Last Tuesday, the Indianapolis JCRC's Jewish Lobby Day was held. Around 40 Jews from around the State of Indiana came to Indianapolis to lobby our state senators and representatives on a number of issues. The day ended with a private meeting with Speaker of the House [Brian] Bosma. [He] wondered why we hadn't discussed the controversy surrounding the issue of prayer in [Indiana] House chambers... The end of this exchange left us, the Jewish delegation, in shock. Speaker Bosma, defending the prayer issue, asked, "How many Jews are there in Indiana? About 2%? There are at least 80% Christians in Indiana." [Washington Post article]If this offends or frightens you (as well it should) you are encouraged to write to Speaker Bosma. Tell him that secterian prayer services in the legislature is exclusive, and represents the official preference of one religious denomination over another. Or as U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton put it: invocations like the ones delivered in Indiana represent "a clear endorsement of Christianity, sending the message to others that they are outsiders and the message to Christians that they are favored insiders."
Monday, February 20, 2006
Who cares about the Jews?
Not Brian Bosma, speaker of Indiana General Assembly.
Blogging the book fair
Went to the YU book fair this weekend to pick up some books.
Like last year, I was very disapointed to find crap titles like Candelight alongside more serious works like From Text to Tradition.
What is it about junkfood self-help books that attract the masses, and why is YU selling them?
Like last year, I was very disapointed to find crap titles like Candelight alongside more serious works like From Text to Tradition.
What is it about junkfood self-help books that attract the masses, and why is YU selling them?
Demolishing dumb arguments (The mass revelation argument for the Torah's Historical Veracity)
The fact that Judaism in ancient in times regarded the Torah as having been the product of a divine revelation is taken by many as proof that the revelation occurred. Their argument, in brief:
First Error: For this argument to work, we need to presume that ancient people were as deeply skeptical as we are today. But this is a mistake. Ancient people were famously gullible, and over the centuries, lot of bad ideas were widely accepted. For example, Celts believed in fairies, Irishmen believed in leprechauns, Polish peasant women believed in all manners of demons, ghosts and witches. Even today, roughly 2 billion people think Jesus is god. Consider this: Suppose 3000 years from now, some Christian-missionary of the future tells his prey that 2 billion people were once convinced of Jesus's divinity. Will that make it true?
In fact, (and this is ironic) the two authors of the Book of Kings and the Book of Nehemia show us just how credulous people once were. In both books a leader discovers a scroll which contains ideas previously unknown to the people. In Kings, Josiah tells the people about "commands, regulations and decrees;" and if, as is suggested, Josiah's book is Dueternomy, he also told them about the revelation at Sinai. In Nehemia, the people are introduced to the "book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel " and told by Ezra that God wants them to "dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month." At either time, do the people laugh out loud and accuse Josiah or Ezra of forgery? Do they say, "We're not keeping those new laws. That book can't be divine. If it were, our fathers would have mentioned it!" No! Instead, there was a great religious awakening.
Second Error:The argument supposes that the charismatic leader who introduced the Torah began by telling people that their ancestors had been present at the revelation. But is this necessarily true? Suppose he just told people that "something" happened at Sinai, and only generations later, after people had accepted this first notion, did they reach the conclusion that their own ancestors must have had been present at the revelation. Later on, with this second idea firmly in the minds of the people, the Torah was written. Is there anything, aside from the testimony of the Torah itself, which precludes this possibility? (The testimony of the Torah itself on this point can't be accepted because of the fallacy of circular reasoning. It would be akin to saying, "We know the Torah is true, because the Torah says it's true.")
Third Error: The argument assumes that all of us had different ancestors at Sinai (ie: that your great, great grandmother who was at Sinai is not the same person as my great, great grandmother who was also at Sinai.) But is this so?
In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University, showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. He has found that 80 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 are direct ancestors of every European living today. More recently, researchers determined that about 3.5 million of today Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women.
As impressive as the idea of millions of independent family traditions stretching back to Sinai might seem, the reality, based on this research into geneology, is that there probably aren't more than one or two: all Jews alive 1000 years after Sinai likely shared the same small handful of ancestors; all the other lines having died out over time. However unlikely it may be that millions of families became convinced of a lie at the same time, this isn't necessarily what happened.
At the begining, there might have been just a handful of people who accepted the story of the revleation. Given what we now know about the mathmetics of geneology, four or ten devout believers in the year 1200 BCE could have easily produced, within 1000 years, a large nation of descendants who all accepted the original family belief. When you recall that the absence of any kind of media made people almost entirely reliant on their families for information, the idea suggested here becomes even less unlikely.
Tomorrow: Why I, nonetheless, still believe in the revelation at Sinai.
[Related: Mind Without Borders has an additional point.]
"How can you explain a group of people who claim to be descendants of millions of people experiencing... the Revelation at Sinai? How did the first generation start believing it? A charismatic leader? A slowly evolving story? Mass hypnosis?A clever argument, but one that is deeply flawed.
Could a leader rewrite the oral history of a people and get them to believe it happened to their own ancestors? Imagine Napoleon telling the French "In the year 750, G-d [gave] your ancestors... a set of all-encompassing laws, and they passed that experience down from generation to generation." The people would say "What? Dad never told us that! Hey, Grandma, did your grandparents ever tell you about this?"
First Error: For this argument to work, we need to presume that ancient people were as deeply skeptical as we are today. But this is a mistake. Ancient people were famously gullible, and over the centuries, lot of bad ideas were widely accepted. For example, Celts believed in fairies, Irishmen believed in leprechauns, Polish peasant women believed in all manners of demons, ghosts and witches. Even today, roughly 2 billion people think Jesus is god. Consider this: Suppose 3000 years from now, some Christian-missionary of the future tells his prey that 2 billion people were once convinced of Jesus's divinity. Will that make it true?
In fact, (and this is ironic) the two authors of the Book of Kings and the Book of Nehemia show us just how credulous people once were. In both books a leader discovers a scroll which contains ideas previously unknown to the people. In Kings, Josiah tells the people about "commands, regulations and decrees;" and if, as is suggested, Josiah's book is Dueternomy, he also told them about the revelation at Sinai. In Nehemia, the people are introduced to the "book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel " and told by Ezra that God wants them to "dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month." At either time, do the people laugh out loud and accuse Josiah or Ezra of forgery? Do they say, "We're not keeping those new laws. That book can't be divine. If it were, our fathers would have mentioned it!" No! Instead, there was a great religious awakening.
Second Error:The argument supposes that the charismatic leader who introduced the Torah began by telling people that their ancestors had been present at the revelation. But is this necessarily true? Suppose he just told people that "something" happened at Sinai, and only generations later, after people had accepted this first notion, did they reach the conclusion that their own ancestors must have had been present at the revelation. Later on, with this second idea firmly in the minds of the people, the Torah was written. Is there anything, aside from the testimony of the Torah itself, which precludes this possibility? (The testimony of the Torah itself on this point can't be accepted because of the fallacy of circular reasoning. It would be akin to saying, "We know the Torah is true, because the Torah says it's true.")
Third Error: The argument assumes that all of us had different ancestors at Sinai (ie: that your great, great grandmother who was at Sinai is not the same person as my great, great grandmother who was also at Sinai.) But is this so?
In a 1999 paper titled "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University, showed how to reconcile the potentially huge number of our ancestors with the quantities of people who actually lived in the past. He has found that 80 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 are direct ancestors of every European living today. More recently, researchers determined that about 3.5 million of today Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women.
As impressive as the idea of millions of independent family traditions stretching back to Sinai might seem, the reality, based on this research into geneology, is that there probably aren't more than one or two: all Jews alive 1000 years after Sinai likely shared the same small handful of ancestors; all the other lines having died out over time. However unlikely it may be that millions of families became convinced of a lie at the same time, this isn't necessarily what happened.
At the begining, there might have been just a handful of people who accepted the story of the revleation. Given what we now know about the mathmetics of geneology, four or ten devout believers in the year 1200 BCE could have easily produced, within 1000 years, a large nation of descendants who all accepted the original family belief. When you recall that the absence of any kind of media made people almost entirely reliant on their families for information, the idea suggested here becomes even less unlikely.
Tomorrow: Why I, nonetheless, still believe in the revelation at Sinai.
[Related: Mind Without Borders has an additional point.]
Friday, February 17, 2006
No Hirhurim, no Godol Hador, no DovBear, no OrthoMom, no Robbie, no Treppenwitz..
... yet they call this an article about Jewish blogs?
Humpf.
Hat tip: Enchantress, who was also omitted.
Bright side: JIB winner and chest-thumper press release distributor Yaakov Mencken (and they call me a self promoter?) was also excluded
Humpf.
Hat tip: Enchantress, who was also omitted.
Bright side: JIB winner and
More problem for Bones
Earlier, I pointed out that a hammer job on Clinton, recently published by The Dry Bones, was riddled with errors. Turns out I missed the most important one.
Dry Bones: "This is Art" said then President Clinton. [about] "Piss Christ" [a] National Endowment for the Arts-funded piece consisting of a photograph of Jesus submerged in a bottle of urine.
But as Lee D has pointed out: "Clinton did not fund 'Piss Christ'. It was created in 1988 (funded by Reagan's NEA via a North Carolina museum). The controversy erupted in 1989, with George H. W. Bush in the White House. (Clinton was still Governor of Arkansas.)
I'd like to see someone provide hard documentation of Clinton praising 'Piss Christ'. I doubt it exists, as the controversy had mostly blown over by the time he took office. (Besides, he was much too savvy a politician to say anything like that, regardless of his own opinion.)
Without it, this whole 'hypocrisy' claim is a charade.
11:48 AM "
Will Bones apologize to Clinton? The world waits and wonders.
Dry Bones: "This is Art" said then President Clinton. [about] "Piss Christ" [a] National Endowment for the Arts-funded piece consisting of a photograph of Jesus submerged in a bottle of urine.
But as Lee D has pointed out: "Clinton did not fund 'Piss Christ'. It was created in 1988 (funded by Reagan's NEA via a North Carolina museum). The controversy erupted in 1989, with George H. W. Bush in the White House. (Clinton was still Governor of Arkansas.)
I'd like to see someone provide hard documentation of Clinton praising 'Piss Christ'. I doubt it exists, as the controversy had mostly blown over by the time he took office. (Besides, he was much too savvy a politician to say anything like that, regardless of his own opinion.)
Without it, this whole 'hypocrisy' claim is a charade.
11:48 AM "
Will Bones apologize to Clinton? The world waits and wonders.
Great minds think alike
OLBERMANN: This contradiction, and I know it seems like splitting hairs, Harry Whittington is a friend, or is he an acquaintance? And he answers, “An acquaintance,” then he calls him a friend, then he calls him a good friend, then he says he‘s known him for 30 years.
Did the man grow in the vice president‘s esteem over the course of the interview, or are these the kinds of little details that can undermine somebody‘s credibility? If you were in court or were making a statement to the police, and you gave the same description of the same person in three different emotional terms, somebody‘d be saying, Mr. Vice President, you have to pick one or, at most, two of the above.
Did the man grow in the vice president‘s esteem over the course of the interview, or are these the kinds of little details that can undermine somebody‘s credibility? If you were in court or were making a statement to the police, and you gave the same description of the same person in three different emotional terms, somebody‘d be saying, Mr. Vice President, you have to pick one or, at most, two of the above.
Support the Troops!
...well in words anyway.
For fiscal 2007, the Pentagon is seeking a 2.2 percent pay raise for troops, the lowest increase since 1994 and well below the average for the last 10 years.
Remember boys and girls: When the military opted to shutter bases back in the late 90's, Bill Clinton was personally responsible for that, as part of his secret plan to invite 9/11. And when John Kerry criticized the war, that was part of his secret plan to undermine troop morale.
But when Rummy and Bush nickle and dime the soldiers by cutting their raises (and their body armor) well, that's just the military operating with fiscal responsibility. It should in no way reflect poorly upon President Bush when it comes time to start pointing fingers after the war really spirals out of control.
For fiscal 2007, the Pentagon is seeking a 2.2 percent pay raise for troops, the lowest increase since 1994 and well below the average for the last 10 years.
Remember boys and girls: When the military opted to shutter bases back in the late 90's, Bill Clinton was personally responsible for that, as part of his secret plan to invite 9/11. And when John Kerry criticized the war, that was part of his secret plan to undermine troop morale.
But when Rummy and Bush nickle and dime the soldiers by cutting their raises (and their body armor) well, that's just the military operating with fiscal responsibility. It should in no way reflect poorly upon President Bush when it comes time to start pointing fingers after the war really spirals out of control.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Cheney's T-Shirt
Also: One beer?
And see how Alan Dershowitz answers this question: Why would a media-savvy and clever man like Dick Cheney delay notifying the press and the police about an accident when
(a) he knew it would eventually be covered by the press and (b) he knew he would be criticized for delaying release of the story?
Does the truth matter?
As you know, yesterday Dick Cheney subjected himself to the comfy chair and other unspeakable act of torture at the hand of noted foot massager and GOP lickspittle, Brit Hume.
Highlights:
Q: Would you describe him [Harry Whittington] as a close friend, friendly acquaintance, what --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, an acquaintance.
But, a little later, Dick says:
"I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I'll never forget."
So which is it? Friend or aquaintance? Perhaps it just doesn't sound as good to say, "Yup, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot an acquaintance."
Also of note was this rather specious claim, made by the Vice President:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I thought that [it] made good sense [to let Katherine Armstrong break the story 20 hours after the shooting] because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting...
Oh, accuracy was your concern was it? Accuracy? I see. So why, in her original account, did Armstrong say "
"This is something that happens from time to time," Armstrong said. "You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself."
Oh, I see. So getting your heart shot full of bullets is no big deal, an experience Katherine herself has enjoyed. Is that "accurate?"
The "accuracy" continues:
"It broke the skin," she said of the pellets. "It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open."
The way Katherine tells it, this heart-attack causing episode was little more than a bruise, a skinned-keen. "He was fine. He was talking." Now contrast her "accurate" portrayal of the events with the Dick's own words:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: He didn't respond. He was -- he was breathing, conscious at that point, but he didn't -- he was, I'm sure, stunned, obviously, still trying to figure out what had happened to him.
[...]
Q His eyes were open when you found him, then, right?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. One eye was open.
Yes, indeed. What a good thing the VP waited 20 hours to ensure accuracy. Lord only knows how those unscrupulous Washington spin machines would have framed the story if they had gotten to it first.
Highlights:
Q: Would you describe him [Harry Whittington] as a close friend, friendly acquaintance, what --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, an acquaintance.
But, a little later, Dick says:
"I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I'll never forget."
So which is it? Friend or aquaintance? Perhaps it just doesn't sound as good to say, "Yup, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot an acquaintance."
Also of note was this rather specious claim, made by the Vice President:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I thought that [it] made good sense [to let Katherine Armstrong break the story 20 hours after the shooting] because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting...
Oh, accuracy was your concern was it? Accuracy? I see. So why, in her original account, did Armstrong say "
"This is something that happens from time to time," Armstrong said. "You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself."
Oh, I see. So getting your heart shot full of bullets is no big deal, an experience Katherine herself has enjoyed. Is that "accurate?"
The "accuracy" continues:
"It broke the skin," she said of the pellets. "It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open."
The way Katherine tells it, this heart-attack causing episode was little more than a bruise, a skinned-keen. "He was fine. He was talking." Now contrast her "accurate" portrayal of the events with the Dick's own words:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: He didn't respond. He was -- he was breathing, conscious at that point, but he didn't -- he was, I'm sure, stunned, obviously, still trying to figure out what had happened to him.
[...]
Q His eyes were open when you found him, then, right?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. One eye was open.
Yes, indeed. What a good thing the VP waited 20 hours to ensure accuracy. Lord only knows how those unscrupulous Washington spin machines would have framed the story if they had gotten to it first.
Who said it?
Who said it?
"We need to react [to the Hamas election] with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the Palestinians for their own selfish reasons."
(a) Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
(b) Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
(c) Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
(d) Henry Hyde (R-IL)
Hint: The speaker also voiced disapproval this morning for Con. Res. 79, a Congressional resolution calling for the US to withhold all assistance from the PA, until Hamas recants it's position on Israel.
Hattip: TTC
"We need to react [to the Hamas election] with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the Palestinians for their own selfish reasons."
(a) Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
(b) Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
(c) Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
(d) Henry Hyde (R-IL)
Hint: The speaker also voiced disapproval this morning for Con. Res. 79, a Congressional resolution calling for the US to withhold all assistance from the PA, until Hamas recants it's position on Israel.
Hattip: TTC
Chiding the cartoonist
Far be it from me to argue with a JIB-winning cartoonist, but to my regret, the irrepressible ache is rising inside me. I fear I won't be able to keep myself from pointing out that the Dry Bones blog has recently published two rather silly mistakes.
First off, Hitler did not become leader of Germany through an election!!
Though this stupid argument has become the darling of the undemocratic right, it is 100 percent wrong. Hitler became Chancellor, not through an election, but through a series of back-room deals. The very best Hitler did in an honest election was 37 percent.
Next, Mr. Dry Bones tries to beat up former President Clinton using some words and ideas provided by the Super Fun Power Hour.
Unfortunately, all those years hunched over a drawing board appear to have damaged the cartoonist's eyesight. SuperFunPowerHour, you see, attributes the damaging remark to Hillary Clinton, but Mr. Dry Bones puts it in Bill Clinton's mouth. Are Bill and Hillary the same person?
Bones also makes the mistake of assuming that president Clinton personally approved of a particular work of art, simply because a Federal agency helped fund it. That's a little like saying that Bush personally approved of Cheney shooting that poor guy in the face, which is of course absurd. Federal agencies, like vice presidents, have some lattitude and independance: it simply isn't reasonable (unless you have a grudge) to say that the fact that the NEA funded something is proof positive that Clinton liked it.
More on the larger problem with the second post later.
First off, Hitler did not become leader of Germany through an election!!
Though this stupid argument has become the darling of the undemocratic right, it is 100 percent wrong. Hitler became Chancellor, not through an election, but through a series of back-room deals. The very best Hitler did in an honest election was 37 percent.
Next, Mr. Dry Bones tries to beat up former President Clinton using some words and ideas provided by the Super Fun Power Hour.
Unfortunately, all those years hunched over a drawing board appear to have damaged the cartoonist's eyesight. SuperFunPowerHour, you see, attributes the damaging remark to Hillary Clinton, but Mr. Dry Bones puts it in Bill Clinton's mouth. Are Bill and Hillary the same person?
Bones also makes the mistake of assuming that president Clinton personally approved of a particular work of art, simply because a Federal agency helped fund it. That's a little like saying that Bush personally approved of Cheney shooting that poor guy in the face, which is of course absurd. Federal agencies, like vice presidents, have some lattitude and independance: it simply isn't reasonable (unless you have a grudge) to say that the fact that the NEA funded something is proof positive that Clinton liked it.
More on the larger problem with the second post later.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Quick! Someone give CYW and Ezzie some new talking points!
CNN.com - Cheney: 'It's a day I'll never forget' - Feb 15, 2006: "'It was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."
Fear not CWY and Ezzie: I'm sure the Vice President appreciates your support all the same. Perhaps if you write him a letter detailing the patriotic and impassioned defense you offered here on his behalf, you'll be invited along on the next hunting trip.
HT:MPQ
Fear not CWY and Ezzie: I'm sure the Vice President appreciates your support all the same. Perhaps if you write him a letter detailing the patriotic and impassioned defense you offered here on his behalf, you'll be invited along on the next hunting trip.
HT:MPQ
Polls
USATODAY.com:
"Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"
50 percent said he was wrong.
USATODAY.com: "Based on what you have heard or read, do you think George W. Bush (a) definitely broke the law, (b) probably broke the law, (c) probably did not break the law or (d) definitely did not break the law? "
49 percent chose "a" or "b."
Like you, I am wondering where in the world did USATODAY find so many terrorist-loving, America-hating people? Syria? Harvard? France?
As Ezzie will be quick to note, all this proves is that the spy program is justified; after all, if 50 percent of Americans think the president is a lawbreaker, shouldn't we be keeping an eye on them?
"Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"
50 percent said he was wrong.
USATODAY.com: "Based on what you have heard or read, do you think George W. Bush (a) definitely broke the law, (b) probably broke the law, (c) probably did not break the law or (d) definitely did not break the law? "
49 percent chose "a" or "b."
Like you, I am wondering where in the world did USATODAY find so many terrorist-loving, America-hating people? Syria? Harvard? France?
As Ezzie will be quick to note, all this proves is that the spy program is justified; after all, if 50 percent of Americans think the president is a lawbreaker, shouldn't we be keeping an eye on them?
Quail hunting
Try your luck, but be warned: Shooting tame, pen raised animals for fun isn't nearly as manly as it seems. In fact, it's more like going into a petting zoo with a rifle, which is to say that it's a form of cheating, more mass slaughter than hunting.
Come to think of it, that might be why a man like Big Time enjoys it so much.
Come to think of it, that might be why a man like Big Time enjoys it so much.
Muslim infighting
All of us know that Mahmud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran and certified nutjob, has gone on the record denying the holocaust, and, though some of my friends on the right may deny it, the so-called Israel-hating media straight-out condemned him for it. But did you know that a Muslim group has also joined the chorus of condemnation? That's right. Germany's leading Islamic group wants Ahmadinejad to put up or shut up.
Muslim cultural institute in Germany on Monday criticized Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for disparaging the Holocaust, daring him to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp.Ok, right wingers: How does this fit into your "boo-hoo-hoo the whole world hates us" narrative?
"In this place of horror he can again deny the Holocaust, if he has the courage," a spokesman for the Islam-Archiv-Deutschland Central Institute told the German Catholic press agency KNA.
In recent statements, the hardline Iranian president has dismissed the Nazis' systematic slaughter of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel and called for the state to be "wiped off the map".
By denying the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad not only denigrated the Jewish victims of the genocide but also the 200,000 Roms and Arabs murdered in the "gypsy camp" of Auschwitz-Birkenau and other camps, the institute spokesman said. The fact that the president of an Islamic state repeated Nazi anti-Semitism was harmful to the image of Islam and "a disgrace for all the world's Muslims", he added.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Repeat
RenReb repeated her Tu B'Shvat post from last year so I will, too:
Renegade Rebbetzin: Tu b'Shvat higiyah....: "Let me ask you this - why is it that NONE of my children have learned the 'Tu b'Shvat higiyah' song in school?? None of them. Not even one. What's happening to Jewish education??? They come home with little cups of dirt in which a few grass blades are growing (or in one case, a few leaves, since they planted orange seeds), and they proudly tell me that they planted them in honor of Tu b'Shvat, and they tell me how they ate figs and dates in school and they tell me that it's the special 'Rosh Hashanah for the trees,' but they don't know the song. If I weren't already paying almost nothing for tuition (seeing as how, thank God, the school is well aware of where, precisely, rabbis' salaries rank in the scheme of things), I would demand my money back."
DovBear: DOVBEAR DOUBTS YOU: Sure, Ren Reb, it's a great song, and yes, yes its a biblical tragedy on the level of frogs and locusts that neither your kids nor mine learned it in school this year, but do you know the words?
Not just the 'Tu b'Shvat higiyah' part.
The words.
Renegade Rebbetzin: Tu b'Shvat higiyah....: "Let me ask you this - why is it that NONE of my children have learned the 'Tu b'Shvat higiyah' song in school?? None of them. Not even one. What's happening to Jewish education??? They come home with little cups of dirt in which a few grass blades are growing (or in one case, a few leaves, since they planted orange seeds), and they proudly tell me that they planted them in honor of Tu b'Shvat, and they tell me how they ate figs and dates in school and they tell me that it's the special 'Rosh Hashanah for the trees,' but they don't know the song. If I weren't already paying almost nothing for tuition (seeing as how, thank God, the school is well aware of where, precisely, rabbis' salaries rank in the scheme of things), I would demand my money back."
DovBear: DOVBEAR DOUBTS YOU: Sure, Ren Reb, it's a great song, and yes, yes its a biblical tragedy on the level of frogs and locusts that neither your kids nor mine learned it in school this year, but do you know the words?
Not just the 'Tu b'Shvat higiyah' part.
The words.
Note to the non-Jewish readership
If you're out shopping for last minute gifts, please be sure to demand that the store clerks wish you a Happy SAINT Valentine's Day.
We don't want to give O'Reilly anythng else to cry about.
We don't want to give O'Reilly anythng else to cry about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)