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.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)