insulting Rabbi Bleich. Here's the comment in question:
Chardal: You only say that because you already had your opinion and then looked for an authority to back it up
DovBear: Unlike you who who, I suppose, played on an Arab soccer team until you stumbled across benjie bliech and saw the light.
As you can see, the only person insulted here was Chardal.
Was it because I called him a chicken hawk? Or because I pointed out that (despite his endless blather about how he wants Israel to be a Torah state) he never posts about JEWS who break torah law. The only thing that gets him and his hooligans excited are Jews who tolerate Arabs.
That made-up law about not tolerating arabs is the only law he really cares about, and it's time we all called him on it.
Thread 1
Thread 2 (fun starts at the end)
Update: Charly the Chicken Hawk now says I was banned for insulting Rabbi Bleich. Here's the comment in question:
Chardal: You only say that because you already had your opinion and then looked for an authority to back it up
DovBear: Unlike you who who, I suppose, played on an Arab soccer team until you stumbled across benjie bliech and saw the light.
As you can see, the only person insulted here was Chardal.
Annointing Alito
Salon:
Worse, how did three religious fanatics get into a Senate hearing room to mess with someone's chair? What if they'd brought anthrax instead? I hear fundies do things like that. Man, we're soooo going to win the 'war on terror.'"
[Hat-tip Mis-nagid]
'The Wall Street Journal has just reported that three Christian ministers claim to have snuck into a Senate hearing room in order to anoint the chairs that will be used for Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing next week.Mind-boggling. God is "interested" but can't get involved before oil is spilled on the seats? And, given that oil is usually applied to the head, what does annointing Alito's chair say about the location of the occupant's brain?
'We did adequately apply oil to all the seats,' the Rev. Rob Schenck tells the Journal. Schenck and his colleagues insisted that they aren't taking sides in the confirmation fight. But Schenck said that God is 'interested' in 'what goes on' in Alito's confirmation process."
Worse, how did three religious fanatics get into a Senate hearing room to mess with someone's chair? What if they'd brought anthrax instead? I hear fundies do things like that. Man, we're soooo going to win the 'war on terror.'"
[Hat-tip Mis-nagid]
Daniel Plays Dumb
According to the Seattle Times, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of Toward Tradition*, says he was an innocent dupe in GOP-Jack's influence peddling scandal
(*Toward Tradition makes its money sucking up to Christians, sort of like Cross Currents but with better revenue)
Rabbi Daniel Lapin confirmed Sunday it was his foundation, Toward Tradition, that took $50,000 from two Abramoff clients and, at Abramoff's suggestion, used it to hire the [wife of Tom Delay's aid] to organize a conference for the group.No idea! Sure. How was Daniel supposed to know that the man who asked him to forge credentials would be involved in something dishonest?"
Lapin said he and his board had no idea the money was part of Abramoff's vast scheme to influence Congress and, in this case, stop bills to raise postal rates and ban online lotteries.
(*Toward Tradition makes its money sucking up to Christians, sort of like Cross Currents but with better revenue)
Back by popular demand...
The comment of the day.
Mis-nagid:
Mis-nagid:
"communion supplies can be pre-blessed"Steg is right; that's exactly what was done. Although I imagine it'd make a great Folger's commercial: "We've secretly switched his wine and cracker with off-the-shelf manischevitz and ritz. Will he notice the difference? Nope, he can't tell at all! Houston, we have a bargain." Mis-nagid 01.09.06 - 3:53 pm #
Did you miss me?
Sorry for missing the morning boys and girls, but here's your sweet summary of stories you won't see on Serandez or any of the other so called "news and politics" blogs.
Dean Destroys Blitzer! Here's what happened, CNN reporter, that hack GOP-tool Wolf Blitzer, tried to spin the Abramhoff scandal to include Democrats. Dean: No Democrat received money from Jack Abramhoff, period. Blitzer responded by asking about Dorgan and Dean replied: No, he took money from Indian tribes but that is not the same thing a staking money from Abramhoff. And then, Dean concluded, in spite of the Republican attempts to deceive the public, this is a Republican scandal. At which point, Wolf just stood there with his mouth open. [Transcript]
No liberals allowed! During the first four hours of the MSNBC's coverage yesterday of the Alito hearing the network interviewed Pat Buchanan, former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist but no Democratic or progressive commentators. [Source: Media Matters] Sources say the networks were going to ask Howard Dean to comment but (sigh) they were afraid of getting "Blitzed."
Chardal was right! I am ready to recant. Yesterday Chardal and I went back and forth until I got bored about how God loves it whenever an Arab civilian gets killed for no reason. Now it turns out Chardal was right. I checked the source and Hillel does say, "That which is despicable to you do unto Arabs. The rest is commentary."
[Incidently, Chardal is remarkably dishonest in his attempts to frame this issue. According to Chardal we (meaning me and my commenters) "would rather Jewish soldiers be killed than Arab civilians."
That is a false choice. The real issue is this: Will more soldiers be saved if fewer Arab civilians are needlessly and carelessly killed? The answer to that question is yes. ]
Dean Destroys Blitzer! Here's what happened, CNN reporter, that hack GOP-tool Wolf Blitzer, tried to spin the Abramhoff scandal to include Democrats. Dean: No Democrat received money from Jack Abramhoff, period. Blitzer responded by asking about Dorgan and Dean replied: No, he took money from Indian tribes but that is not the same thing a staking money from Abramhoff. And then, Dean concluded, in spite of the Republican attempts to deceive the public, this is a Republican scandal. At which point, Wolf just stood there with his mouth open. [Transcript]
No liberals allowed! During the first four hours of the MSNBC's coverage yesterday of the Alito hearing the network interviewed Pat Buchanan, former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist but no Democratic or progressive commentators. [Source: Media Matters] Sources say the networks were going to ask Howard Dean to comment but (sigh) they were afraid of getting "Blitzed."
Chardal was right! I am ready to recant. Yesterday Chardal and I went back and forth until I got bored about how God loves it whenever an Arab civilian gets killed for no reason. Now it turns out Chardal was right. I checked the source and Hillel does say, "That which is despicable to you do unto Arabs. The rest is commentary."
[Incidently, Chardal is remarkably dishonest in his attempts to frame this issue. According to Chardal we (meaning me and my commenters) "would rather Jewish soldiers be killed than Arab civilians."
That is a false choice. The real issue is this: Will more soldiers be saved if fewer Arab civilians are needlessly and carelessly killed? The answer to that question is yes. ]
Monday, January 09, 2006
Chardal's Prayer
May Hashem free us from the bondage of western values and send Jewish leadership that is true to Hashem and His Word... so that we can be free to kill, maim and, God-willing, mutilate, some brown-skinned, civillian Arabs. And let us say amen.
Evolution and Orthodoxy
In the current Ha'aretz Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, head of the OU, expresses an idea that most of the RW UO world would call kefirah:
* Talmud Chaggiga 13b states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
* Midrash Bereshit Rabba 14 states that humans were created with tails.
* Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before the time of Noah had webbed fingers.
* Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces of men became ape like.
And more
Hattip Bloghead
Let me explain my position. I am convinced that there is a strong scientific case to be made for Darwin's theory of evolution as it is currently understood... I have studied and I find convincing the view of contemporary brain science that much of our mental and emotional function is the product of an evolutionary process. The theory of evolution, for me, is not inconsistent with the traditional Jewish view of the origin of the Universe or of the development of humanity.Rabbi Weinreb concludes saying that he is on "solid ground." And he's right. Examples:
* Talmud Chaggiga 13b states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
* Midrash Bereshit Rabba 14 states that humans were created with tails.
* Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before the time of Noah had webbed fingers.
* Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces of men became ape like.
And more
Hattip Bloghead
Mixed messages
Like many other Orthodox Jewish readers of the New York Times (What? I'm the only one? Drat) I felt a sharp jolt of pride when I read that some Jewish Internet merchants "leave their sites up and running on their Sabbath, but do not complete orders, work on the site or otherwise do anything to help customers."
Here, for example, is Shmuel Gniwisch of ice.com waxing on about his personal commitment to Jewish law. "As long as I own 100 percent of the company, we'll keep to the letter of the law 100 percent."
Great Shmuel. Only someone forgot to tell the immodestly dressed woman on your home page.
Here, for example, is Shmuel Gniwisch of ice.com waxing on about his personal commitment to Jewish law. "As long as I own 100 percent of the company, we'll keep to the letter of the law 100 percent."
Great Shmuel. Only someone forgot to tell the immodestly dressed woman on your home page.
DovBear explained (partially)
What's DovBear all about? A difficult question, asked by friend and foe alike. PsychoToddler came close to nailing it, I think, back at the very begining of my blogging career when he wrote:
Yesterday, when I read Lazer's post, I was deeply affected. A friend put her finger on the reason. She said, "[Lazer's post] touches the core of who you try to be when you blog." She's right and here's the rest of the story:
DovBear is many things, but foremost the blog is committed to the idea that our mesorah (tradition) overflows with competing and contradictory ideas, among them the great and noble truth that our tradition permits us to reject the tradition's own mistakes. Though I may have ruffled some feathers along the way, the blog's only real enemies are those who subscribe to the fraudulent notion that the mesorah is a monolith.[This, incidently, is why I make such a target of GOP-Jews and Jews who are Christian apologists. There's a smug certainty about many of them which I find antonymic to the idea that the Torah has 70 faces.] *
Our tradition is rich and complex with something in it for everyone, including muddlers like me who operate on the theory that reason and experience, rather than authority, provide the best basis for knowledge. Lazer disagrees with that sentiment with every fiber of his being, but still he knows that Judaism is big enough for us both.
For that, I salute him.
[*In deference to some fair points made on the thread, I've deleted this sentence]
I think he's trying to show that there are other facets to Orthodox Judaism. That we don't all think one way and vote one way... [My] blog shows that being Orthodox doesn't restrict you to a particular dress style, prayer style, occupation, or musical preference. We are individuals, and each of us has many potential talents and interests, and we are all capable of contributing.Over the last year or so, I've been gratified to meet people from everywhere on the religious and irreligious spectrum who understand and appreciate my intentions. Mis-Nagid, for example, is an atheist but a Jew to the core and a fine friend of the blog; yet, so is Gil Student, the blogosphere's chief Rabbi. This week, I found out that Lazer Brody also belongs to that group:
Curtail your premature joy when you see Orthodox Jewish bloggers like Dov Bear and Lazer sparring - this is intramural, between two brothers. We have no disagreement as to all 613 mitzvas of Torah or the importance of learning Torah. Our slashing swords unite in our fight against assimilation and in our efforts for the future of Orthodox Judaism. The two fists that look like they're pounding each other are actually the hands of the same fighter.R' Lazer for over a year, I've taken you to be a strict conformist, someone who subcribes fully to the nonsensical and ahistorical idea that"Torah True Judaism" means one approach, and one way of thinking. I was wrong about you, and I apologize.
Yesterday, when I read Lazer's post, I was deeply affected. A friend put her finger on the reason. She said, "[Lazer's post] touches the core of who you try to be when you blog." She's right and here's the rest of the story:
DovBear is many things, but foremost the blog is committed to the idea that our mesorah (tradition) overflows with competing and contradictory ideas, among them the great and noble truth that our tradition permits us to reject the tradition's own mistakes. Though I may have ruffled some feathers along the way, the blog's only real enemies are those who subscribe to the fraudulent notion that the mesorah is a monolith.
Our tradition is rich and complex with something in it for everyone, including muddlers like me who operate on the theory that reason and experience, rather than authority, provide the best basis for knowledge. Lazer disagrees with that sentiment with every fiber of his being, but still he knows that Judaism is big enough for us both.
For that, I salute him.
[*In deference to some fair points made on the thread, I've deleted this sentence]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)