Wednesday, May 06, 2009

The Horowitz Article

Rabbi Horowitz has published a letter and an article explaining his opposition to the Markey bill.

Click here to read them.

5/6/09

Dear Readers:

The debate, mostly one-sided, about the Markey Bill has been framed in the starkest terms on the Internet and on the street: "If you are for the bill, you are for children; if you are opposed to it; you are a horrible person who is akin to a child molester." And in my particular case, being opposed to the bill means that I am a sellout, wimp, lackey-for-the-rabbis, biased-person-who-works-for-the-Agudah, and on and on.

Well; I don't see it that way. To me, the question is, "What are the most effective steps we can take moving forward to protect our children?"

Bringing lawsuits against yeshivos would not even rate in the "top ten" if I were to compile a list of things I would recommend to keep today's children safe and to professionally treat the countless victims of abuse in our community.

“But isn't this the only way to end the cover-ups? Don't victims have their right to their day in court? Looking at the success of similar legislation in California (hundreds of pedophiles exposed and no schools closed), how can you be opposed to the Markey Bill?

Isn't the Markey Bill better than nothing? Isn't it true that the only way to fix things is to hit the schools where it hurts -- in their wallets?”

I will address each of these questions in future columns -- and on the Zev Brenner radio program at 9:00 p.m. E.D.T. tonight, if they are posed to me in the Q&A segment.

I fully acknowledge all my biases and list my disclaimers. I am a school principal, a department head of the Agudah, I am very involved in Torah Umesorah, and I have the zechus to have close relationships with many Moetzes members.

Having said that, here are some other disclaimers:
1) No one asked me to write this column or to defend/support the Agudah's position; it was entirely my idea.
2) I would never write anything I did not fully believe in.
3) The relationship of Project YES with Agudas Yisroel is akin to one of a married child with his/her parents -- a close relationship, but fully independent. I am ultimately responsible for raising all the funds for Project YES myself, and have a great deal of latitude to do things my own way. Should I wish to; I could "spin off" Project YES from the Agudah and be completely independent at any time. Project YES and I are affiliated with the Agudah because I am proud to be so.

I wrote this column fully aware that I would take an enormous amount of personal and profession criticism for my non-support of the Markey Bill. If I was poll-driven and was looking for the accolades of people on the street, I would have joined the herd or stayed on the sidelines. This column represents a principled stand of mine, opposing what I feel is a diversion from the agenda of child safety and a material threat to our mosdos overall.

I have no fear of standing alone. I stood alone when I wrote about at-risk teens 13 years ago. I stood alone when I wrote about abuse and molestation years ago. I stood alone and was subjected to ridicule when I wrote a while back that the greatest cause of kids going off the derech was abuse, and that the "threat of the Internet is like a firecracker compared to the atom bomb of abuse" -- a position diametrically opposed to many of my colleagues, who to this day point the finger of blame to the Internet for many of our communal problems.

And I am proud to swim against the tide today -- and stand alone if I must -- firmly and humbly supporting the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah shlit”a in their stand opposing the Markey Bill.

"V'yehi chelki imahem" (May it be the will of Hashem that I have the zechus to remain with them -- in this world and the next).

Yakov Horowitz

My permission is granted to those who wish to circulate the following article on their websites, as long as it is published in its entirety with the above “letter to my readers” attached to it and the links to my articles listed below, so that your readers will understand my position on the Markey bill, in the context of my broader writings about abuse and molestation over the past several years. Y.H.


Walking the Dog Backwards
Why I Am Opposed to the Markey Bill

If you were to attend a convention of mental health professionals who specialize in treating abuse victims and you were to ask the attendees which steps or initiatives they would like to see implemented to protect children from predators and to assist those who have already been victimized, you would probably get responses like:

  • A broad-based awareness campaign informing parents about the dangers of abuse and the warning signs that might indicate their child had been victimized

  • Dramatically increased prison sentences for monsters who abuse children; perhaps even to the level of one who commits murder.


  • The dissemination of child-friendly pamphlets designed to assist parents in the delicate task of speaking to their children about personal space, good-touching-bad-touching, and other basic themes that research has proven to be highly effective in keeping children safe.


  • Enhanced enforcement of mandated reporting laws which require educators and healthcare professionals to report telltale signs of abuse to the authorities


  • Sliding-scale professional counseling for abuse victims to assure that all children who have been traumatized by the ravages of abuse have access to mental-health services regardless of their ability to pay.


  • With that in mind, even a cursory examination of the “Child Victims Act” of New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey begs the question of why not one of the items listed above is included in a bill ostensibly designed with the noble goal of helping to protect children?”

    The “Markey” legislation would extend the statute of limitations in New York State on both criminal and civil cases involving the sexual abuse of children. It would also open a one-year "window" during which time victims of abuse could bring claims for events that occurred even decades ago, not only against the perpetrators but also against the institutions that employed them.

    The bill has been the subject of intense debate in our community as of late, as many abuse victims and people who are advocating for child abuse prevention have passionately supported the bill. The recent joint statement released by Agudath Israel and Torah Umesorah opposing the “Markey” legislation generated a great deal of discussion, much of it critical – from outside the Agudah constituency and even from members of our own kehila.

    There are other significant questions come to mind as well when reflecting upon the Markey Bill. Currently, children who attended public school have only 90 days after they turn 18 to file a claim for abuse that occurred in public school. The Markey Bill would not change that in any way. Why would secular legislators in Albany be interested in protecting kids attending parochial schools more than those in the broader population?

    Imagine the (appropriate) public outrage that would ensue if the New York State Government were to offer free flu shots to private school kids and not to those attending public schools! (It is perfectly fair to note that public schools have far more safety measures for screening, training and oversight than do private schools. But to suggest that there is little or no abuse in public schools and, by extension, that public school kids are not in need of legislation to protect them is flat-out ridiculous.)

    Additionally, what is being done to prevent the cycle from repeating itself, as we all know that untreated victims are far more likely to abuse others? Shouldn’t we turn over every stone to help fund the treatment of abuse victims – for their own mental health and for the safety of our community at large?

    Due to the fact that I have been for years now, and will always continue to be, a staunch and vocal advocate for victims of abuse and molestation worldwide – writing and lecturing about the horrors of abuse in our community long before any of the ugly media reports and lawsuits began and long before it became socially acceptable to do so – I was approached by many dedicated individuals and asked to throw my support behind the bill. I fended off the requests and stayed on the sidelines, as my antenna kept tingling each time I read and re-read the content of the bill, mostly because I was troubled by the dichotomy between the treatment of abuse in private and public schools, and by the exclusion of far more immediate and effective measures that would help today’s children directly. Something just didn’t add up.

    The term, “Walking the dog backwards,” was coined to explain a common technique employed by those who work in the complicated galaxy of counter-intelligence and who are constantly playing a 3-dimentional game of chess as they sift through a mishmash of information and disinformation in a world where the average spy might be a double or triple agent. Therefore, when faced with a perplexing set of circumstances, they are trained to evaluate who stands to gain or lose from the final result of any particular chain of events and, working backwards, think about the real cause-and-effect of things.

    Well; we all know that the world of politics is similarly filled with plots and sub-plots, so I decided to approach things from that end and examine the Markey Bill through the prism of the entire public school/private school debate.

    It is a debate that consistently spills over into battles across the nation over school vouchers, tax-credits for private school tuition, taxpayer support for private school services such as remedial and counseling services; the list goes on and on, with public school advocates vigorously opposing any funding for private schools – even for such things as the aforementioned remedial and counseling services that help children and not schools – claiming that they undermine the public schools. And it is a debate that will have enormous ramifications for members of our community moving forward – especially as we look to states and school districts for relief from staggering tuition payments in this tanking economy.

    Ok; let’s do some dog walking. Question: Who is the most vocal advocate for public school rights? Answer: The very powerful teachers unions who have opposed every initiative to offer even public school parents choices to educate their kids with school vouchers. That would certainly explain why the Markey Bill doesn’t include public school children who were victims of abuse in the legislation – as the teacher’s union vigorously opposes such legislation. And who is the most powerful voice advocating for private schools? The Catholic Church, of course.

    Here is another angle that might be playing a part in this. One of the main sponsors of the bill in its current form is Senator Tom Duane, who was also a chief sponsor of the Gay Marriage Bill. Here, too, there is a great deal of tension between advocates for Gay Marriage and the Church. Thus any action taken to embarrass, undermine and de-legitimize the Church in the eyes of the public, directly and profoundly pushes the Gay Marriage agenda forward as it weakens their most powerful opponent. After all, what better way to undermine the moral authority of the Church than to encourage civil lawsuits against it that will drag on for years, drain its coffers and fill the headlines of the tabloids with all its tawdry details day after day?

    I suggest that if you step back a bit and survey the Markey Bill in its entirety, you will come to come to the conclusion that I have – that while the Markey Bill promotes the safety of children, it is also being used to undermine the private school movement and religious community overall far beyond the abuse issue. At a minimum, it needs to be recognized that this matter needs to be understood in a much broader context and is not the one-dimensional issue that it is portrayed to be.

    Does all this mean that I am pleased with the status quo? Does it mean that I am in favor of quashing efforts to protect our children? Does it mean that we do not need to do everything in our power and leave no stone unturned to educate our parents and educators about the ravages of abuse? Do I think that the amazing, dedicated frum activists for child safety, many of whom are close friends of mine (a few of them actually ‘met’ on my website), have any part in the negative aspects of what I wrote about? No, No, No and No!!
    To sum things up, I most certainly feel that change and improvement in our understanding and treatment of abuse and abusers is desperately needed – something I have loudly and passionately advocated for many years now. The Markey Bill, however, is a crude tool to accomplish that task, one that is, in my opinion, driven by a host of agendas that are diametrically opposed to ours and one, that to loosely quote our gedolim shlit”a in their carefully written and nuanced statement, has the ability to cause material damage to the mosdos haTorah that our parents and grandparents built over the past hundred years with their sweat and tears. Therefore, it is my recommendation that members of our community oppose this particular bill as it is currently written.

    The Jewish Press graciously accepted my request to afford me twice the regular op-ed column size due to the nature and sensitivity of this topic. However, there is much more that I did not get to in this essay. Should you wish to, you can review the many columns I have written over the years on abuse and abuse prevention if you wish to better understand my thinking on these matters (They can all be found on my website, www.rabbihorowitz.com)
    Over the next few weeks, I will lay out a vision for what I think needs to be done, internally and legislatively, to finally – after all these years, after all the drug overdoses and suicides, after all the shattered lives – make our community a safer place for our children and grandchildren.

    © 2009, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz, all rights reserved

    Recommended reading:
    The Monster Inside
    Safe and Secure
    Human Problems
    Why Avrahom Mondrowitz Must Be Extradited
    Why I Write Columns About Abuse
    All Pain and No Gain
    L'Maan Hashem -- What Will It Take?

    Olam Hafuch Ra'isi
    Could This Possibly Be True?
    Deal With It

    Don't Disturb the Party -- Ever Wonder What Our Children Are Thinking?

    The chop shop of Ramapo

    A Guest Post by Rafi G
    (originally posted on LII)

    Carol Friedman clearly had some hostility towards the local yeshiva. I am pretty sure slaughtering a cow was not the way to try to improve relations with her and othe neighbors...

    See the video: here

    I have slaughtered plenty of stuff in backyards, but never a cow. the largest animal I shechted in a backyard (really it was a porch) was a sheep. But I must say - the fact that it is in a backyard does not make it cruel...

    Lohud reports:

    Neighbor Carol Friedman saw adults and teens from the school lead the cow from a brown van into the backyard shortly after 5 p.m. She did not see what happened in the yard, but another neighbor told her that the animal was tied to a tree and slaughtered with knives

    "It's the most horrendous, barbaric thing I have ever heard of," she said. "I can't believe they would slaughter a cow in a backyard in a residential neighborhood."

    The best part of the video is when she says, "That's too big to be a dog"


    DB: I googled the addresss supplied by the article, and found a "street view." Click here and drag the little yellow man on to the road. It appears this yeshiva is located in the middle of farm country.

    Search for more information about slaughetring at 4torah.com.

    Tuesday, May 05, 2009

    Post-Geographic Judaism

    A guest post by Y-Love

    Anyone who has a message relevant to any segment of the general populace in America, be they corporate or non-profit, will eventually have to develop and maintain some sort of presence on social networks if they want their message to be heard. Period. We already know that the majority of young adults (75% of Americans aged 18-24, according to Pew) are on social networks, but 3.2 million seniors have also joined Facebook in the past year. Social networking is bigger than email. Social media has far beyond proven itself as being an integral part of any marketing or publicity strategy.

    But on a sociological level, social networking has also irreversibly altered the definition of the interpersonal relationship. A "friend" is what one gains with a click of a button, itemized on a "list"; what one "likes" is their content. We make new "friends" when we find other network members with similar interests. Ours is an age of feeds and connections, of following and stumbling, of seamlessly interacting with our favorite brands, celebrities and highschool classmates in a growing sea of content. Those who interact with the same type or source of content -- be they programmers updating the same piece of open-source software, a social network's user base, or a group of armchair videographers documenting their lives on YouTube -- invariably eventually form a "community."


    Click to continue reading Post-Geographic Judaism
    Essentially, the affiliated Jewish community could be similarly defined: a group of people who choose to interact with the same type of content -- granted, much more sublime (Divine?) content than YouTube's -- united by a bond infinitely stronger than a mass group invitation. Today's "community" is a group of people whose connection is not determined by geography, but by their affinity for the content which unites them. It is the affinity for publicly available code that unites the open source community; similarly, it is the affinity for Jewish values, texts and concepts that unites the Jewish community.

    Affinity and geography may not always intersect. It holds true for web 2.0 and exponentially more true for Jewish life. There is no shortage of testimonies of people who are bogged down by the geographically-defined Jewish communities in which they live.


    It has become counter-productive, then, to define Jewish community in terms of geographic location: both to the Jews in and outside of said community.


    It is time for post-geographic Judaism.


    Our Jewish neighborhoods -- especially Orthodox ones (especially in New York) -- are rife with Jewish kids (and adults) who are finding themselves in the wrong place, all the time. When one is dissatisfied with one's immediate surroundings -- the shul, the JCC, the neighborhood -- one tends to withdraw, a withdrawal which can equal dropping out entirely in smaller communities. Yet the social networks are still there -- perhaps even more so.

    We must begin to at least partially divest the offline relationship from the idea of affiliation. If there is anything we have learned from Facebook, it is how easy it is to, with enough tenacity, scour the globe and find "one million people" who agree with a given assertion or cause. Jewish causes are no exception. These people are effectively no less connected than their offline counterparts in a community center. While there may be less of us going to shul and joining Jewish organizations, more of us are joining -- and becoming active participants in -- Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.


    A decline in synagogue attendance and offline affiliation does not necessarily mean the death-knell for Jewish observance when organic, intentional online communities are seen as equally relevant and salient as their offline counterparts. When we see our online relationships not as "less than" our offline ones, but as differently-structured equally strong connections, our sense of "community" is redefined. In the online realm, a user goes from "unaffiliated" to "connected" in an instant. Every connection is intentional, yet effortless. This is a phenomenon which can save Judaism.


    Social networking has not superseded "organized religion", in fact, it has re-organized it.


    Barriers to affiliation can cease to exist if the chat room is seen as equal to the pew. A "join" button is far less daunting than an unfamiliar synagogue, and its connections no less real. A rabbi accessible via text message is now privy to his congregation's thoughts when they are secure behind their cell phones. A webcasted Hillel event now has twice as many attendees. And perhaps most importantly, the previously cold or unfamiliar minyan is now a tweetup, comprised of members who follow each other -- because they like each others' content. Top-down hierarchical rabbinic communication is being eschewed in favor of the Hillary-esque "conversation"-- and as we learned from the Lipa Shmelczer incident, even the most ideologically conservative communities no longer stomach being talked "at".


    Building offline religious/cultural affiliation can only be done in the framework of the new sociology. The offline relationship is no longer the "goal" of the online interaction -- social media must be appreciated as equally valid and viable alternative modes of communication. Until the Facebook group member, Twitter follower, and MySpace friend all feel as connected to our organizations as the person in the adjacent chair, that chair will always be in danger of remaining empty.


    (crossposted to Jewschool)

    Is Yaakov Horowitz Selling Out on Markey?

    And am I selling out if I don't think he is?

    For those joining us late

    Since Kolko:
    I've been all over Agudah for doing a terrible job on pedophilia. In particular I've attacked Avi Shafran for refusing to face the music, and running interference at every opportunity. I've also criticized Agudah for working with the Catholic Church to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers. [More]

    Since Kolko: I've come to know and respect Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz, an Agudah insider with a golden reputation and a silver-tipped pen. I've known RYH for three years, and the man is honest, reliable, and doesn't play any of the stupid Agudah games.

    Yesterday: We learn from VIN that Rabbi Horowitz is opposing the Markey Bill

    INTERPOLATION The Markey Bill "would suspend the seven-year statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases for a year. That means those who allege abuse could file civil lawsuits no matter how long ago the abuse took place. The bill would open the door to lawsuits against all kinds of clergy, coaches, teachers, doctors, Scout leaders, baby-sitters, therapists, camp counselors and members of victims' own families." (Newsday) END INTERPOLATION

    Yesterday: Shmarya rips RYH, calls him a sell-out and accuses him of putting Jewish schools ahead of children.

    Yesterday: Harry rips Shmarya, accuse him of chuzpah and worse

    ASIDE Yay! Ugliness! END ASIDE

    Last night: I receive an email: "Nu? You aren't going after [RHY] for his despicable position on the molestation law?" Similar emails follow.

    So... I listen to what RHY has to say, and give it a good think. Here's my slide: Marky is a good-but-not-great law.

    Negatives: (1) It will hurt yeshivas, but any yeshiva that protected someone like Kolko deserves the pain. RHY worries that the expense of litigation will cause suffering Yeshivot to pass some pain on to their employees, in the form of late(r) paychecks. That's true, but to me, irrelevant. Paying employees late is both despicable and forbidden by Torah law. Telling us that our support of Markey will force Yeshivot to violate halacha and hurt their employees is a form of blackmail, and one that should be ignored.

    (2) It will destroy yeshivot. Some reputable institutions will go bankrupt fighting lawsuits; others will avoid the expense and embaressment by simply disapearing into the night. This is a lamentable consequence of Markey, but one I am willing to accept.

    (3) It excludes public schools. This is a flaw in the bill, certainly, but not a reason for opposing it. If the only problem with Marky is that it is too narrow, why not pass it, and then go to work on a separate public school bill?

    Positives: (1) Markey makes it easier to punish pedophiles.

    (2) Markey makes it easier to punish schools and administrator who protected pedophiles

    (3) Markey makes it easier to stop pedophiles. Vengance is great (see 1 & 2 above) but a more important concern is this: Pedophiles often go on abusing children for decades. Extending the statute of limitations makes it easier for a former victim to save a current victim.

    (4) Markey makes it easier for us to find out the truth about pedophilia in yeshivot. Some say its a widescale problem; others insist it happens very infrequently. I don't know who's right, but we should find out. Markey will help.

    Final thoughts: Support Markey

    Is Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz a sell out: No. His position here raises eyebrows, but his record speaks for itself and he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He's promised to put forward his reasoning in a Jewish Press column (which will appear here.) Until I see the anti-Markey argument he publishes, I'm content to believe that RYH 's position is principled, but incorrect.

    PSA

    As those of you who read sidebars have discovered, I'm developing a new blogroll. If you'd like to be included, the answer is "yes." Just email me, or comment here.
    A Yoetzet Halacha, or female halacha advisor, is a well-trained woman who provides religious and halachic guidance to other woman, often about Niddah issues. Well-trained women make some people nervous. And even though the YH never operates absent a Rabbi's supervisions, some male members of the Jewish clergy are anxious about having someone cutting in on their turf. For an example of what happens next, let's join Yaakov Feitman's attempt to discredit the female upstarts, already in progress:


    The gestalt of Torah is as much part and parcel of Mattan Torah as its substance. Gedolei Yisrael through the ages were moser nefesh for the form as much as for the substance. The institution of a chavrusah, learning at a shtender, the format of a shiur are all time-honored and hallowed.
    Which is why those Jews who learn alone, or at tables, never amount to anything.

    An assault upon the process has always been treated as seriously as an attack upon the Torah itself. For instance, the Netziv closed the great Yeshiva of Volozhin rather than introduce government-mandated innovations.
    Entirely false. The yeshiva was closed not because the government asked for changes in the way Torah was taught, but because the government wanted to impose a general studies cirriculum that would have left very little time for Torah. The government asked for no changes in the Torah teaching process.
    Torah giants insisted on the tzuras ha’daf—the exact printed format of a page of the Talmud and myriad details of the transmission of Torah from a rebbi to a disciple.
    Our current tzuras ha’daf was created by Daniel Bomberg, a non Jew, in the 16th century. Its true, that some 20th century Rabbis objected strongly when other 20th century Rabbis suggesting updating the format, but its absurd to say that Bomberg's early-modern innovation is something essential to the study of Torah.
    The relationship between a rav and those who ask a she’eilah has remained a fundamental component of the “Torah from Sinai” continuum for over three millennia. Each person develops a bond with his or her poseik. Over the years,
    innumerable often subtle details contribute to the total picture presented to a poseik, especially in this most personal area of life. The interposition of a new “expert” into this equation undercuts the time-honored process developed by
    the Torah ever since Dovid haMelech
    That's right! No new experts! Now hold on to that thought, because Feitman's about to contradict it.
    All in all, Jewish tradition has provided K’lal Yisrael with a wonderful
    process for resolving all issues. We would do well to take advantage of it.
    Nothing is broken and no fixing is necessary.
    I agree "nothing is broken" but the current system has two flaws. (1) Depsite everything you've said about history, there are still women who are shy and


    1. Why bother? The yoetzet halacha serves two needs. First, many woman don't she answers question.


    The Yoetzat Halacha is a well-trained woman, .


    I like bad historical arguments as much as the next person, but bad historical arguments that are also self-contradictory are a little hard to take. Consider, for example,
    this rabbi's attempt to discredit the Yoetzet Halacha, or female halacha advisor.

    He begins by saying he objects to allowing well-trained women guide and advisse other women because this is something new under the sun, and therefore impossible. Absurd, but fine. However, by the end of the article he's advising women to go to the rebbetzin instead. Pardon my confusion, but if its ok for a woman to speak to her rebbetzin, what's wrong with going to a yoetzet instead?






    Sponsored Message
    - Celebrate Purim 2009 with Magnificent
    Purim Baskets - Mishloach Manot from Oh Nuts.


    A shul I would not frequent


    Other horribly named Jewish institutions include:
    • Torah Institute of Teaneck
    • Schechter Hebrew Acadamy of Torah; and
    • Camp Horei Maarav
    But really what can you expect from a tribe with surnames like Wiener, Fuches, Lipshitz, Gross, and Fink?


    HT Amshi the excellent

    Search for more information about poorly named shuls at 4torah.com.

    Monday, May 04, 2009

    Boycott J-Post!!


    Will heads roll in the advertising dept, or is this business as usual for Israel's #1 English newspaper?

    Search for more information about pulled pork at 4torah.com.

    Among the first to blog. Among the last to FaceBook

    Now that all of you are likely bored with FaceBook, I've finally taken the plunge: DovBear is on FaceBook.

    You can "friend" me and/or "follow" the blog.

    Thanks.

    Search for more information about FaceBook at 4torah.com.

    One in 8 Million

    As part of its series on ordinary New Yorkers the heiliga NY Times profiles Henry Rieninger, a Jewish accountant. Not to be missed.

    HT: Jameel

    What's this I hear about swine flu being in the Talmud? (Taanis 21b)

    Today's example of Jewish credulity comes from BT Tannis 21B courtesy of the CoolJew, where a headline shouts "Rabbis Knew About Swine Flue 1500 Years Ago!".

    Here is Aish's translation of the pertinent section:
    They informed Rav Yehudah: There is a deadly plague affecting the pigs. He decreed a fast. Do we say that Rav Yehudah holds that a plague which affects one [animal] species is likely to affect all species (and therefore, kosher farm animals were threatened also)? No. Pigs are different since their digestive tracts are similar to those of humans.
    Adds the Meiri (13th century commentary on the Talmud)
    Since both pigs and humans lack a certain abdominal organ (the rumen), there was reason to fear that epidemics that affect pigs may also affect humans.
    In under 8 seconds I came up with the following objections to the claim that Rav Yehuda and the Meiri are discussing swine flu.

    1. The strain of influenza currently affecting humans did not exist in the time of the Talmud. The type of swine flu that infects humans is believed to have resulted from the seasonal reassortment of two different strains of swine influenza.

    2. The Meiri's suggestion that the absence of a rumen makes pigs and humans susceptible to the same diseases is unverified, and has no backing. The only mammals with rumens are the cud-chewers. No other type of mammal has one. If the Meiri is right every non-ruminant mammal (including rodents, canines, felines, etc.) is at risk for swine flu. There is no evidence this is true.

    3. Human susceptibility to swine flu has little if anything to do with any similarity between the swine and human digestive tracks. In fact, the strain of swine influenza sickening humans is not the same strain that sickens pigs. They contain common genetic elements, but they are different. To date, the human strain has not been isolated in pigs. (Wikipedia)

    Afterthought: Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda observed a different, earlier strain of swine flu? This is certainly possible, and I concede the liklihood, but why find it astounding? Wouldn't you expect any agriculturalist to notice if livestock and people were coming down with similar illnesses? If Rav Yehuda is discussisng swine flu, this is merely a routine observation and no evidence of his superior torah-based wisdom.

    --
    *Link to CoolJew via @gruven_reuven @ashleyroz and @jtowncrier on Twitter. I have no reason to think these three fine Tweeters endorse the idea that swine flu is discussed in BT Taanis.

    Sunday, May 03, 2009

    Was it a snub?

    Every shul has a loud-mouthed Zionist right? In ours, he's the one who sings Hatikvah at the end of Hakafot on Simchas Torah, and looks hurt and bewildered when no one joins him. Every year, this happens. This morning, I made the mistake of standing too close to him after davening My reward was an earful about Obama, and how he and his "Arab brethren" are plotting to ruin Israel.

    It was noise mostly, cribbed from loud-mouthed Zionist blogs, and sites like WorldNut Daily, but I was still sleepy and feeling amenable, so I listened quietly as he presented his brief against the United States. After about five minutes, the Rav drifted over and, with a grandfatherly smile, advised LMZ to work on his emunah (faith in God).

    "The heart of a king belongs to God," he said. "All we can do is pray, and if we're worthy everything will work out."

    LMZ nodded politely but when the Rabbi moved on, I caught him rolling his eyes. Funny how a guy who is certain Israel is a divine miracle, can simultaneously imagine that God abstains from American politics, no? But I digress. What I want to share with you came at the end of the rant, when LMZ said something that made a speck of sense. I bring it to you now for confirmation and commentary.

    This week is the big AIPAC conference. According to LMZ, Obama hasn't invited Netanyahu to the White House, and this is the very first time in history that such an invitation hasn't been extended during the week the AIPAC conference is in session.

    I've gone to all the usual sites, and completed the expected Google searches and confirmed that Netanyahu and Obama won't be meeting this week, but is the unprecedented snub LMZ says it is?

    Search for more information about snubbed Israelis at 4torah.com.

    The Trial Of A Scumbag

    Reposted from "The Spine": "You do remember Ilan Halimi, the French Jewish young man who was tortured and then murdered in Paris three years ago, don't you? Well, his killer, Youssouf Fofana, is now on trial in a court of law. A Jerusalem Post article describes the first day of the proceedings. The defendant behaves the way someone who ran the 24-day atrocity with 21 other Muslim perpetrators, both Arab and African, would: proud, defiant, even threatening. And, of course, these third world heroes attacked their victim sexually, as well. You can speculate about why an unbelievably repressive culture finds such assaults gratifying.

    Who, by the way, would take such a defense? One of Fofana's lawyers was on Saddam Hussein's lawyers. The other had a jailhouse romance with 'Carlos the Jackal.' Nice company. Nice cause."

    Related
    - Background on the Case
    - Halimi Family Walks out of the Trial

    Friday, May 01, 2009

    Today's Random DovBear Post

    The Birthday Guest Post

    Stewart Piles on

    Its not just bloggers who are ridiculing Israel's decision to rebrand the swine flu. Jon Stewart thinks its nutty, too. @1:38

    Olberman's Offer. Hannity's Cowardice

    Keith Olberman is willing to donate $1000 for every second that Sean Hannity withstands waterboarding. The strange offer came about after Hannity voluntarily offered to undergo waterboarding, as a way of demonstrating that waterboarding isn't torture.

    Hannity (surprise) has not accepted Olberman's offer.

    I'm not sure I understand the problem. If waterboarding is as pleasant as Hannity and others seem to think, why is he reluctant to get a little wet and hit Olberman in the wallet?

    Search for more information about cowardly Republicans at 4torah.com.

    Roosevelt and the Jews: A Debate Rekindled

    Like most American Jews I was brought up to believe that Franklin Roosevelt failed the Jews of Europe. It was an article of faith that he did "nothing."

    As I got older, I found ways to challenge this assumption. What, really, could he have done that might have made a vital difference? Bomb the train tracks? Ok, agreed; but perhaps, FDR saw the vast war effort he was managing as a way to save all of Europe - Jews included. As one friend said it, "The whole building was burning, and he was working assiduously to extinguish the flames. If he succeeds the whole building is saved. Is it really fair to fault him for neglecting to focus special attention on one small room?"

    Ultimately, I find such arguments unpersuasive, and remain unable to shake the feeling that Roosevelt could have done more to help Jews.

    I bring this up, because a new book has been published that "upends a widely held view that he was indifferent to the fate of Europe’s Jews, and asserts that new evidence shows that the president pushed for an ambitious secret rescue plan before the war began. A review appears in today's Times. Money quote:
    “It is a book that will change the consensus about the role of President Roosevelt,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a leading expert on the Holocaust, who has read some sections. It “compels historians — both those who have vilified F.D.R. and those who have sanctified him — to rethink their conclusions.”
    Click to read the rest of "Roosevelt and the Jews: A Debate Rekindled"

    Roosevelt and the Jews: A Debate Rekindled
    By PATRICIA COHEN
    The New York Times

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s legacy has been slid back under the microscope recently as his efforts to pull the country out of the Great Depression are scrutinized. Now a piece of his foreign policy is also being re-evaluated in a soon-to-be published book that upends a widely held view that he was indifferent to the fate of Europe’s Jews, and asserts that new evidence shows that the president pushed for an ambitious secret rescue plan before the war began.

    The book, an edited collection of official documents, diaries, internal memos and more, contends that Roosevelt hatched a scheme in 1938 to rally the world’s democracies and relocate millions of European Jews to undeveloped areas in Latin America and Africa.

    “It is a book that will change the consensus about the role of President Roosevelt,” said Deborah Lipstadt, a leading expert on the Holocaust, who has read some sections. It “compels historians — both those who have vilified F.D.R. and those who have sanctified him — to rethink their conclusions.”

    The book, “Refugees and Rescue: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald, 1935-1945,” will undoubtedly reignite the charged debate over whether Roosevelt could have done more to rescue millions of Jews, Gypsies, gay people, dissidents and others who died in Nazi death camps. To his detractors, the refusal in June 1939 to take in any of the more than 900 Jews aboard the ocean liner St. Louis who were seeking a haven after Germany’s deadly Kristallnacht is much more emblematic of the United States’ response. Many of those passengers ultimately died.

    This is the second of a three-volume set of Mr. McDonald’s papers being published by Indiana University Press in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mr. McDonald was the high commissioner for refugees for the League of Nations, the chairman of a presidential advisory committee on refugees and later the first American ambassador to Israel. The book also includes material from the Center for Jewish History and the Holocaust Museum.

    The editors — the historians Richard Breitman, Barbara McDonald Stewart and Severin Hochberg — maintain that Roosevelt did a lot, given Congress’s implacable resistance to raising the quota on immigrants. Rather than publicly support measures revising the quotas, which he was sure would fail, he instead proposed an alternate means of escape behind the scenes, even pledging at one point to ask Congress to appropriate $150 million for resettlement.

    “He was a man of grand vision who wanted to resettle a much larger number of refugees from Germany” and elsewhere, the editors conclude, citing a directive from Washington in June 1938 indicating that officials should deal with “the problems of refugees from all countries.” They agree that such efforts were completely dropped in 1940 when Roosevelt turned his attention to the war.

    One of the new pieces of evidence that the editors point to is a summary written by Arthur Sweetser, a director of the secretariat of the League of Nations, describing a meeting between himself and the president on April 4, 1938:

    Mr. Sweetser wrote that Roosevelt asked him how he liked his refugee proposal. “ ‘That was my proposal,’ the president quickly interjected, tapping his chest with obvious pleasure. ‘I worked that out myself.’ ”

    The summary continues, with Mr. Sweetser quoting Roosevelt: “ ‘Suddenly it struck me: why not get all the democracies to unite to share the burden? After all, they own most of the free land of the world, and there are only ... what would you say, 14, 16 million Jews in the whole world, of whom about half are already in the United States. If we could divide up the remainder in groups of 8 or 10, there wouldn’t be any Jewish problem in three or four generations.’ ”

    In a confidential memo to Mr. McDonald dated May 17, 1938, Mr. Sweetser wrote, “The President’s proposal took a large place in the League’s refugee deliberations this past week.”

    Paul Shapiro, director of the museum’s Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, said, “What is quite striking here is that at this moment in 1938 Roosevelt is very seized by this issue of rescuing the Jews.” Germany’s occupation of Austria showed how much life changed overnight for Jews there. The book includes “important new documentation about F.D.R. and his efforts to save the Jews,” he added. Roosevelt supported using German, French and British colonies in Africa and elsewhere as well as countries in South America as possible havens. And he privately nudged the British to let more Jews into Palestine, said Mr. Breitman, a history professor at American University.

    Mr. Hochberg, who teaches at George Washington University, said: “As a result of these efforts, Bolivia saved over 20,000 Jews between 1938 and 1944 — in proportion to its size, more than any other American nation. Without the Bolivian option, many of these Jews would have died during the Holocaust.”

    By the spring of 1939, the most promising strategy seemed to be an agreement with Berlin that would permit a privately financed foundation to resettle refugees, the editors state. The proposal was contentious because some Jews didn’t trust Germany and feared that it amounted to tacit approval of confiscation of Jewish assets.

    On May 4, 1939, Roosevelt met at the White House with Jewish leaders and told them that there was no time to set up a new foundation, but that an existing organization should immediately agree to the plan.

    “It was not so much a question of the money as it was of actual lives, and the president was convinced that the warnings given by our embassy in Berlin were sound and not exaggerated,” according to the diary of Jay Pierrepont Moffat, a State Department official at the meeting.

    Refugee leaders were still at odds when Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1.

    David Wyman and Rafael Medoff of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, who have written extensively about America’s response to the persecution of Jews, are unimpressed with the excerpts from “Refugees and Rescue” that they’ve read.

    Most of the actions have been mentioned in some form before, they said in a statement. In their view, Roosevelt may have talked about some pie-in-the-sky plans, but when it came to taking substantive action, he did nothing. For instance, they said, he opposed the 1939 Wagner-Rogers bill that would have permitted the United States to take in 20,000 Jewish children from Germany in addition to the existing German-Austrian quota of 27,370.

    “F.D.R. failed to ask for that $150 million, just as he failed to support Wagner-Rogers,” they said. “Both actions by F.D.R. indicate his lack of seriousness about helping Jewish refugees.” They added that his “administration discouraged and obstructed would-be immigrants.”

    To Mr. Shapiro, whether this new material will drastically change the way people see Roosevelt depends on their existing disposition. “Probably none of us will ever know what was really in F.D.R.’s mind at a given time,” he said. For those who see the potential of an individual’s being moved by the Jewish tragedy, “they will find that here.” As for others, he added, they will say, “in the end, it didn’t stop the murder of six million Jews.”



    Search for more information about FDR at 4torah.com.