by the Bray of Fundie
Today evolutionists are having a good laugh at creationists and/or intelligent designers expense. They met a girl named Ida. But he who laughs last laughs best. Boy may yet lose girl. And we creationists and/or intelligent designers have missing links in our, ahem, "theories" as well.
The rule is גַּם אֶת-זֶה לְעֻמַּת-זֶה, עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים="G-d made this opposite that" i.e. that to maintain free will the powers of good and evil are evenly divided and whatever exists in the one exists in the other. As such I am filled with a profound hope. I have reason for optimism today. Optimism that as this evidence has now come out that buttresses the position of the Sitra Achra = the dark side, the day will soon come, speedily and in our days please G-d, when Torah's missing links e.g. the missing 165 years, the real Techeles dye, the authoritative kree and k'siv, various scriptural (hor)cruxes, will ALSO be discovered, researched and revealed.
And then we won't be far from rediscovering the ultimate missing link...the link between the way HaShem= THE Name is written and the way HaShem= THE Name is pronounced, the link that unifies and identifies the G-d of love and mercy הטוב והמטיב with דין האמת the G-d of justice and rigor בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה יְהוָה אֶחָד--וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד = in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one.
Search for more information about Divine Creation at 4torah.com.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
More on Obama's secret evil plan
Though the RW blogs, and their moron readers have already decided that Obama's secret, evil plan to divide Jeruslaem is a fait accompli, people who actually are in a position to know the facts are beginning to weigh in. Here for example is Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, as reported in the 5/21 Jerusalem Post:
"I don't know of any Obama plan that has been finalized," said Ayalon, who has been briefed on the closed-door meetings between Netanyahu and Obama. "Don't believe the headlines. What was in the papers was mere speculation, and there is no substance to it," he said.
So how did what is apparently a false story of a secret, evil Obama plan originate? The culprit seems to be Galei Tzahal which yesterday announced that Obama was set to demand the division of Jerusalem, and the removal of all West Bank settlements. The Galei Tzahel report provided no sources, and a day later their story seems about as legitimate as Carl Phillip's breathless report of an ongoing Martian invasion in War of the Worlds, the famous Orson Wells radio hoax.
Nonetheless, as Mark Twain warned, lies have a way of getting half-way around the world before the truth puts its boots on. The Galei Tzahel story was picked up by Spira at YWN, who didn't cite or credit it, and instead pretended he had first-hand knowledge of the evil, secret plan. His headline (and remember what Ayalon said about headlines) screamed "Obama Wants to Take Yerushalayim from Am Yisrael" which went far beyond even what Galei Tzahel had claimed. A much more level-headed account of the Galei Tzahel story came from Jameel. He wrote a dry report on the story without much editorializing and without any Spira-style fabulism. And though Jameel did make the error of treating the Globe's report about the Galei Tzahel report as substantiation, he has since updated his post to include Ayalon's cold water warning; nonetheless his readers are acting like Wells' audience and a blind, mad panic is underway in his comments.
Why does this happen? I suspect its because many RWers have already decided how the Obama story will end. Instead of responding to the totality of what Barak Obama actually says and does, they grab at any isolated quotes or symbolic gestures that support the narrative they have already written. The Galei Tzahel story confirmed their worst expectations, so instead of asking cool headed questions about sourcing, they sat shiva. I hope Ayalon's statement served to wipe the ashes from their foreheads.
"I don't know of any Obama plan that has been finalized," said Ayalon, who has been briefed on the closed-door meetings between Netanyahu and Obama. "Don't believe the headlines. What was in the papers was mere speculation, and there is no substance to it," he said.
So how did what is apparently a false story of a secret, evil Obama plan originate? The culprit seems to be Galei Tzahal which yesterday announced that Obama was set to demand the division of Jerusalem, and the removal of all West Bank settlements. The Galei Tzahel report provided no sources, and a day later their story seems about as legitimate as Carl Phillip's breathless report of an ongoing Martian invasion in War of the Worlds, the famous Orson Wells radio hoax.
Nonetheless, as Mark Twain warned, lies have a way of getting half-way around the world before the truth puts its boots on. The Galei Tzahel story was picked up by Spira at YWN, who didn't cite or credit it, and instead pretended he had first-hand knowledge of the evil, secret plan. His headline (and remember what Ayalon said about headlines) screamed "Obama Wants to Take Yerushalayim from Am Yisrael" which went far beyond even what Galei Tzahel had claimed. A much more level-headed account of the Galei Tzahel story came from Jameel. He wrote a dry report on the story without much editorializing and without any Spira-style fabulism. And though Jameel did make the error of treating the Globe's report about the Galei Tzahel report as substantiation, he has since updated his post to include Ayalon's cold water warning; nonetheless his readers are acting like Wells' audience and a blind, mad panic is underway in his comments.
Why does this happen? I suspect its because many RWers have already decided how the Obama story will end. Instead of responding to the totality of what Barak Obama actually says and does, they grab at any isolated quotes or symbolic gestures that support the narrative they have already written. The Galei Tzahel story confirmed their worst expectations, so instead of asking cool headed questions about sourcing, they sat shiva. I hope Ayalon's statement served to wipe the ashes from their foreheads.
The ethics of Tzedaka
A guest post by JS:
Yesterday, there was a very interesting conversation about the ethical underpinnings regarding whether and how to give tzedaka to a person down on his luck who wishes to return to Canada (post here, comments here).
DB put on his Fundie hat (borrowed from Bray of course; they're the same hat size) and took a hardline, halachic approach to the problem essentially stating that by giving Tzedaka we are God's agents and it is not for us to judge how the man uses (or misuses) the money - the mitzvah is in the giving, not in the helping, per se (or rather, "helping" is totally subjective and we shouldn't place our values of what "help" means over the recepient's values). Thus, according to DB, if a poor person, who used to be wealthy, wants caviar, we shouldn't deny him caviar as we are merely acting in God's stead and are answering on God's behalf. Rabbi Fink acknowledged DB was correct from a halachic perspective.
DB based himself, partly, on a story from Ketubot 67B: A man once asked Rava for charity. Rava asked him, "What do you need?" The man replied, "Well fattened chickens and old wine." Rava was shocked and exclaimed, "What a burden you put on the community!" The man answered, "But, I do I not eat the community's food as all belongs to God." Just then Rava's sister arrived with a feast of well fattened chickens and old wine. Rava again expressed shock and said, "I've wasted too much time talking; come, let's eat."
DB points out that the lesson is in the poor person's reply that all belongs to God and the community is God's agent in providing it to him. I focus, instead, on Rava's exclamation that the man is a burden on his community and if Rava's sister hadn't surreptitiously shown up with exactly what the man requested, the man would have left empty-handed, or at least not with what he requested.
Personally, I think it's presumptuous to think we should just hand over whatever a poor person wants (assuming we have it) because we're God's agent when we give tzedaka. After all, maybe God wanted him to fall to this position in life? Maybe the person was too arrogant and haughty and selfish and God wanted to teach him modesty and humbleness? Maybe by giving caviar we're thwarting God's plan.
Tzedaka is a zero-sum game. Money that goes to one person is necessarily not going to another person. Consider the following example: A community has 5 poor people. 1 used to be wealthy. The rest have always been too poor to afford wine or meat, they always lived on cheap food and lived in shabby conditions.
Can it possibly be that the community should put up the once rich person in a mansion and feed him the best of foods while the other 4 subsist on beans and rice and live in a small shack? The community shouldn't split its tzedaka money evenly among the 5? The 4 should suffer because the 5th used to be wealthy and has extravagant demands? This is a Jewish value?
How do you reconcile the halacha and our own personal sense of right and wrong? Is a drug addict or alcoholic less worthy of help than someone who became poor due to high medical expenses? Is the person who spent his money frivolously and now has nothing less worthy than someone who lost their job? And should the person who demands caviar be told to get in line with the rest of the poor at the soup kitchen?
I particularly welcome DB's comments as he said yesterday: "I'm quoting a gemarah. I can be skeptical about the Jewish position tomorrow. Today, I am merely providing the Jewish position."
Search for more information about tzedaka ethics at 4torah.com.
Yesterday, there was a very interesting conversation about the ethical underpinnings regarding whether and how to give tzedaka to a person down on his luck who wishes to return to Canada (post here, comments here).
DB put on his Fundie hat (borrowed from Bray of course; they're the same hat size) and took a hardline, halachic approach to the problem essentially stating that by giving Tzedaka we are God's agents and it is not for us to judge how the man uses (or misuses) the money - the mitzvah is in the giving, not in the helping, per se (or rather, "helping" is totally subjective and we shouldn't place our values of what "help" means over the recepient's values). Thus, according to DB, if a poor person, who used to be wealthy, wants caviar, we shouldn't deny him caviar as we are merely acting in God's stead and are answering on God's behalf. Rabbi Fink acknowledged DB was correct from a halachic perspective.
DB based himself, partly, on a story from Ketubot 67B: A man once asked Rava for charity. Rava asked him, "What do you need?" The man replied, "Well fattened chickens and old wine." Rava was shocked and exclaimed, "What a burden you put on the community!" The man answered, "But, I do I not eat the community's food as all belongs to God." Just then Rava's sister arrived with a feast of well fattened chickens and old wine. Rava again expressed shock and said, "I've wasted too much time talking; come, let's eat."
DB points out that the lesson is in the poor person's reply that all belongs to God and the community is God's agent in providing it to him. I focus, instead, on Rava's exclamation that the man is a burden on his community and if Rava's sister hadn't surreptitiously shown up with exactly what the man requested, the man would have left empty-handed, or at least not with what he requested.
Personally, I think it's presumptuous to think we should just hand over whatever a poor person wants (assuming we have it) because we're God's agent when we give tzedaka. After all, maybe God wanted him to fall to this position in life? Maybe the person was too arrogant and haughty and selfish and God wanted to teach him modesty and humbleness? Maybe by giving caviar we're thwarting God's plan.
Tzedaka is a zero-sum game. Money that goes to one person is necessarily not going to another person. Consider the following example: A community has 5 poor people. 1 used to be wealthy. The rest have always been too poor to afford wine or meat, they always lived on cheap food and lived in shabby conditions.
Can it possibly be that the community should put up the once rich person in a mansion and feed him the best of foods while the other 4 subsist on beans and rice and live in a small shack? The community shouldn't split its tzedaka money evenly among the 5? The 4 should suffer because the 5th used to be wealthy and has extravagant demands? This is a Jewish value?
How do you reconcile the halacha and our own personal sense of right and wrong? Is a drug addict or alcoholic less worthy of help than someone who became poor due to high medical expenses? Is the person who spent his money frivolously and now has nothing less worthy than someone who lost their job? And should the person who demands caviar be told to get in line with the rest of the poor at the soup kitchen?
I particularly welcome DB's comments as he said yesterday: "I'm quoting a gemarah. I can be skeptical about the Jewish position tomorrow. Today, I am merely providing the Jewish position."
Search for more information about tzedaka ethics at 4torah.com.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
When will Yeshiva World Stop Lying about Obama?
Via Facebook, I see Yeshiva World has put up another Spira article attacking Obama. Like most Yeshiva World articles that attack Obama, this one contains no sources, no links or references to the legitimate media, and no facts. It's complete lies, from begining to end. Even the headline is a lie. It reads: "Obama Wants to Take Yerushalayim from Am Yisrael." Really? The president has only asserted a million and one times that Jeruslaem won't be divided and that it must remain the capital of Israel. So who's whispering alternative versions of reality into Mr. Spira's ears?
Could Spira be an Obama insider? Most YeshivaWorld articles are ripped straight from the pages of other newspapers. This one wasn't. Its much too poorly written to have been stolen from the usual YeshivaWorld sources, so perhaps Spira is part of the inner circle. Does he have a source in the state department whispering in his ear? Or is he just a guy with a laptop who makes stuff up?
Could Spira be an Obama insider? Most YeshivaWorld articles are ripped straight from the pages of other newspapers. This one wasn't. Its much too poorly written to have been stolen from the usual YeshivaWorld sources, so perhaps Spira is part of the inner circle. Does he have a source in the state department whispering in his ear? Or is he just a guy with a laptop who makes stuff up?
Another ethical question
A guest post by E. Fink
I am the Rabbi at the Shul on the Beach in Venice CA. Venice is home to a wonderful community of Frum and not so Frum Jews, all who are welcome in our Shul. Venice is also home to a huge community of homeless folks. The area is very lenient in its restrictions on the homeless and believes strongly in everyone's rights. A lot of these people live on the beach or in their old vans on the street. (Sure beats a cardboard box in Phili, right?)
The Shul is literally on the boardwalk. The doors are open to the foot traffic on the beach. Our Shul has welcomed many homeless men and women, hardcore drug addicts, transvestites from the Venice boardwalk and others who found their way into our shul for services and Kiddush. We don't push them away, nor do we push anyone else away, unless they are clearly, high, drunk or appear dangerous.
There is a fellow who comes from a Chabad family in Montreal, who is not Frum himself, but grew up in the Chabad tradition. Back in the day, he made a lot of money with the Bugle Boy Jeans Company. He traveled the world spending half a million dollars over the course of his travels Now he is in his 50's and penniless, living in his classic van on the streets of Venice. He gets by selling beautiful prints and canvasses of Jewish photographs that he took in his travels around the world (when he had money). Since I have become the Rabbi in Venice, he has been coming to the shul more often and we have developed a bit of a rapport.
He's a very nice guy, he does look homeless and usually smells like cigarettes but is a good guy overall.
Here's the issue. Business is not good. The artwork is not selling. He used to pull in around 1K over the weekend. Now he's luck y if he gets $60-$80. The Venice boardwalk can be a violent place. He has been subject to a couple of attacks and his car has been vandalized. He wants out. He is not a citizen, nor can he get a green card. If he returns to Canada, he gets the benefits of their robust welfare system and can get himself back on his feet (theoretically if he wants to). Now he is scraping by, living in his van, eating bread and milk (- that's all) and showering at the Y.
He has been asking me to purchase some artowrk for our shul to help him "get out". Every time he tells me his predicament my heart goes out to him. Call me a softy but I cannot bear to see his dire situation. Plus, the look on his face of utter defeat tears me up inside.
He needs 16 tanks of gas plus food to get back to Canada. It's about $1000. Let's assume he has no other viable, realistic quick-fix options. Am I crazy if I give him Tzedaka funds? Is there any way he actually uses it to do what I say? Even if he does, does he deserve Tzedaka money? What should I do?
The Shul has a Tzedaka fund and can afford to help this guy out with either a gift, loan or by purchasing some pricier artwork. This post is about what the appropriate course of action is at this time. What do you think we should do?
Search for more information about Venice at 4torah.com.
I am the Rabbi at the Shul on the Beach in Venice CA. Venice is home to a wonderful community of Frum and not so Frum Jews, all who are welcome in our Shul. Venice is also home to a huge community of homeless folks. The area is very lenient in its restrictions on the homeless and believes strongly in everyone's rights. A lot of these people live on the beach or in their old vans on the street. (Sure beats a cardboard box in Phili, right?)
The Shul is literally on the boardwalk. The doors are open to the foot traffic on the beach. Our Shul has welcomed many homeless men and women, hardcore drug addicts, transvestites from the Venice boardwalk and others who found their way into our shul for services and Kiddush. We don't push them away, nor do we push anyone else away, unless they are clearly, high, drunk or appear dangerous.
There is a fellow who comes from a Chabad family in Montreal, who is not Frum himself, but grew up in the Chabad tradition. Back in the day, he made a lot of money with the Bugle Boy Jeans Company. He traveled the world spending half a million dollars over the course of his travels Now he is in his 50's and penniless, living in his classic van on the streets of Venice. He gets by selling beautiful prints and canvasses of Jewish photographs that he took in his travels around the world (when he had money). Since I have become the Rabbi in Venice, he has been coming to the shul more often and we have developed a bit of a rapport.
He's a very nice guy, he does look homeless and usually smells like cigarettes but is a good guy overall.
Here's the issue. Business is not good. The artwork is not selling. He used to pull in around 1K over the weekend. Now he's luck y if he gets $60-$80. The Venice boardwalk can be a violent place. He has been subject to a couple of attacks and his car has been vandalized. He wants out. He is not a citizen, nor can he get a green card. If he returns to Canada, he gets the benefits of their robust welfare system and can get himself back on his feet (theoretically if he wants to). Now he is scraping by, living in his van, eating bread and milk (- that's all) and showering at the Y.
He has been asking me to purchase some artowrk for our shul to help him "get out". Every time he tells me his predicament my heart goes out to him. Call me a softy but I cannot bear to see his dire situation. Plus, the look on his face of utter defeat tears me up inside.
He needs 16 tanks of gas plus food to get back to Canada. It's about $1000. Let's assume he has no other viable, realistic quick-fix options. Am I crazy if I give him Tzedaka funds? Is there any way he actually uses it to do what I say? Even if he does, does he deserve Tzedaka money? What should I do?
The Shul has a Tzedaka fund and can afford to help this guy out with either a gift, loan or by purchasing some pricier artwork. This post is about what the appropriate course of action is at this time. What do you think we should do?
Search for more information about Venice at 4torah.com.
Churchill who?
According to an email discovered last week in my in-box, Winston Churchill hated Muslims. [This is more or less what it said] This message was sent by one of my friends, a notorious re distributor of dirty jokes and rabid RW political messages. At the top, he helpfully added: And this was 100 years ago!! [sic]
Such, I suppose, is the state of the discourse.
I saw three ways to reply.
First, the good old "So what?" Do we really care what Winston Churchill thought? Is he suddenly the supreme religious and morality expert of all time? Great, he hated Muslims. As an early 20th century Englishman he likely hated Jews, blacks, women, and children, too. Are we required to embrace all his views on everything? By what authority? He may have saved England from the Nazis, but this doesn't obligate us to imitate his every example.
My second thought was to hoist my friend on his own petard. As a RW, dirty-joke-loving loon, my friend is very soft on torture. I thought it might interest him to learn that good old Winston thought torture was of "doubtful utility." Moreover, during the London blitz when every night was a little 9/11, and hundreds of Nazi agents were held in British prisons, Churchill was firm: No torture. In fact, Col. Robin Stephens, the man in charge of Latchmere House, the jail where Hitler's spies were held, said this, "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information." Chris Hitchens reports that Stephens fired one of his interrogators after the man smacked a Nazi on the head. Though we might not agree with this approach, Churchill admired it, and someone who blindly accepts Churchill on Islam should also accept him blindly on torture.
Finally, I thought it interesting that my friend thought it significant that Churchil expressed his anti-Islam views 100 years ago. [And this was 100 years ago!! [sic]] Shouldn't this be expected? Wasn't the word a crueler, darker, less tolerant and accepting place back then? And if the point is that views stated long ago by Englishmen carry extra moral value, why stop with Churchil? Instead, of finding an expert from 100 years ago, let's look to the 17th century and King James I (self-announced expert on witchcraft, who took delight in personally interviewing and torturing suspected witches) as our moral light. Or what about Queen Elizabeth I, inveterate hater of Jews and Catholics. She was an Englishmen who lived in the 1560s so surly SHE knew what she was talking about.
In the end, I sent him all three of these arguments. There was no reply, but this morning, right on schedule, I received his daily dirty joke.
Search for more information about Churchil at 4torah.com.
Such, I suppose, is the state of the discourse.
I saw three ways to reply.
First, the good old "So what?" Do we really care what Winston Churchill thought? Is he suddenly the supreme religious and morality expert of all time? Great, he hated Muslims. As an early 20th century Englishman he likely hated Jews, blacks, women, and children, too. Are we required to embrace all his views on everything? By what authority? He may have saved England from the Nazis, but this doesn't obligate us to imitate his every example.
My second thought was to hoist my friend on his own petard. As a RW, dirty-joke-loving loon, my friend is very soft on torture. I thought it might interest him to learn that good old Winston thought torture was of "doubtful utility." Moreover, during the London blitz when every night was a little 9/11, and hundreds of Nazi agents were held in British prisons, Churchill was firm: No torture. In fact, Col. Robin Stephens, the man in charge of Latchmere House, the jail where Hitler's spies were held, said this, "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information." Chris Hitchens reports that Stephens fired one of his interrogators after the man smacked a Nazi on the head. Though we might not agree with this approach, Churchill admired it, and someone who blindly accepts Churchill on Islam should also accept him blindly on torture.
Finally, I thought it interesting that my friend thought it significant that Churchil expressed his anti-Islam views 100 years ago. [And this was 100 years ago!! [sic]] Shouldn't this be expected? Wasn't the word a crueler, darker, less tolerant and accepting place back then? And if the point is that views stated long ago by Englishmen carry extra moral value, why stop with Churchil? Instead, of finding an expert from 100 years ago, let's look to the 17th century and King James I (self-announced expert on witchcraft, who took delight in personally interviewing and torturing suspected witches) as our moral light. Or what about Queen Elizabeth I, inveterate hater of Jews and Catholics. She was an Englishmen who lived in the 1560s so surly SHE knew what she was talking about.
In the end, I sent him all three of these arguments. There was no reply, but this morning, right on schedule, I received his daily dirty joke.
Search for more information about Churchil at 4torah.com.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
de facto mehadrin
A Guest Post by Rafi G
According to Ladaat.net, the famous #2 bus line in Jerusalem - I think it is the bus route with the longest route in Jerusalem, being a circuitous route from Har Nof to the Kotel with 50 stops between 17 "neighborhoods" (granted - it depends what you call a neighborhood), has now "officially become de facto a mehadrin line.
The decision is not an official one made by Egged or by the Ministry of Transportation. Rather, according to Ladaat.net, it is by "the decision of the passengers". The passengers have "decided" they will sit on the bus in a mehadrin fashion - men in front and women in back.
Because it is not an official decision to be designated by Egged as mehadrin, but through grassroots activism, the one flaw from their perspective is that women will not be able to alight in the back and get their tickets punched in the rear, but will have to get on in the front of the bus mingling with the men in order to pay.
I have no idea what it means "the passengers decided". Did they take a poll? Did someone collate votes during the ride, passing out questionnaires? Was it an "official decision of passengers" made by a dozen or so passengers and will now impose it on the rest?
Another thing - what is the relevance of this decision made by the passengers? If it is not officially sanctioned and designated, what happens if I get on the bus with my family and sit together with my wife? Will they say something to me? What right will they have to insist I or my wife move to the other side of the bus? If a guy wants to sit in front, and his wife wants to sit in the back, God bless them. Nobody ever forces passengers to sit next to people they don't want to. But without any official status, what is the relevance of this decision? How will they enforce it?
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
According to Ladaat.net, the famous #2 bus line in Jerusalem - I think it is the bus route with the longest route in Jerusalem, being a circuitous route from Har Nof to the Kotel with 50 stops between 17 "neighborhoods" (granted - it depends what you call a neighborhood), has now "officially become de facto a mehadrin line.
The decision is not an official one made by Egged or by the Ministry of Transportation. Rather, according to Ladaat.net, it is by "the decision of the passengers". The passengers have "decided" they will sit on the bus in a mehadrin fashion - men in front and women in back.
Because it is not an official decision to be designated by Egged as mehadrin, but through grassroots activism, the one flaw from their perspective is that women will not be able to alight in the back and get their tickets punched in the rear, but will have to get on in the front of the bus mingling with the men in order to pay.
I have no idea what it means "the passengers decided". Did they take a poll? Did someone collate votes during the ride, passing out questionnaires? Was it an "official decision of passengers" made by a dozen or so passengers and will now impose it on the rest?
Another thing - what is the relevance of this decision made by the passengers? If it is not officially sanctioned and designated, what happens if I get on the bus with my family and sit together with my wife? Will they say something to me? What right will they have to insist I or my wife move to the other side of the bus? If a guy wants to sit in front, and his wife wants to sit in the back, God bless them. Nobody ever forces passengers to sit next to people they don't want to. But without any official status, what is the relevance of this decision? How will they enforce it?
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
Something said by Barak Obama that RWers will ignore because it conflicts with the made up lies they enjoy spreading about him
Barack Obama: "I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."
A Self-Immolated Post
by the Bray of Fundie
Yesterday we had this.
Editor's note: In this space, Bray asked a question in a manner that offended many readers as you will see from the comments. Instead of accepting my own mild edits, or making the changes himself as I would have preferred, Bray chose to delete the post. - DB
Yesterday we had this.
Editor's note: In this space, Bray asked a question in a manner that offended many readers as you will see from the comments. Instead of accepting my own mild edits, or making the changes himself as I would have preferred, Bray chose to delete the post. - DB
Monday, May 18, 2009
Housekeeping
Two weeks I (once again) invited everyone to join my blogroll, regardless of theology or politics. Thirty-eight* Thirty-nine of you said, "Sure. Add me."
It has been done.
(Things I shall not remark upon: No more than 6 of you have bothered to hit the TipJoy jar. I'm sure there is a very good, nay excellent, reason for this, which is why I shall not remark upon it.)
*As I was writing this, someone else responded and asked to be included.
It has been done.
(Things I shall not remark upon: No more than 6 of you have bothered to hit the TipJoy jar. I'm sure there is a very good, nay excellent, reason for this, which is why I shall not remark upon it.)
*As I was writing this, someone else responded and asked to be included.
Coming soon to a wig, I mean sheitel, I mean hair piece dealer near you
Click
This could be a big hit in the frum world, and not just because our women wear wigs. Unless, I miss my guess, OJ are also much more germophobic than the average American. Probably has to do with how we're raised from the earliest ages to be on guard against invisible, evil pathogens.
Search for more information about wig accessories at 4torah.com.
This could be a big hit in the frum world, and not just because our women wear wigs. Unless, I miss my guess, OJ are also much more germophobic than the average American. Probably has to do with how we're raised from the earliest ages to be on guard against invisible, evil pathogens.
Search for more information about wig accessories at 4torah.com.
If You Were Shipwrecked on an Island...
by the Bray of Fundie
If you were shipwrecked on an Island and could bring along only one Jewish Book would it be a khumash/set, a siddur, a tehillim or a gemara/shas?
Why?
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
If you were shipwrecked on an Island and could bring along only one Jewish Book would it be a khumash/set, a siddur, a tehillim or a gemara/shas?
Why?
Search for more information about [topic] at 4torah.com.
Did Bush torture for political reasons?
What's upsetting me today is this observation from Josh Marshell:
He spoke of restoring dignity to the office of the presidency, but instead cavorted like the spoiled rich kid he was, insulting reporters from the podium, and attaching humiliating nicknames to his subordinates. After 9/11 he read a powerful speech from a paper handed to him by his aids, and for a month or two it seemed like he might rise to the occasion. He did not. Instead of making us safer, he made us a mockery. Instead of preserving the Constitution, he sent lawyers like John Yoo looking for loopholes, and for opportunities to augment the power of his office.
Again and again he justified his excesses, his shady secrecy, and what seemed to be a mad power grab by reminding us Big Brother-like that he was only keeping us safe, that his one abiding interest was the defense of this country. I thought he was wrong to sacrifice so much liberty for the sake of temporary safety (see Benjamin Franklin) but I believed that at least HE believed that he was breaking the law, and setting dangerous precedents for the sake of making us safer.
But now? Now, I think its altogether likely Bush was full of it.
"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."I wish I could say I find this impossible to believe, but I don't. At bottom, Bush was a sneering frat boy with an Oedipal complex. It's not hard at all to imagine the ugly little princling dispatching goons with torture tools to find an excuse - any excuse - to launch the trillion dollar Iraq adventure. From the beginning Bush reeked of incompetence and insecurity. He came to the Oval Office untested, the beneficiary of his father's wealth, reputation, and connections.
He spoke of restoring dignity to the office of the presidency, but instead cavorted like the spoiled rich kid he was, insulting reporters from the podium, and attaching humiliating nicknames to his subordinates. After 9/11 he read a powerful speech from a paper handed to him by his aids, and for a month or two it seemed like he might rise to the occasion. He did not. Instead of making us safer, he made us a mockery. Instead of preserving the Constitution, he sent lawyers like John Yoo looking for loopholes, and for opportunities to augment the power of his office.
Again and again he justified his excesses, his shady secrecy, and what seemed to be a mad power grab by reminding us Big Brother-like that he was only keeping us safe, that his one abiding interest was the defense of this country. I thought he was wrong to sacrifice so much liberty for the sake of temporary safety (see Benjamin Franklin) but I believed that at least HE believed that he was breaking the law, and setting dangerous precedents for the sake of making us safer.
But now? Now, I think its altogether likely Bush was full of it.
Friday, May 15, 2009
My eyes! My soul! My Shabbos!
The advertisment seen above was sent today by the YeshivaWorldNews to those of us still too lazy to report him to the spam authorities. Said the very great BOTH:How absolutely UNTZNIUSDIK! And it was sent just before shabbos too! I am very upset. Little children could have seen the e-mail. Or talmedim from Yeshiva Chaim Berlin! The horror, the horror!
I don't recall what YWN said when Chaim Berlin went to war with the wig store, but I suspect they supported the Yeshiva.
Related: 1 (627 comments) and 2
.
The breastfeeding battle continues
The OrthoFile answers MII's post from April 24.
In short: OrthoFiles says it immodest to nurse in shul. This coincides with my own view, though I do not agree with her that lenienies and accommodations are impossible. Let every congregation decide for itself. Some shuls want to make room for mothers and children; others do not. So long as the policy of the shul honestly reflects the value of its members either approach is valid.
In short: OrthoFiles says it immodest to nurse in shul. This coincides with my own view, though I do not agree with her that lenienies and accommodations are impossible. Let every congregation decide for itself. Some shuls want to make room for mothers and children; others do not. So long as the policy of the shul honestly reflects the value of its members either approach is valid.
My new torture trump card
From now on whenever torture apologists tell me that Bush and his operatives simply had to break the law because the alternative was to endanger national security and American lives, I'm going to ask them about Dan Choi.
Time permitting, I'll also show them this.
Your sweet summary: Dan Choi is an Arabic speaking linguist, and a West Point graduate with valuable skills who was dismissed from the US military after owning up to being a homosexual. Seems to me that if we're going to make one exception to the rule of the law after another under the theory that the war on terrorism must be won at any cost, we could also make an allowance for an essential gay translator.
As Jon Stewart said: "Water boarding might make a man talk, but it won't get him to speak English."
Search for more information about hypocritically applied legal standards at 4torah.com.
Time permitting, I'll also show them this.
Your sweet summary: Dan Choi is an Arabic speaking linguist, and a West Point graduate with valuable skills who was dismissed from the US military after owning up to being a homosexual. Seems to me that if we're going to make one exception to the rule of the law after another under the theory that the war on terrorism must be won at any cost, we could also make an allowance for an essential gay translator.
As Jon Stewart said: "Water boarding might make a man talk, but it won't get him to speak English."
Search for more information about hypocritically applied legal standards at 4torah.com.
The atheist and the m'shaberach
by TikunOlam
I noticed DYS complaining on a recent thread that the DovBear team members aren't pulling their weight. He made me feel guilty, so I thought I'd write about what has been going through my mind the last couple of days.
My son was released from the hospital yesterday after a two day stay for asthma related problems. He is doing well, thank you.
During his stay, our rabbi visited. Our rabbi is not just "our rabbi," his daughter and son-in-law also happen to be two of our closest friends so he is also a family friend. His visit was very much appreciated as I happen to think he is one of the finest men I know, not to mention, great with my son. While he was there, he said a m'shaberach (a prayer, in this case for the sick) for my son.
I am the kind of person who is really good in a crisis. I kept it together from the moment I knew we had to go to the ER, through all the tests and my son's tears, through being told he would have to stay a couple of nights in the hospital. But when my rabbi said the m'shaberach, I lost it.
My husband looked at me and asked, "why is it that the Jewish stuff makes you cry?" He, of course, was referring to the fact that I am a professed atheist. He had also seen the same reaction in me just less than two months before.
A number of weeks ago, I stayed with my sister over shabbat (my sister is OJ) in the hospital after she went through emergency surgery. She is doing great, thank you.
As it happened, the day after her surgery, my oldest had his Torah reading debut in school. His school teaches children to layn as part of the curriculum. Over the course of the school year, each child layns for the grade with parents and grandparents invited to attend. It is considered a very important milestone in the life of a student at this school. As a part of the morning davening that day, the class said a m'shaberach for the ill, and invited the children to come up and offer names of individuals that they knew who were ill. When they did this I was working so hard on fighting back tears that I couldn't even get there to add in my sister's name.
When my husband asked me what was up with all this, all I could respond was that hearing the m'shaberachs made it really hit me how sick my son (and my sister) were. He didn't buy it. When I mentioned it to DB (who, BTW, was a very supportive friend through these scary couple of days) he said "You're still someone who was raised OJ. That doesn't go away." Perhaps he is right. Whatever the reason, it certainly gave me pause to think.
Search for more information about atheists who cry during m'shaberachs at 4torah.com.
I noticed DYS complaining on a recent thread that the DovBear team members aren't pulling their weight. He made me feel guilty, so I thought I'd write about what has been going through my mind the last couple of days.
My son was released from the hospital yesterday after a two day stay for asthma related problems. He is doing well, thank you.
During his stay, our rabbi visited. Our rabbi is not just "our rabbi," his daughter and son-in-law also happen to be two of our closest friends so he is also a family friend. His visit was very much appreciated as I happen to think he is one of the finest men I know, not to mention, great with my son. While he was there, he said a m'shaberach (a prayer, in this case for the sick) for my son.
I am the kind of person who is really good in a crisis. I kept it together from the moment I knew we had to go to the ER, through all the tests and my son's tears, through being told he would have to stay a couple of nights in the hospital. But when my rabbi said the m'shaberach, I lost it.
My husband looked at me and asked, "why is it that the Jewish stuff makes you cry?" He, of course, was referring to the fact that I am a professed atheist. He had also seen the same reaction in me just less than two months before.
A number of weeks ago, I stayed with my sister over shabbat (my sister is OJ) in the hospital after she went through emergency surgery. She is doing great, thank you.
As it happened, the day after her surgery, my oldest had his Torah reading debut in school. His school teaches children to layn as part of the curriculum. Over the course of the school year, each child layns for the grade with parents and grandparents invited to attend. It is considered a very important milestone in the life of a student at this school. As a part of the morning davening that day, the class said a m'shaberach for the ill, and invited the children to come up and offer names of individuals that they knew who were ill. When they did this I was working so hard on fighting back tears that I couldn't even get there to add in my sister's name.
When my husband asked me what was up with all this, all I could respond was that hearing the m'shaberachs made it really hit me how sick my son (and my sister) were. He didn't buy it. When I mentioned it to DB (who, BTW, was a very supportive friend through these scary couple of days) he said "You're still someone who was raised OJ. That doesn't go away." Perhaps he is right. Whatever the reason, it certainly gave me pause to think.
Search for more information about atheists who cry during m'shaberachs at 4torah.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)