Hillary Clinton
[Hat tip TTC]
Monday, September 10, 2007
The neo-Laffer Curve
Explanation: "The neo-Laffer curve is a satirical construct created by Martin Gardner to establish the fallacy of the Laffer Curve... The truth of the matter is that the optimal tax rate for government revenue is guided by intensely immediate circumstances and numerous, nigh-uncountable variables, and all the wicked webs that make up history Laffer's fallacy, whether conscious or unconscious, occurred when he assumed that simply because two ends of his graph could be easily examined and quantified, that the rest of the graph would follow the same rules and thus arrive at a "point". In fact, not only did the graph not follow those rules, it could not by definition of the system it represented. "
In other words, Laffer and the Supply-siders politicians are full of it. (Though anyone who noticed that there were 31 million new jobs created and a record surplus following the Clinton tax hike knew that already)
In other words, Laffer and the Supply-siders politicians are full of it. (Though anyone who noticed that there were 31 million new jobs created and a record surplus following the Clinton tax hike knew that already)
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
The frum hockey player
Can you believe this? Benjamin Rubin is a shomer shabbos 18-year old making a name for himself on the Gatineau Olympiques, a junior hockey team. Currently he sits on shabbos and holidays and is considered to have a fair chance of making the NHL.
[Related]
[Related]
Our Churchgoing Friends
Along with the wonderful debunking of the Supply Side myth excerpted below, the current TNR contains a review of a new book about the Holocaust, one that contains new sources, and previously unpublished documentary material. The review is facinating, and suggests the book is, too. Here are just a few sentences from it, dedicated to those Orthodox Jews still unable to accept the well-proven complicity of the Catholic Church in the disaster:
I remind you again that John Paul II, the pope OJ's love the most, worked tirelessly to promote the beatification of his predecessor Pius XII, the man who presided over this disgrace.On July 15, 1941, in the first month of the Einsatzgruppen murders of tens of thousands of Jews behind the lines on the Eastern Front, Polish Catholic officials sent the following message to the Polish government-in-exile in London:
As far as the Jewish Question is concerned, it must be seen as a singular dispensation of Divine Providence that the Germans have already made a good start, quite irrespective of all the wrongs they have done and continue to do to our country. They have shown that the liberation of Polish society from the Jewish plague is possible.... Clearly, one can see the hand of God in the contribution to the solution of this urgent question being made by the occupiers.By December 1941, deportations of Jews from Germany to the East had sharpened controversies in both the Catholic and Protestant churches.On December 17, 1941, German Christian church leaders of Saxony, Nassau-Hesse, Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Anhalt, Thuringia, and Lubeck announced that the "severest measures" should be taken against the Jews, who should be expelled form German territories. The overwhelming majority of Catholic church leaders who had previously denounced the Nazi murders of the mentally ill and physically handicapped said nothing about the deportations of Jews from Germany. Friedländer concludes that between 1939 and 1945 the vast majority of church officials remained silent. They made clear and ugly distinctions between a tiny minority of Jews who converted to Christianity and the vast majority who did not. They accepted that there was a fundamental inequality between Christians and Jews, and failed to use the moral authority of the church to attempt to stop the genocide in progress. Anti-Semitic antipathies rooted in traditional Christian theology combined with fear of communism led the preponderance of leadership in the Christian churches of Europe to remain silent and on occasion to fan the flames of anti-Semitism. We read of the occasional priest or minister who gave a dissenting sermon (and was sometimes arrested or murdered as a result); but these were exceptions that proved the rule.
Supply Side Stupidity
The current TNR has a long article on the fools and nutters who founded the cult of Supply Side Economics, a crank doctrine embraced by Republican politicians, but rejected by mainstream economists. Because I expect the article is too long and complicated for most supply-siders to bother with, I excerpt the best bit below:
That fateful night, Wanniski and Laffer were laboring with little success to explain the new theory to Cheney. Laffer pulled out a cocktail napkin and drew a parabola-shaped curve on it. The premise of the curve was simple. If the government sets a tax rate of zero, it will receive no revenue. And, if the government sets a tax rate of 100 percent, the government will also receive zero tax revenue, since nobody will have any reason to earn any income. Between these two points--zero taxes and zero revenue, 100 percent taxes and zero revenue--Laffer's curve drew an arc. The arc suggested that at higher levels of taxation, reducing the tax rate would produce more revenue for the government. At that moment, there were a few points that Cheney might have made in response. First, he could have noted that the Laffer Curve was not, strictly speaking, correct. Yes, a zero tax rate would obviously produce zero revenue, but the assumption that a 100-percent tax rate would also produce zero revenue was, just as obviously, false. Surely Cheney was familiar with communist states such as the Soviet Union, with its 100 percent tax rate. The Soviet revenue scheme may not have represented the cutting edge in economic efficiency, but it nonetheless managed to collect enough revenue to maintain an enormous military, enslave Eastern Europe, fund ambitious projects such as Sputnik, and so on.
Second, Cheney could have pointed out that, even if the Laffer Curve was correct in theory, there was no evidence that the U.S. income tax was on the downward slope of the curve--that is, that rates were then high enough that tax cuts would produce higher revenue.
But Cheney did not say either of these things. Perhaps, in retrospect, this was due to something deep in Cheney's character that makes him unusually susceptible to theories or purported data that confirm his own ideological predilections. (You can almost picture Donald Rumsfeld, years later, scrawling a diagram for Cheney on a cocktail napkin showing that only a small number of troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.) In any event, Cheney apparently found the Laffer Curve a revelation, for it presented in a simple, easily digestible form the messianic power of tax cuts.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Luciano Pavarotti has passed away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_Pavarotti
I didn't realize he had been sick.
ברוך דיין האמת (=God, not Pavarotti)
I didn't realize he had been sick.
ברוך דיין האמת (=God, not Pavarotti)
Unconditional love... or I've received a promise so did you
The word of the Lord, God to the prophet Isaiah
Sing, barren woman, who has never had a baby.
Fill the air with song, you who've never been in labor!
You'll have far more children than all those childbearing women." God says so!
"Clear lots of ground for your tents! Make your tents large. Spread out! Think big! Use plenty of rope, drive the tent pegs deep. You're going to need lots of elbow room for your family.(You're going to take over whole nations; you're going to resettle abandoned cities.)
Don't be afraid—you're not going to be embarrassed.
Don't hold back—you're not going to come up short.
You'll forget all about the humiliations of your youth, and the indignities of being a widow will fade from memory. For your Maker is your bridegroom, his name, God-of Hosts!
Your Redeemer is The Holy of Israel, known as God of the whole earth.
You were like an abandoned wife, devastated with grief, and God welcomed you back, the wife of your youth can't ever be rejected," says your God.
Your Redeemer God says:
"I left you, but only for a fleeting moment. Now, with enormous compassion, I'm bringing you back.
In an outburst of anger I turned my back on you— but only for a moment.I t's with lasting love that I'm tenderly caring for you.
This is just like the days of Noah for me: I promised then that the waters of Noah would never again flood the earth. I'm promising now no more anger, no more rebuke.
For even if the mountains walk away and the hills fall to pieces, My love won't walk away from you, my covenant commitment of peace won't fall apart."
The God who has compassion on you says so.
Its loads better in the original Hebrew but I think this translation (adapted from the Message) does it justice.
Sing, barren woman, who has never had a baby.
Fill the air with song, you who've never been in labor!
You'll have far more children than all those childbearing women." God says so!
"Clear lots of ground for your tents! Make your tents large. Spread out! Think big! Use plenty of rope, drive the tent pegs deep. You're going to need lots of elbow room for your family.(You're going to take over whole nations; you're going to resettle abandoned cities.)
Don't be afraid—you're not going to be embarrassed.
Don't hold back—you're not going to come up short.
You'll forget all about the humiliations of your youth, and the indignities of being a widow will fade from memory. For your Maker is your bridegroom, his name, God-of Hosts!
Your Redeemer is The Holy of Israel, known as God of the whole earth.
You were like an abandoned wife, devastated with grief, and God welcomed you back, the wife of your youth can't ever be rejected," says your God.
Your Redeemer God says:
"I left you, but only for a fleeting moment. Now, with enormous compassion, I'm bringing you back.
In an outburst of anger I turned my back on you— but only for a moment.I t's with lasting love that I'm tenderly caring for you.
This is just like the days of Noah for me: I promised then that the waters of Noah would never again flood the earth. I'm promising now no more anger, no more rebuke.
For even if the mountains walk away and the hills fall to pieces, My love won't walk away from you, my covenant commitment of peace won't fall apart."
The God who has compassion on you says so.
Its loads better in the original Hebrew but I think this translation (adapted from the Message) does it justice.
The original charge to Abraham: Be like the gentiles
The preponderance of the archaeological evidence suggests that circumcision was practiced among several Semitic people, and at least in the Egyptian priestly class. By our lights, circumcision sets us apart and marks us as different. Given the discoveries of archaeologists, is it possible God wanted the very opposite from his first servant?
Blurring the line between God and Jesus
What is it about frum people and their chronic inability to recognize Christian belief for what it is? I think the root of this phenomenon is that religious people become woefully uncritical when another person's faith is being discussed. We see it all the time at Cross-loving Currents, where a gay, hypocrite, Christian adulterer was lauded and praised by the very same people who routinely shove sticks into the eyes of left leaning Jews. And we saw it again today, from Gil Student:
[The publication of Mother Theresa's letters] created a scandal not, unfortunately, because of the circumstances by which they became public but because in them she confesses an almost complete lack of feeling of God's presence. She comes across as depressed, feeling abandoned by God and at times even questioning His existence.However, as Gil knows, yet purposely obscures, Mother Theresa didn't reject God. Not exactly. She rejected Jesus. That's a sloppy mistake, especially for a guy like Gil.
How we know Gil Student is full of it
A few clues:
(1) For the last three years Gil has carefuly excluded most bloggers from his sidebar. I was never listed. Neither was GH, OrthoMom, RenReb, Shmarya, JewSchool, Jewlicious, and a host of other relevant, popular bloggers. Behind the scenes, Gil's always been friendly to me. Once, a long time ago, I asked him why I'm banned from his blogroll. I don't remember his exact words, but I believe he said something sanctimonoius about being unwilling to endorse the sort of freewheeling, occasionally-over-the-line discussion I do here. He may have mentioned pritzus and kfira, too. All well and good, and kol hakovod, only now Gil has climbed into bed with (a) a pornographer, (b) at least one hidden-in-plain-site kofer and (c) Ben Atlas.
[Update: SoccerDad has reminded me (in the comments) that a few years back Gil included this blog on his list of "Blogs a Rabbi Must Follow." Though it wasn't clear he necessarily meant it as a compliment, I viewed it generously and continue to view it generously and at the time I expressed sincere appreciation. However, the point remains that Gil has always kept me (and most other blogs) at arm's length and the reason he always gave was that our behavior and style couldn't be endorsed. So how does he justify joining up with Rishimu?]
(2) He is laboriously trying to convince his readers (and possibly his own good self) that an ordinary group blog/agregator is the cutting-edge-future of the Internet. Yet, we know he doesn't really believe this, because he's also said "If I don't close [Hirhurim] no one will go to Reshimu." Why would the next, best thing's success hinge on the disappearance of the competition?
(3) He has seems to have bought into the claim that Rishimo will be a place where all types of Jews will be able to talk to each other. This is asburd on the face. How can Jews talk to each other if they are going to be subjected to the chilling effect of registration and moderation?
Anyway, the place where contemporary Jews talk to each other already exists. The place is called DovBear. Here you'll find kofrim and maamin interacting, and not just on the comments but on the site itself. The commenting community includes a Conservative Apikorus, a witch, several avrechim from Lakewood, Ed, Yona Lazar, prim Jewish mothers, apikorsim, skeptics, Jews by choice, FFBs, and much, much more. The whole cholent of contemporary Judaism is here, welcomed, unmoderated and free to say their piece.
(1) For the last three years Gil has carefuly excluded most bloggers from his sidebar. I was never listed. Neither was GH, OrthoMom, RenReb, Shmarya, JewSchool, Jewlicious, and a host of other relevant, popular bloggers. Behind the scenes, Gil's always been friendly to me. Once, a long time ago, I asked him why I'm banned from his blogroll. I don't remember his exact words, but I believe he said something sanctimonoius about being unwilling to endorse the sort of freewheeling, occasionally-over-the-line discussion I do here. He may have mentioned pritzus and kfira, too. All well and good, and kol hakovod, only now Gil has climbed into bed with (a) a pornographer, (b) at least one hidden-in-plain-site kofer and (c) Ben Atlas.
[Update: SoccerDad has reminded me (in the comments) that a few years back Gil included this blog on his list of "Blogs a Rabbi Must Follow." Though it wasn't clear he necessarily meant it as a compliment, I viewed it generously and continue to view it generously and at the time I expressed sincere appreciation. However, the point remains that Gil has always kept me (and most other blogs) at arm's length and the reason he always gave was that our behavior and style couldn't be endorsed. So how does he justify joining up with Rishimu?]
(2) He is laboriously trying to convince his readers (and possibly his own good self) that an ordinary group blog/agregator is the cutting-edge-future of the Internet. Yet, we know he doesn't really believe this, because he's also said "If I don't close [Hirhurim] no one will go to Reshimu." Why would the next, best thing's success hinge on the disappearance of the competition?
(3) He has seems to have bought into the claim that Rishimo will be a place where all types of Jews will be able to talk to each other. This is asburd on the face. How can Jews talk to each other if they are going to be subjected to the chilling effect of registration and moderation?
Anyway, the place where contemporary Jews talk to each other already exists. The place is called DovBear. Here you'll find kofrim and maamin interacting, and not just on the comments but on the site itself. The commenting community includes a Conservative Apikorus, a witch, several avrechim from Lakewood, Ed, Yona Lazar, prim Jewish mothers, apikorsim, skeptics, Jews by choice, FFBs, and much, much more. The whole cholent of contemporary Judaism is here, welcomed, unmoderated and free to say their piece.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Two things
(1) Hitchens Takes on Mother Teresa
Apparently Mother T was a closet kofer. Wonder how many of our saints and Rabbis have experienced similar doubts?
(2) This happened in Texas, but it could have been Boro Park
Be honest: When your kids tell you that the moon was once-upon-a-time as large as the sun do you
(a) Roll your eyes?
(b) Make a large, appreciative donation to the kid's school?
(c) Mutter under your breath?
(d) Remind them that the Torah does not it fact say that; therefore, they aren't obligated to believe it?
Apparently Mother T was a closet kofer. Wonder how many of our saints and Rabbis have experienced similar doubts?
(2) This happened in Texas, but it could have been Boro Park
Be honest: When your kids tell you that the moon was once-upon-a-time as large as the sun do you
(a) Roll your eyes?
(b) Make a large, appreciative donation to the kid's school?
(c) Mutter under your breath?
(d) Remind them that the Torah does not it fact say that; therefore, they aren't obligated to believe it?
The DovBear Dialogues Part 2
The DovBear Dialogues continue
Part 1
Dear Bray,
Thank you for your letter. Your words clearly come from your heart and they have entered mine. I found your letter, both its content and style, to be deeply moving.
But, I don't care. As far as I am concerned, emotions have no place in evaluating the truth of Judaism. The huge and undeniable biases that plague all religious people renders any attempt to give an emotional argument for OJ completely absurd. I will therefore reply to your letter on a purely rational plane.
To me, it seems, that your letter can essentially be broken into three parts.
Point 1 – Strong and incontrovertible evidence for TMS does not exist, nor is not needed.
Point 2 – Judaism demonstrates a higher moral ethic than other faiths or atheism.
Point 3 – The higher ethical standard of Jews suggests TMS.
Space prohibits a thorough analysis of all these points, so I will limit myself to a brief sketch of what obstacles I believe your approach needs to overcome.
Point 1 – I must confess that to me the opposite of what you write seems true. I suggest that, for any given hypothesis, the standard of evidence we demand is dependent on three things:
i. how remarkable, a priori, the claim is. Every single observation we have ever recorded supports the supremacy of natural law, and so your hypothesis, which rejects natural law, is by definition the most remarkable claim possible.
ii. how much evidence, a priori, we expect the hypothesis to generate. To this your argument of "bechirah" is pertinent. You claim that the God hypothesis shouldn't produce evidence since God chooses to conceal himself. But, this runs entirely contrary to the OJ tradition which is of a God who seeks to reveal himself whenever possible. See for example Ex 7:5, 9:16, 14:4, 14:18, 16:6, 16:7, Nu 14:34, 16:30 Judges 6:17-19, 6:36-40, 7:14 I Kings 18:37 Ezekiel 6:13, 7:4, 7:9, 11:10, 11:12, 12:20, 13:9, 13:14. But, I must emphasize that the above is really a very very small subset of the these type of verses. Space & my time prevents a complete list. There are certainly hundreds of such verses in the O.T.
But, beyond that, the picture OJ paints is one of a God who interacts with the world in a way that should leave much evidence. He freely violates nature (I counted 38 times in Kings alone). He has many prophets (over 100 prophets in the generation of Elijah alone). He performed 10 miracles, some of them daily, in the temple in Jerusalem. He rewards the righteous, punishes the wicked and responds to prayer. He involves himself in nature in ways that should leave physical, geological, cosmological, chemical, biological, archeological, and historical evidence. All of the above suggests a God who leaves much evidence.
iii. I demand a higher standard of evidence when I am wary of trusting someone. All of us, myself included, have intense psychological, sociological, and emotional investments in OJ. We should thus be wary of trusting ourselves and demand a higher standard of evidence. The high correlation between religion of birth and chosen religion highlights the great need for evidence skepticism here.
Point 2 –Jews are morally superior to the other nations. To this you offer two proofs:
i. nationally, we are superior – no programs or genocide.
ii. the common folk are morally superior – they engage in tzedakah.
To i: As you yourself note, that the Jews didn't engage in genocide in the middle ages proves nothing since they had not the means to do so. That they didn't engage in genocide in the Biblical era isn't remotely true, at least according to the Bible (e.g. Deut 2:34 Josh 6:21 I Samuel 15:8 I Kings 11:15 and countless other verses). It is true that modern Israel has an exemplary human rights record, but so do most western liberal democracies since 1948. Moreover, Israel is a secular country and its human rights record has nothing to do with Judaism. The human rights record of the religious Zionist movement is appalling (at least in terms of what they advocate, thankfully, they don't have the political power to carry out what they advocate).
To ii: (and this applies to i as well). I won't disagree with you that the frum community has done some pretty remarkable things. But, so have many other faith communities. On what basis did you conclude that Jews are better than non Jews? Did you go around visiting all the Christian charities?
Point 3 – the moral superiority of the Jews implies the truth of OJ.
This is a total non sequitur. The truth of OJ is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the behavior of OJ's. Suppose I tell you that there's a diamond buried in your backyard and you go dig for the diamond. Does your digging imply that the diamond exists? Of course not. Your actions are dictated by what you think is real, not by reality itself.
Sincerely,
Littlefoxling
Ocher Yisrael
Part 1
Dear Bray,
Thank you for your letter. Your words clearly come from your heart and they have entered mine. I found your letter, both its content and style, to be deeply moving.
But, I don't care. As far as I am concerned, emotions have no place in evaluating the truth of Judaism. The huge and undeniable biases that plague all religious people renders any attempt to give an emotional argument for OJ completely absurd. I will therefore reply to your letter on a purely rational plane.
To me, it seems, that your letter can essentially be broken into three parts.
Point 1 – Strong and incontrovertible evidence for TMS does not exist, nor is not needed.
Point 2 – Judaism demonstrates a higher moral ethic than other faiths or atheism.
Point 3 – The higher ethical standard of Jews suggests TMS.
Space prohibits a thorough analysis of all these points, so I will limit myself to a brief sketch of what obstacles I believe your approach needs to overcome.
Point 1 – I must confess that to me the opposite of what you write seems true. I suggest that, for any given hypothesis, the standard of evidence we demand is dependent on three things:
i. how remarkable, a priori, the claim is. Every single observation we have ever recorded supports the supremacy of natural law, and so your hypothesis, which rejects natural law, is by definition the most remarkable claim possible.
ii. how much evidence, a priori, we expect the hypothesis to generate. To this your argument of "bechirah" is pertinent. You claim that the God hypothesis shouldn't produce evidence since God chooses to conceal himself. But, this runs entirely contrary to the OJ tradition which is of a God who seeks to reveal himself whenever possible. See for example Ex 7:5, 9:16, 14:4, 14:18, 16:6, 16:7, Nu 14:34, 16:30 Judges 6:17-19, 6:36-40, 7:14 I Kings 18:37 Ezekiel 6:13, 7:4, 7:9, 11:10, 11:12, 12:20, 13:9, 13:14. But, I must emphasize that the above is really a very very small subset of the these type of verses. Space & my time prevents a complete list. There are certainly hundreds of such verses in the O.T.
But, beyond that, the picture OJ paints is one of a God who interacts with the world in a way that should leave much evidence. He freely violates nature (I counted 38 times in Kings alone). He has many prophets (over 100 prophets in the generation of Elijah alone). He performed 10 miracles, some of them daily, in the temple in Jerusalem. He rewards the righteous, punishes the wicked and responds to prayer. He involves himself in nature in ways that should leave physical, geological, cosmological, chemical, biological, archeological, and historical evidence. All of the above suggests a God who leaves much evidence.
iii. I demand a higher standard of evidence when I am wary of trusting someone. All of us, myself included, have intense psychological, sociological, and emotional investments in OJ. We should thus be wary of trusting ourselves and demand a higher standard of evidence. The high correlation between religion of birth and chosen religion highlights the great need for evidence skepticism here.
Point 2 –Jews are morally superior to the other nations. To this you offer two proofs:
i. nationally, we are superior – no programs or genocide.
ii. the common folk are morally superior – they engage in tzedakah.
To i: As you yourself note, that the Jews didn't engage in genocide in the middle ages proves nothing since they had not the means to do so. That they didn't engage in genocide in the Biblical era isn't remotely true, at least according to the Bible (e.g. Deut 2:34 Josh 6:21 I Samuel 15:8 I Kings 11:15 and countless other verses). It is true that modern Israel has an exemplary human rights record, but so do most western liberal democracies since 1948. Moreover, Israel is a secular country and its human rights record has nothing to do with Judaism. The human rights record of the religious Zionist movement is appalling (at least in terms of what they advocate, thankfully, they don't have the political power to carry out what they advocate).
To ii: (and this applies to i as well). I won't disagree with you that the frum community has done some pretty remarkable things. But, so have many other faith communities. On what basis did you conclude that Jews are better than non Jews? Did you go around visiting all the Christian charities?
Point 3 – the moral superiority of the Jews implies the truth of OJ.
This is a total non sequitur. The truth of OJ is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the behavior of OJ's. Suppose I tell you that there's a diamond buried in your backyard and you go dig for the diamond. Does your digging imply that the diamond exists? Of course not. Your actions are dictated by what you think is real, not by reality itself.
Sincerely,
Littlefoxling
Ocher Yisrael
More on Gil and his big move
The following is an excerpt from an email exchange between me and a top blogger. Reprinted with permission.
---
First off, going into Reshimu brings certain benefits to Gil that he otherwise wouldn't have
1. He no longer has to blog every single day, as traffic is going to the main site, not to him.
So what? The very excellent OrthoMom no longer blogs every day, or anything close to it, and she kept her traffic.
2. He is looking for that more "professional" look. Not to be some "stam blogger. Of course that is very establishment and not Web 2.0 at all.
Bah.
3. (I think) he now writes his blog in large part not to promote his own ideas, but to promote himself, and his publishing house and books. I presume he sees this as a way of building a larger audience for that.
He's not right.
4. If it takes off and becomes a great big portal, then he was in on it at the beginning and will make money.
It might prove to be a successful blogging venture, but it won't explode because the audience simply isn't large enough. Blogs that make real money draw MILLIONS of hits per week. MILLIONS. The largest Jblogger gets about 20 thousand.
5. He no longer needs to censor and control the comments, as "they" will do it for him.
Yes, he's a big scardy-cat when it comes to that, and this helps.
Downsides:
1. He may no longer keep his readership as people may not be interested in the effort to move.
His own comments are running 99-1 against the move. Many of the protesters say they aren't going to follow him.
2. Reshimu (at the moment) looks and acts just like technorati and other blog aggregators.
Its also like half a dozen other Jewish sites that already exist.
Reshimu's advantage (for themselves) is that you have to close your blog to be included (and why is that a good thing?).
Its not a good thing for the blogger at all.
3. People may not be as interested in commenting if you have to sign up first and can't post anonymously. Where's the free flow of ideas?
Well, Gil's not really interested in the free flow of ideas. Not really. And again many of his own commenters have raised this objection. Registering sucks. Only a frightened, control freak would demand it.
4. Luke Ford!
You know, I don't have any problem with Luke. (click and scroll down)
5. People read group blogs because of the simple format, consistency, and that it is not a magazine. I can read the JP op-ed/blog sections if I want a bunch of different opinion pieces all on one page.
You can already use your mouse and click among different bloggers and writers if you want a variety of opinion, which is exactly what you'll do at Rishimu. What's the difference between clicking a mouse within a site and clicking a mouse between sites?
Now if they were doing head-to-heads that could be interesting. "Porn is Bad, but Luke is Great" by Gil vs. "Porn is Good, Gossip is Great" by Luke Ford. That would be Web 2.0.
See the DovBear Dialogues. Exactly what you describe is already happening on my non-cowardly, no registration required, old fashioned blog.
---
First off, going into Reshimu brings certain benefits to Gil that he otherwise wouldn't have
1. He no longer has to blog every single day, as traffic is going to the main site, not to him.
So what? The very excellent OrthoMom no longer blogs every day, or anything close to it, and she kept her traffic.
2. He is looking for that more "professional" look. Not to be some "stam blogger. Of course that is very establishment and not Web 2.0 at all.
Bah.
3. (I think) he now writes his blog in large part not to promote his own ideas, but to promote himself, and his publishing house and books. I presume he sees this as a way of building a larger audience for that.
He's not right.
4. If it takes off and becomes a great big portal, then he was in on it at the beginning and will make money.
It might prove to be a successful blogging venture, but it won't explode because the audience simply isn't large enough. Blogs that make real money draw MILLIONS of hits per week. MILLIONS. The largest Jblogger gets about 20 thousand.
5. He no longer needs to censor and control the comments, as "they" will do it for him.
Yes, he's a big scardy-cat when it comes to that, and this helps.
Downsides:
1. He may no longer keep his readership as people may not be interested in the effort to move.
His own comments are running 99-1 against the move. Many of the protesters say they aren't going to follow him.
2. Reshimu (at the moment) looks and acts just like technorati and other blog aggregators.
Its also like half a dozen other Jewish sites that already exist.
Reshimu's advantage (for themselves) is that you have to close your blog to be included (and why is that a good thing?).
Its not a good thing for the blogger at all.
3. People may not be as interested in commenting if you have to sign up first and can't post anonymously. Where's the free flow of ideas?
Well, Gil's not really interested in the free flow of ideas. Not really. And again many of his own commenters have raised this objection. Registering sucks. Only a frightened, control freak would demand it.
4. Luke Ford!
You know, I don't have any problem with Luke. (click and scroll down)
5. People read group blogs because of the simple format, consistency, and that it is not a magazine. I can read the JP op-ed/blog sections if I want a bunch of different opinion pieces all on one page.
You can already use your mouse and click among different bloggers and writers if you want a variety of opinion, which is exactly what you'll do at Rishimu. What's the difference between clicking a mouse within a site and clicking a mouse between sites?
Now if they were doing head-to-heads that could be interesting. "Porn is Bad, but Luke is Great" by Gil vs. "Porn is Good, Gossip is Great" by Luke Ford. That would be Web 2.0.
See the DovBear Dialogues. Exactly what you describe is already happening on my non-cowardly, no registration required, old fashioned blog.
Whats the difference between Rishimu and JewSchool?
Whats the difference between Rishimu and JewSchool?
Essentially nothing. I mean sure, the guy who owns JewSchool posseses non-offensive politics, manners, and a sense of fair play. And yes, that's a difference. But when it comes down to how the blogs are organized the new webmagazine Gil is lauding as the "thee next generation of the online Jewish conversation" is just another group blog.
MEANWHILE Gil's community continues to strongly oppose Hirhurim's change of venue. His readers don't like Luke Ford. They don't like Ben Atlas. They don't want to learn how to navigate a new blog. They hate the idea of registering. They know their comments will be moderated.
After this all blows over, here's the comment we'll be remembering in a few months time:
Who wants to host the Reshimu death pool? You can take sideline bets on when Gil scurries back. Six months is the long bet.
Anonymous 09.04.07 - 4:53 pm #
UPDATE: Does Gil really believe in Rishimu ior is it all about the Benjamins?
Here's his latest:
If I don't close this blog, no one will go to Reshimu.
Gil Homepage 09.05.07 - 10:53 am #
Now that's a KILLER argument for Reshimu being the unavoidable future of blogging! Its such a fabulous site that NO ONE WILL GO unless Gil submits.
And another excellent comment:
Gil: "I suggest that other bloggers get on board while they have the chance."
Oooh, sounds scary. Personally, I suggest that other bloggers give Reshimu a wide berth. Too many chabadskers and other bloggers of dubious origins. And a porn king too! Maybe they should call it 'Hirhurim', if you know what I mean.
Anon 09.05.07 - 12:09 pm #
Essentially nothing. I mean sure, the guy who owns JewSchool posseses non-offensive politics, manners, and a sense of fair play. And yes, that's a difference. But when it comes down to how the blogs are organized the new webmagazine Gil is lauding as the "thee next generation of the online Jewish conversation" is just another group blog.
MEANWHILE Gil's community continues to strongly oppose Hirhurim's change of venue. His readers don't like Luke Ford. They don't like Ben Atlas. They don't want to learn how to navigate a new blog. They hate the idea of registering. They know their comments will be moderated.
After this all blows over, here's the comment we'll be remembering in a few months time:
Who wants to host the Reshimu death pool? You can take sideline bets on when Gil scurries back. Six months is the long bet.
Anonymous 09.04.07 - 4:53 pm #
UPDATE: Does Gil really believe in Rishimu ior is it all about the Benjamins?
Here's his latest:
If I don't close this blog, no one will go to Reshimu.
Gil Homepage 09.05.07 - 10:53 am #
Now that's a KILLER argument for Reshimu being the unavoidable future of blogging! Its such a fabulous site that NO ONE WILL GO unless Gil submits.
And another excellent comment:
Gil: "I suggest that other bloggers get on board while they have the chance."
Oooh, sounds scary. Personally, I suggest that other bloggers give Reshimu a wide berth. Too many chabadskers and other bloggers of dubious origins. And a porn king too! Maybe they should call it 'Hirhurim', if you know what I mean.
Anon 09.05.07 - 12:09 pm #
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Paper bag Jews
There is a popular belief that African Americans used to have clubs excluding blacks with skin darker than a brown paper bag. Jewish racism has a similar quality. It always ends up impacting other Jews, as we saw from the recent controversy over Yated Ne'eman's comments on Yemenite Jews.
Two weeks ago I needed something to read when waiting for my brother's mother-in-law at the airport, so I went to the library and grabbed a book--Melanie Kaye Kantrowitz's The Colors of Jews, about nonwhite Jews. I posted my thoughts about this book on my blog. Only a few days later, DB happened to post a video about an African American shul run by R' Capers Funnye, one of the people interviewed in the book.
Though the shul has a nominally Orthodox look and a basic Ashkenazic service, most of the congregants are so-called "Hebrew Israelites" who claim descent from a black Yaakov Avinu. I first heard about this group in a book called Black Zion, where one of the leaders expressed agnosticism about the Protocols for the Elders of Zion. I assumed they were simply an African American variant on the Christian Identity Movement. "We're more Jewish than the Jews" is an old anti-Semitic theme. It turns out that at least a few of them have converted to Judaism.
In the comments, Micha cited a Mishna alluding to the skin color of ancient Jews. Discussing the visibility of tzaraas, Negaim 2:1 suggests that Bnei Yisrael's skin was like that of a boxwood tree, neither black nor white but some shade in between. (I'm curious what boxwood looks like.) This Mishna seems to imply, further, that there were both black and white converts.
The discussion heated up when a guy named Baruch left the following comment: "How can someone who is black truly be Jewish?" Only after Miriam and I loudly protested did he start to back down, but not before telling a story about when he was in yeshiva thirty years ago and a teacher instructed a black custodian not to read from the Mahzor because it would "render our books unkosher." Hearing the story, a Christian poster named Jesse expressed surprise that Jews could be so racist. Well, he's got a lot to learn.
Is it unwise for me to discuss frum racism on a public forum? Forget about Noah Feldman for the moment. I'm not talking about theological discussions on the halachic status of goyim. I'm talking about anti-black attitudes that reflect far more the cloistered lifestyle of most frum people than anything in halacha. Ed will tell you that when he teaches his children "Don't be like the shvartzes," he isn't talking about skin color. He's talking about, say, men who have children with four different women. (So Yaakov Avinu was black after all!) Therefore, black Jews like Miriam need not get upset. I suppose that Ed would be perfectly okay with a Christian who taught his children "Don't be like the heebs," as long as he assured us he wasn't talking about Orthodox Jews but about the ones who run Hollywood.
This has very little to do with theology. It has to do with simple, backwards ignorance.
Two weeks ago I needed something to read when waiting for my brother's mother-in-law at the airport, so I went to the library and grabbed a book--Melanie Kaye Kantrowitz's The Colors of Jews, about nonwhite Jews. I posted my thoughts about this book on my blog. Only a few days later, DB happened to post a video about an African American shul run by R' Capers Funnye, one of the people interviewed in the book.
Though the shul has a nominally Orthodox look and a basic Ashkenazic service, most of the congregants are so-called "Hebrew Israelites" who claim descent from a black Yaakov Avinu. I first heard about this group in a book called Black Zion, where one of the leaders expressed agnosticism about the Protocols for the Elders of Zion. I assumed they were simply an African American variant on the Christian Identity Movement. "We're more Jewish than the Jews" is an old anti-Semitic theme. It turns out that at least a few of them have converted to Judaism.
In the comments, Micha cited a Mishna alluding to the skin color of ancient Jews. Discussing the visibility of tzaraas, Negaim 2:1 suggests that Bnei Yisrael's skin was like that of a boxwood tree, neither black nor white but some shade in between. (I'm curious what boxwood looks like.) This Mishna seems to imply, further, that there were both black and white converts.
The discussion heated up when a guy named Baruch left the following comment: "How can someone who is black truly be Jewish?" Only after Miriam and I loudly protested did he start to back down, but not before telling a story about when he was in yeshiva thirty years ago and a teacher instructed a black custodian not to read from the Mahzor because it would "render our books unkosher." Hearing the story, a Christian poster named Jesse expressed surprise that Jews could be so racist. Well, he's got a lot to learn.
Is it unwise for me to discuss frum racism on a public forum? Forget about Noah Feldman for the moment. I'm not talking about theological discussions on the halachic status of goyim. I'm talking about anti-black attitudes that reflect far more the cloistered lifestyle of most frum people than anything in halacha. Ed will tell you that when he teaches his children "Don't be like the shvartzes," he isn't talking about skin color. He's talking about, say, men who have children with four different women. (So Yaakov Avinu was black after all!) Therefore, black Jews like Miriam need not get upset. I suppose that Ed would be perfectly okay with a Christian who taught his children "Don't be like the heebs," as long as he assured us he wasn't talking about Orthodox Jews but about the ones who run Hollywood.
This has very little to do with theology. It has to do with simple, backwards ignorance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)