Monday, May 16, 2011

What message is Hashem trying to send by making people run stop signs and drive erratically?

Unfortunately there have been a few terrible car accidents recently in the frum community. Why do you think this is happening?

A. Tznius!!


B. Women wearing Shabbos robes


C. Bochurim in Japan (I know, not our fault, but doesn't everything somehow come back to this?)


D. Bloggers


E. Working guys


D. Lipa


E. Long wigs


F. Internet (without ishur)


G. Women (not sure what, but it's always their fault)


H. Modern Orthodoxy


I. Chalav Stam


J. Natan Slifkin


K. Liberals


Did I leave anything out?


(Postscript - As I was about to post this I heard about a campaign being launched as a zechut for a few recent crash victims. This is the second time that this is being done; the first time, it was in the zechut of a young mother in a coma who "WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF THE POSTER AWARENESS CAMPAIGN, MIRACULOUSLY HAD A COMPLETE RECOVERY." The campaign involves posters warning against the dangers of texting and being busy with your phone... so far so good... are they actually going to acknowledge that doing this while driving causes accidents? Think of how many lives can be saved by this campaign. What a zechut! I was about to delete this entire post... but then I finished reading... "... during Davening.." And so ladies and gentlemen, I give you option L.)

Lag BaOmer: One Big Mistake?

From May 15, 2006

Jameel has translated an article which suggests our lag bomer celebrations came into existance because of a scribal error. Interesting -and plausible- theory.

However, Jameel sullies the effort by restating this defeated notion: I think that the medurot idea could have come from the method of notifying the Jewish people in Galut of the arrival of the new Jewish Month

Though it is true, that Jews of ancient Jerusalem lit bonfires to alert neighboring towns that a new month had been declared, there is no connection between this ritual and the bonfires of Lag B'omer. The new moon bonfire was discontinued more than 2000 years ago, and almost 1500 years passed before the Lag B'omer bonfires made their first appearence, in Safed (they weren't known in Jewish Europe for another hundred years at least.) Correction: The bonfires first appeared in Jewish Europe in the 17th century. They were long used in Christian Europe to celebrate saints, and for other religious purposes. Our Lag B'omer bonifres are derived from that.




Sunday, May 15, 2011

Oh, those silly and wily Jews (1850)

A guest post by Philo

Here's an article from Harper's Magazine in 1850 (apparently reprinted from the Dublin University Magazine,) with the kind of socially acceptable anti-Semitism that was prevalent at the time.

-----------------------------------------------------


Harper’s Magazine June 1850, pages 119 – 120

[From the Dublin University Magazine]

JEWISH VENERATION

THE veneration of the Jew for the law is displayed by the grossest superstition, a copy of the Torah or Decalogue being carefully soldered into a narrow tin case, and hung over the entrance to their chambers, as old crones with us nail a horse-shoe to a door; it is even believed to avail as an amulet or charm capable of averting evil, or curing the most obstinate disease. "Ah," said a bed-ridden old Hebrew woman to me, as I visited the mission hospital in Jerusalem, "what can the doctors do for me? If I could only touch the Torah I should be made whole." Not exactly comprehending what she meant, I handed her a little tin-cased copy of the Ten Commandments; she grasped it in her emaciated hands, which trembled with anxiety, and her eyes were lit up with a transient gleam of joy. "Are you made whole?" I inquired; she made no answer, fell back on her pillow, let drop the Torah, and turned from me with a sigh.

Sitting one evening with an intelligent German Jew, who used often to pay me a visit at my lodgings, the conversation turned on Jewish religious rites and ceremonies. Alluding to the day of atonement, he assured me that on that day the Jews believe that ministers are appointed in heaven for the ensuing year: a minister over angels; one over the stars; one over earth; the winds, trees, plants, birds, beasts, fishes, men, and so forth.

That, on that day also, the good and evil deeds of every son of Abraham are actually summed up, and the balance struck for or against each, individually. Where the evil deeds preponderate, such individuals are brought in as in debt to the law; and ten days after the day of atonement, summonses are issued to call the defaulters before God. When these are served, the party summoned to appear is visited either with sudden death or a rapid and violent disease which must terminate speedily in death. "But can not the divine wrath be appeased?" said I. "Not appeased," said my informant; "the decree must be evaded." "How so?" "Thus," he replied. "When a Jew is struck with sudden sickness about this time, if he apprehends that his call is come, he sends immediately for twelve eiders of his people; they demand his name; be tells them, for example, my name is Isaac; they answer, thy name shall no more be Isaac, but Jacob shall thy name be called. Then kneeling round the sick man, they pray for him in these words: O God, thy servant, Isaac, has not good deeds to exceed the evil, and a summons against him has gone forth; but this pious man before thee, is named Jacob, and not Isaac. There is a flaw in the indictment; the name in the angel's summons is not correct, therefore, thy servant Jacob can not be called on to appear." "After all," said I, "suppose this Jacob dies." 'Then," replied my companion, "the almighty is unjust; the summons was irregular, and its execution not according to law."

Does not this appear incredible? Another anecdote, and I have done.

On the same occasion we were speaking about vows, and the obligation of fulfilling them. "As to paying your vow," said my Jewish friend, "we consider it performed, if the vow be observed to the letter." He then gave me the following rather ludicrous illustration as a case in point: There was in his native village a wealthy Jew, who was seized with a dangerous illness. Seeing death approach, despite of his physician's skill, he bethought him of vowing a vow; so he solemnly promised, that if God would restore him to health, he, on his part, on his recovery, would sell a certain fat beast in his stall, and devote the proceeds to the Lord.

The man recovered, and in due time appeared before the door of the synagogue, driving before him a goodly ox, and carrying under one arm a large, black Spanish cock. The people were coming out of the synagogue, and several Jewish butchers, after artistically examining the fine, fat beast, asked our convalescent what might be the price of the ox. "This ox," replied the owner, "I value at two shillings" (I substitute English money); but the cock," he added, ostentatiously exhibiting chanticleer, “I estimate at twenty pounds." The butchers laughed at him; they thought he was in joke. However, as he gravely persisted that he was in earnest, one of them, taking him at his word, put down two shillings for the ox. "Softly, my good friend," rejoined the seller, "I have made a vow not to sell the ox without the cock; you must buy both, or be content with neither." Great was the surprise of the bystanders, who could not conceive what perversity possessed their, wealthy neighbor. But the cock being value for two shillings, and the ox for twenty pounds, the bargain was concluded, and the money paid.

Our worthy Jew now walks up to the Rabbi, cash in hand. "This," said he, handing the two shillings, "I devote to the service of the synagogue, being the price of the ox, which I had vowed; and this, placing the twenty pounds in his own bosom, is lawfully mine own, for is it not the price of the cock?" "And what did your neighbors say of the transaction? Did they not think this rich man an arrant rogue?" "Rogue!" said my friend, repeating my last words with some amazement, "they considered him a pious and a clever man." Sharp enough, thought I; but delicate about exposing my ignorance, I judiciously held my peace.


Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks

Friday, May 13, 2011

Why aren't the bonfires being canceled or rescheduled?

In Israel, some of the major Lag Bomer bonfires attract 10s of thousands of people, requiring cooperation from local police and fire authorities. This year Lag Bomer falls on Saturday night, meaning the local police and fire authorities will be required to work for the sake of the bonfires.

Some Rabbis have called for the bonfires to be canceled or rescheduled to prevent the shabbos desecration, and small concessions have been made by some groups. In Meron, for example, the most popular bonfire won't be lit until after midnight, but is that enough?

I don't understand why they haven't been canceled all together.

The bonfires are not required by Torah or rabinic law, and according to some don't even count as an official minhag. They're just something that some Jews do. And even if they did have some religious status, the precedent is still clear: We cancel shofer blowing on Rosh Hashana, a Torah mitzvah, when Rosh Hashana falls on shabbos. What possible logic can be behind the decision not to cancel the bonfires? They will unquestionably cause shabbos desecration, so how can they be allowed?

Is this another example of certain religious groups putting their own personal priorities and desires ahead of the community of Israel as a whole? Why is one person's desire to dance by the light of a bonfire, more valuable then another Jew's shabbos observance?

Back to normal?

Blogger seems like it might be back to normal, but posts from after Wednesday are still missing. Hope they get restored, as promised.

Good shabbos


Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Is God a Socialist? Notes on the Jubilee

This is the personification of
Israel from the Comic Torah.
In the seventh year we must
cease from plowing her.
This week's sedra is a stark reminder that living in a "Torah/Bible-based society" will require more than the elimination of homosexuals.God may not like gays but, based on several verses in Behar, it seems clear that He also dislikes property ownership. As per the 25th chapter of Leviticus, your rights as a land owner are severely limited. Not only are you required to sacrifice a year of productivity at the end of every shmita cycle, you're also forbidden to sell your farmland for good. Until the Rabbis worked out a loophole, you were only permitted to lease your land until the next jubilee. Then, it was returned to you.

This isn't capitalism, and its not something the typical right winger supports, or likely even knows exists. Its also hard to see how the rules in Lev 25 might work in modern society. The jubilee provisions make it almost impossible to develop land. They suppress entrepreneurship, and prevent the accumulation of large estates and fortunes. That might be okay for an agrarian society with a population kept stable by wars, infections, and disease, but how can you accommodate population growth if the farmland you'd like to turn into apartments is always due to be returned to someone? Didn't the divine author anticipate penicillin and vaccines?

The Rabbis solved the problem by creating* the loophole of a perpetual lease. Though the word of the Torah is usually considered the highest trump card, the Rabbis decided that here, at least, a contract between two people was of greater value. As a result, you can get around the requirement to return farmland to the original owner by signing a 999 year lease. Samson Rephael Hirsch claims that such a lease was only permitted after the fact, or bidieved, but I think the sources are clear that they were signed l'chatchila. Nowadays, none of this is relevant because we've forgotten the count. Because no one knows exactly when a Jubilee year falls, we collectively shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well."

I think that along with that shrug, there's also a sigh of relief. People understand that keeping Jubilee would be a disaster for economic progress. So rather than finding a way to rehabilitate it (as in the case of several other commandments) we've found a way to let it slide.

*Don't complain to me about the verb. Per the Rambam, there are five categories of Mesorah. Two of them are definitely from Sinai, the other three are not. The jubilee loophole is a takanah, or something imposed by the Rabbis to address issues that emerged as the world changed. In this case, they saw the problem keeping Jubilee imposed, so they developed a work-around. 

Last post on the chillul hashem heard round the world. I promise. (Maybe)

The following was taken/stolen/borrowed whole hog from Feministe, "one of the oldest feminist blogs online designed by and run by women from the ground up."

The post was too good to excerpt.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

World's worst apology

Di Tzertung wasn't the only publication to delete Hillary from histoy. Di Voch, a Hasidic glossy, pulled the same trick. When no one noticed, they went to VIN with an attention grabbing apology:
We fully respect the President of the United States and his entire Staff, regardless of their gender.

In times when slander, gossip and immodesty dominate coverage in many publications, we, following our modesty rules, try reporting Rabbinical and worldly events in the most proper and unbiased manner.

Avoiding pictures of women in our paper is in no way representing an ideology or race inequality, it is following the guidelines of our publication to avoid pictures of women in our magazine.

We do apologize to the affected persons who may have felt offended; it was unintentional.

Those who brought this into the spotlight citing racial reasons, is totally absurd! It was we (the Orthodox newspapers and publications) that are credited for much of Clinton’s Orthodox coverage in the primary elections. It was altered for the one and only reason; our rules of modesty not to publish pictures of women, regardless of their stature or modesty.
Can't these newspapers find someone who speaks English to write their apologies? I don't fault them for being illiterate in English, but I do think its insensitive and incorrect to publish an apology that requires so much work from the reader. I shouldn't have to read it 6 times to work out what they're saying.

 Anyway, this apology is terrible. It doesn't seem to understand teh difference between race and gender, and like Gil Student they completely miss the point. This was never about Hasidic stringencies regarding women. It was about their willingness to insult women in pursuit of those stringencies. We all agree that its important to get to minyan on time, but would you countenance a car accident caused by someone who was rushing to shul? Same thing here. Avoid women all you want, but do it without slapping them across the face.

A Hirhurim double standard

Those of you who remember the brouhaha over Maharat/Rabba Sara Hurwitz may be surprised to see Gil Student's latest post. When Avi Weiss made Hurwitz into something like a Lieutenant Rabbi in his shul, Gil was among those leading the screams of protest over what amounted to one organization's private human resources decision. Though Maharat Sara was not given any new religious powers nor authorized to break any longstanding religious rules Gill still objected.

Contrast that heated overreaction with his cool discussion of Der Tzeiting's decision to Photoshop Hillary Clinton right out of history. Though Gil starts off by saying that the newspapers decision was "objectionable" I find it noteworthy that however "objectionable" it may have been, Gil chooses to argue that a community is entitled to live according to its own standards. I agree with the point, just its surprising to see Gil Student articulate it. If all of us are expected to nod tolerantly when Der Tzeitung acts towards women in a way we find offensive, why didn't Gil extend the same courtesy to the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale? Or, more to the point, if he can find the energy to give a calm explanation of Der Tzeitung's "objectionable" behavior why couldn't he perform the same service for Rabbi Weiss?  Gil's a smart man. He understands Rabbi Wiess's perspective, and knows full well that Avi Weiss believes he is acting l'shem shamayim. So why haven't we see a Hirhurim post in which their perspective is calmly explained? When the "objectionable" behavior comes from the left, Gil leads the crusade. When it comes from the right, he calls for calm. Why?

This double standard is not the only thing wrong with Gil's post. It all seems to rest on the premise that people were outraged about Der Tzeitung's over-the-top avoidance of all things female. Not so. Not one of the "mocking class of commentator" Gil derides would have objected if Der Tzeitung had simply refrained from publishing the photo. Everyone acknowledges a publication's right to follow its own community standards. The New York Times, for instance, does not publish nudity. No one minds. Likewise, the editors of Der Tzeitung, who recognize no distinction between a clothed woman and a naked one, are free to ban all photographs of women from their paper. That's their right, and their privilege. No one would object if the paper chose to exercise it.

What Gil fails to concede is that the paper crossed a line when it chose to remove the Secretary of State from the picture.  No matter how pure and innocent the underlying motives may have been, photo-shopping a woman out of a photograph is an insult. Its way of saying that women, as a class, don't matter, that they aren't wanted or needed, and that they and their contributions can be ignored. That statement - intended or not - is one of the things that rankled me. Another was the casual falsehood. Micheal Rogovin who commented on Gil's post, gets the last word :
I cannot understand the basis for Gil’s defense. His arguments would make sense IF the picture was cropped (though that would apparently also be a violation of the use restrictions) or if it were omitted (though who would know?), but neither is at issue. The issue is only the concept of altering a photograph. Presumably the newspaper, however else it is challenged in journalistic ethics, understands that a photograph is a powerful statement, otherwise why print it. That it would alter the photo to suit a philosophy shows contempt for the truth and a willingness to print a lie if it suits the philosophy of the editor. That this particular case is about women and tzniut is a side issue. The alteration of a photo to present evidence of a falsehood is dangerous, always wrong and indefensible (and while I prefer condemnation to ridicule, the latter is deserving), whether by the left or the right. That a publisher of Torah-related books would seek to somehow find a justification for such actions is extremely troubling. Will the OU Press alter photos to suit ITS world view as well? This post provides ample justification for such an action.
UPDATE 

Speaking of double standards....



This is the editor of Der Tzeitung looking an immodestly dressed female reporter directly in the face as he explains to her that its against the JEWISH (not hasidic, but JEWISH) rules of modesty to have pictures of women in a newspaper.

Related:  Gil on the famous bears, and my fisking


Those of you who remember the brouhaha over Maharat/Rabba Sara Hurwitz may be surprised to see Gil Student's latest post. When Avi Weiss made Hurwitz something like a Lieutenant Rabbi in his shul, Gil was among those leading the screams of protest over what amounted to one organization's private human resources decision. Though Maharat Sara was not given any new religious powers nor authorized to break any longstanding religious rules Gil still objected.

Contrast that with his cool discussion today of Der Tzeiting's decision to Photoshop Hillary Clinton out of history. Though he starts off by saying that the newspapers decision was "objectionable" I find it noteworthy that Gil seems finally ready to concede that a community is entitled to live according to its own standards. If all of us are expected to nod tolerantly when Der Tzeitung acts towards women in a way we find offensive, why can't Gil extend the same courtesy to the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale? Or, more to the point, if he can find the energy to give a calm explanation of Der Tzeitung's "objectionable" behavior why couldn't he perform the same favor for Rabbi Weiss?  Gil's a smart man. He understands Rabbi Wiess's perspective, and knows what he's is trying to do. So why

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Thoughts for Israel Independence Day

Google's logo. I don't really get it. 

For those who might care, I do not say Hallel or tachanun today.  My reasons are outlined in a post written in 2005 that bears the distinction of being the only DovBear post to which Gil Student of Hirhurim has ever linked.

In my view, Yom Haaztmaut is a local Purim, of the kind Jews always extablished to celebrate their deliverance from various tyrants and anti-Semites. Anyone who benefits from the state (in particular the Haredim who benefit more than anyone) should participate with the festive meals (Seudat Hoda) typical of the local Purim.


I'll also point out that early Zionists made two bad mistakes, mistakes that resonates until today.

1 - Yom Hashoa should be on 10 Tevet, and certainly not in Nissan.

2 - Yom Haatzmaut should be on Lag B'omer, but certainly not during Sfira.

Had the founders of Israel combined their new holidays with our old holidays, Jews the world-over would be able to mourn and celebrate together. And it isn't like there's no precedant for this sort of thing. Our crafty ancestors used this trick when they sabotaged Nicanor Day and replaced it with Tannis Esther.

It's been suggested by David Williams, an expert on ancient Israel at the University of Georgia, that it was King John Hyrcanus, a descendant of the Maccabees, who shoved Nicanor Day aside in favor of Purim. Why? " Perhaps to deflect attention from Judah's victory to his own time. Or he wanted a wider celebration.''

A wider celebration. If only the early Zionists had thought along those lines.


Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks

Battle of the iconic photos: Who seems more presidential?

On May 1, 2003 George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier beneath a Mission Accomplished sign, and delivered a speech in which he declared victory in Iraq. Though the carrier was only 30 miles off-shore, and easily reached by helicopter, the president arrived on a fighter jet, and posed for pictures in his flight suit. 

100 percent of Fox viewers think Bush
landed the plane himself. He did not.
Nowadays, Bush's arrival on the carrier is understood to have been a cheap, cornball stunt, but at the time, the media loved it. Chris Mathews called it an "amazing display of leadership" Brian Williams said he "looked terrific" and Jon Scott of Fox and Friends said "..it was like the Beatles climbed out of that plane." Bob Scheifer said "As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time" and Joe Klein agreed saying, "Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day." And queen of the Bush fan boys, Laura Ingrahm said "...seeing President Bush get out of that plane, carrying his helmet, he is a real man. He stands by his word. That was a very powerful moment." [All quotes from here]

Now compare Bush's Herculean effort to look manly, with how Obama is carrying himself  in what is currently considered the iconic picture of his administration.



Unlike his strutting predecessor, Obama is content to let the general take center stage. He's not even the focal point of the picture; instead, he's off to the side, in a low seat. When I look at the Bush picture, I see insecurity, fear and a desperate desire to look powerful. In contrast, the Obama photo shows a man who is comfortable in his own skin, and who doesn't need props to project authority or command respect.

Obvious caveat: Photos are just photos. They aren't windows into the soul, and they don't reveal secrets about character or personality. Also, the Bush shot was posed, and the Obama picture is a candid. I'm sure candid shots of Bush exist in which he looks like someone who doesn't care about appearances or ceremony; likewise, I'm sure posed shots of Obama can be found in which he appears to be as much of a strutting fool as Bush does in his stupid flight suit. My comments in this post are a response to the pictures, and the pictures alone, though its always worth noting (again) that the morons in the media chose to ignore the points I've made in the postscript and were completely taken in by Bush's stunt. 

Click here to learn about how you can sell your products on Amazon and receive $75 in free clicks

Colbert vs. Der Tzeitung

Hasidic Newspaper Removes Hillary Clinton
Brooklyn's Hasidic newspaper removes Hillary Clinton from a photo because there's nothing more sexually suggestive than a woman killing a terrorist. (03:20)

Monday, May 09, 2011

Der Tzeitung apologizes

Here's the apology as reported by an awful web site I refuse to recognize: 

The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” the events in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials. Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the “fine print” that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes. We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department.The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ‘00, and when she was re-elected in ‘06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.

We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.

All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. (See below.) That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.

We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our’s, until the ultimate redemption.

All English is sic. Let's hope they're better at Yiddish. Syntax aside, this isn't a bad apology. Some of the points they make are stupid, and playing the religion card is no better than playing the race card, but that's fine, too. An apology - especially a public apology - is part propaganda The point here isn't to sooth hurt feelings, but to end the conversation. Suggesting freedom of religion is a blank check (it isn't) or that Orthodox Jews voted for Hillary because of her "compassion" is bogus, but no one is going to bother to argue. Most will be happy to get the apology and the admission of wrongdoing, which is all they are entitled to anyway. 

I also like the Orwellian touch of strenuously denying that the paper denigrates women, while also protecting their prerogative to continue denigrating them. Not publishing a photo of properly dressed woman is a way of turning all women into sex objects, a way of saying you, as a class, have no role and no purpose other than to satisfy us sexually and bear our children. Its a reprehensible policy, and has no basis in the Judaism of our forefathers. 


Will the 9/11 First Responders Law Do the Job?


Will the 9/11 First Responders Law Do the Job?
A guest post by Barbara O'Brien

In the final days of the 111th Congress, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Act, also called the "9/11 First Responders bill," finally passed. The Act will provide medical monitoring and care for those who worked on the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center after the 9/11 attacks, as well as for many who lived and worked nearby.

However, at the insistence of some senators, the final bill was considerably watered down from what it had been originally. More than $3 billion in funding was cut from s previous version of the bill, for example. Will the revised bill still do the job?

[More after the jump]

Review: The Comic Torah

Is it mockery or midrash? This is the question I kept asking myself as a I read The Comic Torah: Reimagining the Very Good Book, an ambituous attempt by Aaron Freeman (Author) and Sharon Rosenzweig (Illustrator) to retell the Pentateuch as a graphic novel.

Read about it after the jump

Some notes on the chilul hashem heard round the world.

Over the weekend that was, I had the opportunity to discuss Der Tzitung and their decision to remove Hillary Clinton from the famous situation room photo. I met with three types of responses.

As I noted last week, the photoshopping of the photo is a fabrication of history (geneivat daas) an insult to a high ranking official and something likely to breed anti-Semitism (eiva) Most people agreed with me and left it that. Some however, agreed with me, but because they have a pathological and irrational hatred for all things DovBear, still criticized me for commenting on the paper's error. Their logic was something like, "Yes the paper did something wrong, but because DovBear is such a Charedi basher* we're going to defend or run interference for the paper." Sad, pathetic, but true.

*I'm not actually a Charedi basher, as regular readers know. Sure, I disagree with specific Charedi practices, policies and superstitions, but I also disagree with various M.O practices, policies and superstitions such the idea that Israel is always right no matter what. The claim that I bash Charedim, like so many of the things that pathological and irrational DovBear haters say, is easily proven false. 

The other interesting response came from hard-core hasidim, who defended what the paper did on the grounds of free speech or by claiming that the paper has a right to respect its audience's sensibilities. Unfortunately, free speech does not give you permission to violate a photo's terms of use, nor does free speech trump Jewish values such as avoiding lies and situations that create eiva. Also, the audience's sensibilities could have been respected simply by refusing to publish the photo. If Der Tzitung had done that, no one would have complained.

Some of the people who defended Der Tzitung also claimed that the paper did not create any eiva. Said @unclechaim "not a single non jew cares...only a few holier than thou yids like you, with an anti chareidi agenda..."  A simple google search (performed by @yshollander) shows the truth (see the results after the jump.)

Finally, the media seems to be crediting Failed Messiah with uncovering this scandal, which is odd for two reasons. First, Failed Messiah itself credited Critical Minyan. Doesn't the media have an obligation to recognize this? Second, a blog called Circus Tent is claiming to have broken the story (though the blogger says he's glad his name wasn't associated with the ensuing chilul hashem). Though I do think the newspapers should have mentioned that FM himself credits Critical Minyan, they have no obligation to search the Internet to see who found the photo manipulation first.