Consequences of OJ to non-OJ tzedakah?

A guest post by TikunOlam

My children's Jewish day school, like most these days, has dramatically increased its fundraising efforts. With many parents losing their jobs or otherwise needing to tighten their belts, the need for financial assistance at this school has increased. The Director of Development at the school, who is in charge of fundraising, happens to be a close friend of mine. Our families shared Shabbat dinner recently and we got into a discussion about her office's increased efforts to reach out to grandparents, available grants and philanthropists in the Jewish community.

She told a story of calling a grandmother of two students in the school and asked my husband, her own husband and me (all ex-OJs) to help her understand the conversation she had with the grandmother. She explained that when the grandmother was called, the grandmother raved about the school and said that both she and her husband thought it was doing an excellent job. However, she explained, her husband is a rabbi in the Orthodox Community and she is uncomfortable with making a donation using a check that bore his name to a non-OJ Jewish day school. She said that she would like to make a donation in her name only and asked that her husband's name not be found on the donation record. My friend, of course, graciously thanked her for her pledge and said that she would respect her wishes to have the donation recorded in her name only.

When I heard this story, I wondered if there was a reality based reason for her to be concerned about negative ramifications if it came out that her husband supported his grand children's non-OJ day school. I wondered, or maybe just hoped, that she was just being a silly, paranoid older woman. I have been too far removed out of the OJ world for too many years to make sense of this one. I just know it made me so sad to think that this is where the Jewish world is, that an OJ would have to feel concerned that there would be negative consequences to openly supporting a non-OJ institution, even if he or she believes in its mission and the work it is doing.

Mobile device users comment here.

Bailouts, bailouts everywhere

A guest post by (the artist formerly known as) TikunOlam

Everywhere I look someone is getting bailed out. Whether it is people at shul on reduced membership dues, the folks who get tuition assistance at the day schools (even when it is the grandparents footing the bills) or the big companies giving out bonuses to their top employees from government bail out money, everyone seems to be getting a handout.

You see, all of these years, my husband and I have been fiscally responsible. We did not get a risky mortgage on a house that we couldn’t afford. We don't have credit card debt. We stopped at two kids to ensure that we could pay for their tuition, orthodontic bills and shabbos shoes. When we first moved into our current home and we were tight on money and our heating system broke down and our water heater’s life came to an end, we made it work by putting off getting rid of the disgusting old carpeting and managed without buying furniture for the living room and dining room until we could afford to.

No one bailed me out. I didn’t expect anyone to. And now, years later, with relatively successful careers and a number of years of being able to afford two cars and family vacations, we are cutting down on expenses just in case next year’s income goes down. We are making sure that next year our children’s tuition will be paid and we won’t need a bailout from anyone in order to keep our house.

You see, I think that I am starting to understand Republicans. I am finding my once generous do-gooder self getting tired of watching as shul membership dues go up, tuition for my children goes up, real estate taxes go up, in part, so people like me can help the folks who “need” bailouts. Why am I paying increased tuition so the children from the family of 6 with the stay-at-home mom can go to private school? Like I would not have wanted to be a stay-at-home mom with the luxury of having as many children as my heart desired?

I am tired of feeling punished for being responsible. It almost makes me want to go back in time and buy that new crib for my kids instead of taking the hand-me-down one, hire the nurse when my children were born so I could get some desperately needed sleep, buy the house with the fireplace and Jacuzzi tub instead of the modest home with the 500 year old kitchen. Why should I be the sucker? Why not let someone else just bail me out?

Think I will do an experiment. I am going to go out today and buy a pair of those ugly, overpriced “Uggs” and maybe one of those awesome iPod Touch things and see if I can get someone else to pay for them. Let you know how it goes.

Celebrate Passover 2009 with Magnificent Passover Gift Baskets from Oh Nuts.

Parenthood an altruistic act?

A guest post by TikunOlam

Fascinating post on DYS's site about MO women choosing to become single mothers. There was an interesting discussion regarding the motivations of these single women as though their motivations are somehow qualitatively different than the motivations of couples who choose to have children.

This is an already overpopulated world with not enough resources to go around. In fact, most of the world lives in poverty. In addition, there are countless children already in this world in need of families. Some of them live within minutes of you and me.

I don't think there is anything altruistic about becoming a parent. Children do not ask to be born. You are not doing the world a favor by bringing a child into it.

Is it the natural course of things? Sure. Do some cultures and religions dictate that one "should" procreate? Sure. But an altruistic act? No way. We have children because we want them, believe that we "should" have them to fulfill a religious or cultural obligation or because we got pregnant or impregnated someone by accident and felt it our moral obligation to raise the child that we created. For the record, I think that single women who are equipped to be good mothers should be supported in their desire to become mothers.

I chose to have children because I wanted to be a mother. I knew that being a mother would be the single most fulfilling thing I ever did in my life. Being a mother has far surpassed my expectations and brought me my greatest joys in life. While I have no doubt that my children will only add in a positive way to this world now that they are here, never for a moment, do I kid myself into believing that I did anyone a favor when I chose to become a mother.

Pedophiles are not (usually) criminally insane

A guest post by TikunOlam

Early today a commenter noted on JS's post, which can be found directly below:

Aren't there numerous studies proving that the majority of these abusers were abused themselves as children? And that in any event pedophilia is a form of mental illness? Criminally insane to be sure and society must be protected. Incarceration may be required and with high recidivism rehabbing may be ineffective. But insane nonetheless.

To which JS asked:

TO, is this true? I've heard many abusers were abused, but the majority? Note, I don't think this excuses anything. Also, criminally insane? Not knowing their actions are wrong?

Later JS also comments:

Again, I wish TO would get in on this, but I always thought that abusers had a certain "type" that they abused - I assume because of attraction, or maybe a desire to control this type. I thought that an abuser of say 10-12 year old boys is not only not interested in girls at all but may not be interested in boys 7-8 or 15-17, for example.JS 12.04.08 - 4:56 pm #

My answers, for those who are interested:

Most abusers have been abused? Yes. However, most people who have been abused DO NOT become abusers.

Pedophilia is a mental illness? Yes. And so is insomnia if you want to get technical. So is Antisocial Personality Disorder which many people know as “sociopaths.” Our jails are filled with Antisocials. Without getting into a long explanation of what defines “mental illness” it is important to keep in mind that the term “mental illness” does not necessarily mean “insane.”

Mental illness, in short, is defined as a set of symptoms that significantly interfere with individuals leading healthy and productive social/occupational (or academic) and family lives (BTW, this is why homosexuality was once considered an “illness.” Society didn’t accept it as a “healthy” social/family lifestyle due to religious/political ideas, not because it ever interfered with anything that in today’s society most of us think of us as “healthy and productive.” This is the reason it was removed from the DSM.) We have labels for recurring sets of symptoms that tend to coexist and interfere in people's functioning and we call them “mental illnesses."

Pedophiles tend to also be narcissists and sociopaths. There are genetic and environmental components in play here that go beyond the suffering of abuse alone. And they are as responsible for their behavior as any criminal. Prisons are filled with people who meet DSM criteria, but that does not make them “criminally insane.”

To be “criminally insane" one has to meet certain criteria including not having conscious intent to do wrong (Mens Rea). Unless pedophiles suffer some something other than pedophilia, such as psychosis or severe mental retardation, they are in no way “criminally insane.”

JS makes an important point about "type" here as well and he is correct. It is important to keep in mind some working definitions. "Heterosexual" means attraction to an adult or like aged person of the opposite sex. "Homosexual" means attraction to an adult or like aged person of the same sex. "Pedophile" is an attraction of an adult to a pre-pubescent child. They are neither "gay" nor "straight" because that would require an attraction to an adult or same age person. Of course just as there are individuals who are bisexual, some pedophiles are attacted to both children and adults.

Pedophiles almost always have types. Some are attracted to preschoolers, some to preteens etc. Most have a gender preference. It is important to note that a pedophile may be completely attracted to boys from the ages of 8-12, for example, but as soon as that same child begins adolescence, they lose the attraction. Often men who are attracted to prepubescent boys will describe their attraction to the "hermaphrodite" qualities of the boy as he still has his childlike femininity (high voice, less body hair, less muscular) and when they lose this quality, the attraction goes with it and they move on to a younger boys.

Side note: While adults who have sex with underage minors who are post-pubescent are not technically pedophiles, they are still sex offenders. The word "child molester" can also be used in these instances as teenagers are still "children" even if the offender does not meet the definition of a "pedophile."

Remembering on World AIDS Day

A guest post by TikunOlam

People don't talk about AIDS the way they used to anymore. It is not the Humanitarian Cause of the Day. Perhaps because people are living longer lives with HIV/AIDS than they did in the 80s and 90s. Maybe it is because there are so many other causes such as the crisis in Darfur and the war against terrorism overshadowing the horror of HIV/AIDS.

When I was just starting out as a psychologist, I worked in a large medical center as a Staff Psychologist. Most of my referrals came from the Infectious Disease Department, so most of my patients were infected with HIV or already sick with AIDS. Every year, on World AIDS Day, the Infectious Disease Department would host a World AIDS Day program for the hospital and its patients. They would educate the attendees about preventing transmission of the disease, getting tested and going for treatment. They would also have a memorial service in which a candle was lit for each patient of the Infectious Disease Clinic who had died in the previous year. Every year some of my patients would die. Today, while I am thinking of them all, one patient stands out in my mind.

I was treating a woman with HIV. She was a former prostitute and drug addict who, with tremendous courage and hard work, became clean and sober when she found out that she was pregnant with her one and only child. Unfortunately, medicine not being what it is today, her child was born infected with HIV. My patient did everything she could to provide her daughter with the best life and medical care that she could. When I met my patient, her daughter was 6 years old. My patient was in relatively good health and her daughter's viral load was undetectable as she was on an effective medication regimen and her mother was vigilant about following the directions of the doctors. The little girl was absolutely adorable, the center of her mother's life.

About six months after I met my patient and her daughter, in a sick twist of fate, my patient's daughter was in a car accident. When she arrived by ambulance at the hospital's pediatric ICU, she was already brain dead. My patient asked me to sit with her in the PICU while she sat bedside with her daughter while her daughter was hooked up to assorted machines. My patient and I, along with some of her family members and other hospital staff held hands and said a prayer as we said goodbye to her little girl.

Today I remember my patient's courage and strength. Today I remember her little girl, who knew she had a disease, but didn't let it get in the way of being a happy, loving, little girl. Today I remember that the AIDS crisis is far from over and am hopeful that a day will come in which we have a cure.

Platonic relationships possible?

A guest post by TikunOlam

On the thread of my "What goes on in the bushes" post, one commenter wrote:

. . .The question of “is a real plutonic (sic) relationship possible between members of the opposite sex” is an age old question across all ethnicities and cultures. Anonymous | 11.24.08 - 11:03 am | #

Earlier, this is what JS had to say:

. . .In Chareidi society you only associate with the opposite sex for one reason and one reason only: to get married. Thus, interpersonal relationships between the sexes have only one purpose: sex. Thus, anyone who wants to or does associate with the other sex can only have illicit intentions. The idea of a platonic friendship, or even the idea of people liking each other but not acting on these feelings, seems impossible to a mentality where every inter-gender relationship is only sexual.To me, the biggest shame is that the opposite sex is looked at solely as a sexual object and not as a person. Thus, there are very strict gender roles, and anyone who tries to break these roles is too sexual and immoral.JS | 11.24.08 - 10:43 am | #

Where I stand:

I think the key is in where JS said, "the idea of a platonic friendship, or even the idea of people liking each other but not acting on these feelings, seems impossible to a mentality where every inter-gender relationship is only sexual."

I know that men and women can have platonic friendships. Not all men and women who are friends are attracted to each other in a sexual way. And as JS said, if there is an attraction between the two grown adults, they are fully capable of choosing not to act on that attraction. To say that platonic friendships are impossible, is to say humans are walking ids. They aren't. And those that are, won't be stopped by any rules forbidding them to associate with members of the opposite sex as walking ids tend to ignore rules like that.

---------
Buy my book. (please)

What happens in the bushes at MO camps?

A guest post by TikunOlam

DB's post about the anti-cellphone movement in the chareidi community got me thinking about something that happened to me when I was about 13 years old. Somehow this event was seared into my memory. I was an eighth grader shopping for the right high school. So I applied and interviewed at a number of schools across the OJ spectrum. The most right wing school that I applied to can best be described as an all girls school somewhat to the right of Bruriah and SKA but to the left of a Bais Yaakov.

On the day of the interview at this one school, I met with the principal. At some point in the interview she asked me where I went to camp over the summer. I told her that I went to camp X, a sleepaway camp that is best described as to the right of Seneca Lake but to the left of Camp Morasha (for the non-initiates, that would be kinda like centrist MO). The prinicipal responded with a look of repugnance on her face and said to me "I know what happens in that bushes at that camp." I must have looked confused, as at the age of 13 I had not a clue as to what was going on in the bushes of my camp. In fact, I couldn't even remember the camp having any bushes. She continued to press, as though she believed that I was just playing dumb or something by saying, "don't tell me you don't know what I am talking about."

So, I was scared away from the school. That conversation creeped me out.

It wasn't until a couple of years later, at the age of 15, when I was attended another MO sleepaway camp, that I even understood what she must have meant. At this particular sleepaway camp most of the campers, including myself, attended coed MO high school during the year. But there was a contingent of girls from one particular Brooklyn based all girls school that hid their attendance at this camp from the administration and teachers of their school as they were not allowed to attend coed camps. My friends and I called them the "(name of school) sluts." We didn't understand why they were so "easy," why they would take scissors to their skirts that they wore for Shabbat, or why they wore lip gloss on hikes. But when one of them got thrown out of camp after she was caught fooling around with a boy in the bushes, that conversation I had with the principal of that school finally made sense to me.

It is interesting to me, the Chareidi phobia of the runaway Id. Growing up MO I never understood the need for g'derot on top of g'derot on top of g'derot. This idea that teen cell phone use may lead to mixed sharing jokes which may lead to coed socializing which may lead to mixed dancing which may lead to teenage sex is so foreign to me. Sure, I think there should be supervision of children and teenager, but as a psychologist, I believe that the way to raise responsible young adults is to raise children to value themselves and understand that there are consequences to their actions. Children grow into fine and responsible adults when they have active and consistent parenting in which children are encouraged to develop strong senses of identity, and gradually trusted as they get older to rely on their own ability to control their impulses.

As a rule, I am against unnecessary rules with children. It sets up scenarios in which there will be excessive power struggles between youth and the authority figures in their lives. In fact, because the task of separation and individuation , is the most essential developmental task of adolescence, if too many restrictions are placed on teenagers, teenagers will inevitably not be able to resist the impulse to rebel. Finding their own sense of identity is the job of a teenagers and they need to be allowed to go through the process if they want to reach "Identity Acheivement." Once Identity Achievement has been reached, individuals no longer makes decisions based on fears of the law, punishment or going to hell as they are making life choices bases on a set of values and sense of identity that is internal and permanent. Or as the American Humanist Association is saying these day, they become "good for goodness' sake."

---------
Buy DB's book. (please)

Understanding Orthopraxy

A guest post by TikunOlam

I was reading through some of the comments on one of the most recent DB posts and this one got me thinking:

Zealot: DovBear, do you ever think about simply abandoning Orthodox Judaism? By now, I doubt you still believe in absolute truth. Why do you support these organizations if they do not represent your values? Conservative and Reform Judaism seem more appropriate.

DovBear: Where did this come from? And thank god you don't get to decide when I daven or how I live my life.

(Me: note to DB: not that you are saying that there is anything wrong with choosing to leave OJ and finding a fulfilling life in CJ or RJ of course. . .)

Zealot: It is an honest question to which you have never supplied an honest answer. There is nothing on your blog to indicate why a person should be part of an orthodox community. And your positions are consistently to the left of the most extreme left orthodox position. So why not drop the farce?

(Please note: the following is not an attempt at an answer on DB's behalf or in any way meant to label DB as Orthoprax versus OJ. It is simply some thoughts of mine that I felt like sharing regarding Orthopraxy in general.)

It is always interesting to me when people ask others why they stay a part of the OJ community when it seems that they don't share some or even many of the fundamental beliefs or values of the community. I am actually not at all perplexed as to why people stay. (For those who don't know me, I a person who left OJ due do agnosticism turned atheism and settled for membership in a CJ community).

The reasons for staying within the OJ community are varied, mostly legitimate and often even admirable. Just because one challenges the community or even the values or dogma of the community to which they belong, does not mean it is easy, necessary or even preferable to leave it.

Here are a few of the reasons that I understand for Orthopraxy:

1. Shalom Bayit (in my opinion, the most admirable reason of them all). Changing an entire lifestyle is hard enough when you are young, single, childless and mobile. Many of today's Orthoprax were truly OJ in terms of belief and practice on their wedding days and when they made joint decisions with their spouses as to how they would lead their lives together as a couple and as a family. Living an OJ lifestyle when one no longer is convinced of its "truth," or even value, is a compromise. But is a very mature and admirable one if the compromise is for the purpose of preserving a marriage and an intact family for ones children.

2. The OJ community is a values based one. It is a community of high moral and ethical standards. It supports strong families, honestly, charity and compassion. The lifestyle it offers protects individuals, in a higher proportions than most other available communities, from becoming involved in criminal activities, drug and alcohol addiction, infidelity and divorce. Leaving OJ also necessarily means going on a quest for an alternative, equal or superior way to lead your life and raise your children. This isn't easy for many, especially when you have already spent your entire life as a part of a community, that for the most part, already works for you.

3. Tradition, ritual and a sense of meaning and purpose. People lead emotionally and physically healthier lives when they believe that they are a part of something larger than themselves. People do not have to believe in all of the positions of their community to continue to derive a sense of meaning and purpose from being a member of it and upholding its traditions and rituals.

I am an outsider looking in, hypothesizing as to why Orthopraxy works for so many. Other ideas?

Getting to know Rahm Emanuel

A guest post by TikunOlam

As a reluctant Obama supporter, I have to say, I am quickly getting caught up with the excitement that is all over the place in my parts, where 75% (of people in my county where I not only live, but also work) voted for Obama and seem to be friendlier and happier all of a sudden. I mean, even DB seems less cranky and I am getting worried that he is going to lose his snarky edge. For me, learning more about Rahm Emanuel has added to that enthusiasm.

From the New York Times:
Rahm Emanuel
By CARL HULSE

As he prepares to take office, President-elect Barack Obama is relying on a small team of advisers who will lead his transition operation and help choose the members of a new Obama administration. Following is part of a series of profiles of potential members of the administration.

Name: Rahm Emanuel

New job: Has accepted Mr. Obama's offer to be the White House chief of staff.

Will bring to the job: An unusual hybrid of high-level experience as a top adviser to President Bill Clinton together with proven expertise as a Congressional leader and political strategist. Mr. Emanuel is also a close friend of Mr. Obama, a fellow Chicagoan.
As the No. 4 Democrat in the House and an architect of the Democratic majority, Mr. Emanuel knows Congress from the inside out after winning his seat in 2002. In the Clinton administration, he was aggressive, frequently profane and instrumental in shaping domestic policy on issues like health care, welfare and trade.

He earned the nickname Rahmbo for his determination and take-no-prisoners approach — an advantage when trying to bring a thorny issue to resolution, but a style that can be off-putting to those accustomed to gentility. In resigning his seat, Mr. Emanuel will be relinquishing a promising House career and aspirations to become speaker.

Is linked to Obama by: His Second City roots (Mr. Emanuel represents a slice of the north side of Chicago and adjoining suburbs) and his ties to the family of Mayor Richard M. Daley, which has been a source of support, guidance and experience for Mr. Emanuel, who was initially known for his fund-raising skills.

Mr. Obama has been close to Mr. Emanuel since arriving on Capitol Hill; Mr. Emanuel considers David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, to be one of his closest friends. The three share a common policy view and would make a formidable triumvirate in the White House. Mr. Emanuel found himself under pressure during the Democratic presidential primaries to back Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, given his relationship with her husband. But he stayed neutral and ultimately endorsed Mr. Obama.

In his own words: “We’re going to put in front of the American people the fundamental question of this election: Who’s going to change the economic policies in Washington that resulted in a lower standard of living for middle-class families?” From an Obama campaign conference call with reporters on Sept. 12, 2008.

Used to work as: An investment banker for three years after leaving the White House and before being elected to the House. He banked $16 million while handling mergers and acquisitions with an emphasis on utilities. In his youth, Mr. Emanuel badly cut a finger on a meat slicer while working at an Arby’s. The wound became infected, and he lost half of the middle finger on his right hand. The shortened digit is something of a trademark.

Carries as baggage: Mr. Emanuel’s stint in high finance and his experience in the banking world opens him to some criticism of being too allied with Wall Street, not the image Democrats want to cultivate these days. Critics have asserted he was only able to succeed in the banking world because of his political connections. Since he is part of the Daley circle, Mr. Emanuel’s appointment as chief of staff could also create the appearance of a White House that is too Chicago heavy. His manner can also create enemies, and Mr. Emanuel has ruffled the feathers of many on Capitol Hill, particularly black and Hispanic lawmakers.

Is otherwise known for: Training as a ballet dancer. And his brother, Ari Emanuel, a Hollywood agent, is the model for the abrasive agent Ari Gold in the HBO series “Entourage.”
Biography includes: Born Nov. 29, 1959, in Chicago ... liberal arts degree from Sarah Lawrence College, masters from Northwestern ... married to Amy Rule, three children ... a regular swimmer and a voracious reader, using his hours aboard airplanes to consume books ... served briefly as a civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

---------
Buy his book. (please)

Wallflower or MILF

A guest post by TikunOlam

So here on election day I am casting my half-hearted vote toward Obama. I really miss Hillary. She was my girl. I got to thinking, what if 2016 became about Hillary vs. Palin? Now, I am not saying that I think this will actually happen, but what if it did? Would the newspaper article that went with “Black or White” become “Wallflower or MILF” ? Would the more attractive candidate be taken more (or less) seriously than the less attractive one? Would level of attractiveness matter at all?

In case you didn't see it on SNL

A guest post by TikunOlam

I am thinking that Tina Fey would be make a better vice presidential nominee than Sarah Palin.

The latest SNL spoof, this time, on the debate.

http://tv.yahoo.com/saturday-night-live/show/194/videos/10037417

Foresight in 1999

A guest post by TikunOlam

Original New York Times Article from September 1999.

September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub prime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.''

Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called sub prime market.''Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the sub prime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.''

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by46.3 per cent.In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Tina and Amy do Sarah and Hillary

A guest post by TikunOlam

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin may be one of the best impressions of all time. . .

Remembering 9/11

A guest post by TikunOlam

Just wanted to take a moment to thank the heros of 9/11/01, the firefighters, police, EMS workers, Port Authority workers, volunteers and countless others who sacrificed their lives, or put their lives in danger on 9/11 to save others and for their tireless efforts to recover the bodies of the vicitms of that day.

Thank you to our soldiers who are protecting and fighting on behalf of this country in the name of keeping our way of life safe and secure.

You can see a tribute to some of the Jewish heros that were taken on 9/11 on Aish.com

DovBear is out of the closet

A guest post by TikunOlam

After I returned from Israel, I found myself trying to explain to DovBear how difficult it was to leave Israel. I tried to explain to him that being in Israel after so many years, when I once believed I would make aliyah, was like having a chance to see the road not taken. As much as I am content and happy with my current community and lifestyle, I still felt sad getting a glimpse of what might have been.

Trying to understand me, DB wondered out loud (for about the zillionth time) why I was so attached to Israel. He explained that it makes no sense to him. And then he made a big mistake. He told me that my feelings and attachment to Israel were like feelings and attachments that people have to their favorite summer camp. Well, I might have taken his statement in a way he didn’t mean it, so the conversation took a pretty heated turn. Not that this is the first, or even 100th time DB and I have had a heated conversation about Israel.

But then, the other day when I made DB buy me lunch, he outed himself by accident. See, I think he thinks that he has us all fooled. He thinks we actually buy this hardcore apathetic when it comes to Israel act. But I know the truth. And I felt it my duty to his readers to out him. And I think it would be good for his soul too. DovBear is a closet Israel lover. He just wants to be (annoyingly) argumentative because he thinks it’s cute to see me get all riled up, it makes for good blogging and makes him sound more interesting than your average Orthodox Jew. But I have proof that DB is just an ordinary knee-jerk Israel loving loon. With all the dishes on the menu, he chose the Israeli salad. And he liked it.

Next up, proof that DovBear is secretly W's biggest fan.

Bumper Stickers and Signs of the Holy Land

A guest post by TikunOlam

Was going through my Israel pictures which included some interesting bumper stickers, posters and signs. Thought some of my fellow Israelphiles might enjoy them too. Did the best I could to translate, please correct me if I am less than accurate and I will edit when I can.




[translation for the top: "we treat nature with respect"; translation for the bottom: "only travel on paths that are designated on the map" (the rest I can't make out)

Found on the back of the off-roading Jeep (believe me, we went off the map!) belonging to the guide who gave us an amazing tour of the Gush and brought us to the 400 meter (that is over 1000 feet) zipline (Omega) that my son and I did together.


(translation: "please stop and the gate and say hello ("peace") to the guard."

The sign that greets you when entering the yishuv in the Gush where we were staying most of our trip.


(in this picture the word "rimon" is yelled, which in Hebrew is both the word for pomegranate and grenade)

Some army humor at Latrun, a tank museum


(seen here with "na nach nacha nachman m'uman")


(translation for top: "good eye, good thoughts, good heart and lots and lots of joy." Under the happy eye it says "Rabbi Nachman" and as above, the "na nach nachma nachman m'uman"

The kinds of Breslau bumper stickers that are all over Israel

---------
Buy DovBear's book. (I wonder how many he has sold already)

Diversity in Israel and Diversity in America

A guest post by TikunOlam

So I have been spending most of my 2 weeks in Israel staying on a truly wonderful Dati yishuv. I was in conversation with one of the residents here about the yishuv and he explained that this particular yishuv is very "diverse." I asked how he could consider it diverse if they close the gates for shabbat and there is mandatory quiet time for 2 hours on shabbat! I mean, how diverse could it be? We agreed that it is all relative.

See, in case you are new around here, I am a very big fan of diversity. And when I mean diversity, I mean something more along the lines of the "diversity" that I have in my town in the USA. And there are certainly more diverse areas than where I live. Afterall, I live in area heavily populated by Jews. But where I live, when there is diversity among the Jews, that means that there are multiple shuls that include Orthodox, Chabad, Conservative and Reform. And of course my town has lots of people who are not Jewish. My neighbors on both sides are African American and considering how many different churches there are within ten minutes of my house, it seems that there is certainly a diversity of religions in my town as well. We don't have everyone represented in my town, I don't live in NYC, but I like and appreciate its diversity.

There are two major reasons that diversity is important to me. The first is that lack of exposure to "others" tends to breed fear of others which then leads to bigotry, stereotyping and prejudice. People who have had opportunities to befriend homosexuals, are less homophobic, Blacks who have had positive relationships with Whites are less racist etc. It is not a mystery as to why there is far less bigotry in the big cities than there is in rural America, it is exposure to and experience with people who are different that makes all the difference.

As a Caucasian Jew who works mostly with African Amercian staff and patients, I have had countless experiences being told by African Americans with little exposure to Whites or Jews things like, "White people aren't so bad once you get to know them" or "I didn't realize that Jews also believed in . . . (usually something humane, prosocial, charitable)."

For Jews, it concerns me even more when diversity is limited to "well here some people have TVs and some people don't. On some yishuvs it is not as diverse." I can certainly see why the insularity is appealing to so many. People want to be around people who share their values. They want their children raised with certain beliefs that are reinforced by everyone around them. They enjoy the extended, supportive experience of having a community that serves as a big extended family.

But the downside, in my opinion, is that it is also important to teach children that the world is a diverse place where there are people of value to meet in every walk of life. By virtue of hiding children from a diverse world, the message given is that the world out there is not as good as our world, we want to keep those others out of our lives, others are unsafe, or less desirable. And in a country where Jews have such a difficult time seeing eye to eye on so many things political and sociological, it seems it would be especially important to raise children side by side with their differently Jewish brethren. Raise them to respect each other and understand where the other is coming from.

The second reason that I think that diversity is important is that I believe that the sum of a group of diverse people is infinitely more than the sum of its parts. When you spend time only with people like you, you don't grow, you don't develop new ideas, new ways of thinking or new ways to solve problems. And with all the hate and war in this world, and both in Israel and the U.S. - so much of it based in difference between peoples, I think that it is so important for people to get out of their comfort zone, at least once in a while, to build relationships with people different than themselves.


---------
Buy his book already. (it is what all the cool kids are doing)

Only in Israel

A guest post by TikunOlam

Being in Israel, I find that more than once a day, I am saying to myself, "only in Israel." Here are a few sighting and observations that come to mind:

1. Na Nach Nachman M'uman graffitti, bumper stickers and pom-pom white kippot

2. An 8 or 9 year boy dressed completely as a girl in a pizza shop in Tsfat - does anyone know what this is about?

3. The buff lifeguard at the Dead Sea with the "Chai" nipple ring

4. A man using his tzizit as a scarf at a Klezmer concert

5. The angry driver that kept going on and on yelling at my husband for "losing his mind" in Hebrew even when my husband kept insisting that he didn't understand a word he was saying

5. Jews living in the middle of nowhere and building extensions to their caravans to accommodate growing families

6. Rabbis carrying guns to shul

7. Pants worn under dresses as the hip new frum "style"

8. "Ani Tapuach" graffiti

9. Children able to play at the park without adult supervision

10. Kosher McDonalds, Burger King and KFC

11. Dati women with nose rings


---------Buy Dovbear's book. (and make it the most successful blogger book of all time!)

From over the green line

A guest post by TikunOlam

Before I discuss some of my observations of yeshuvniks after spending a Shabbat in the Gush, a couple of things:

First off, just wanted to clarify something. The blogger "LadyLight" who writes the blog "Tikkun Olam" and I are not the same person. Her blog, Tikkun Olam, is very good and I would recommend that you give it a visit. When I chose a name back in January of this year, I was new to the blogging world. DovBear had asked me if he could post an email that I had written him, and unaware that there was already a blog with this title, I chose TikunOlam as my handle. My apologies to LadyLight for using her blog's name and my thanks to her for allowing me to continue using the handle without so much as a complaint. So for those who asked, I can only be found here on DovBear and have no intention of starting my own blog.

Secondly, I apologize for posting and running after my last post on visiting the kotel. I was off hiking to Monfort that day and by the time I was able to see the thread and respond, the thread was dead. If anyone is interested in my responses to comments - I commented at the end of the thread.

So I spent my first Shabbat in Israel at a dati yeshuv (religious settlement) just over the Green Line - or as my brother-in-law (who lives in another part of Israel) refers to it, a yeshuv that exists against international law. With all my time spent following Israeli political discussions on the blogs, in the papers and with family members, I paid attention in a very different way than I had ever before to thoughts and experiences of dati Israelis and settlers and the arguments for an against the many versions of land for peace

It is amazing to me how it seems that every person that I talk to seems to be able to argue both sides of every argument. For all the accusations made by "left-wingers" of the "right-wingers" for being "knee jerk" war-mongers who argue blindly without thinking for themselves, I am finding nothing of the sort. And this was with spending time with the most gung-ho yeshuvniks living on a surreal mountain top where there was nothing, before they built their beautiful community.

They seem to be able to argue Israel's right to develop Yehuda and Shomron one minute and express their sympathy and distress over the treatment of the Arabs living in those areas the next minute. One reservist discussed how on reserve duty he was responsible for protecting some Israeli school children as they traveled to school. Due to whatever route they needed to protect, it forced Arab school children to walk a number of miles out of their way in order to go to their schools. This reservest was horrified watching these children struggle just to get to school.

Others talk about how they could never imagine places like Efrat being evacuated but at the same time talk of how maybe it would be better if both Jews and Arabs would be treated the same way at checkpoints - how it would be better if all were treated with equal respect and dignity as they travel outside of the occupied areas' borders. One articulated how Arab children observing their fathers treated suspiciously, and sometimes disrespectfully, at check points only proves to promote further distrust, hostility and hate in the next generation.

So what I am finding is what I tend to argue is almost always true once you get to know (reasonably sane) people who are members of any political or religious group. People, even the ones who are accused of being "right-wing loons" are rarely "loons" and they are, in fact, three dimensional and able to think in shades of gray. On blogs and in politics they may make loud proclimations in the extremes, but sit down with them for dinner, and I've found, not at all surprisingly, that holding strong opinions does not make people blind to the arguments in conflict with their own.


---------
Buy DovBear's book. (please - it is really good, I've seen it and I even get acknowledged in it!)

Checking in from the Holy Land

A guest post by TikunOlam

Shalom u'Bracha from the Holy Land. I am here visiting for two weeks after not having been here in 15 years. Entering Israel after so many years, the first thing I noticed was how much had changed. Everything is more modern and westernized, the airport, the roads, the shopping centers. And of course, there are whole towns where there once were bare mountains including Ramat Beit Shemesh, where I have been staying for the first couple of nights.

But with all the change around me, what I found on the first day visiting the Kotel for the first time in 15 years was that what had changed most since the last time I had been here seems to be me.

I insisted that my family visit the Kotel the first day we were in Israel. My husband didn't understand why, as I have not been a religious person in so many years, but I couldn't imagine introducing my children to Israel without making the Kotel our first official stop.

The experience of the Kotel, for me, was so different now then it was the last time I was here. As now, it is my first time in Israel as a non-religious person. So while my children went to touch the wall, put little prayers into the kotel, I found that I had no desire at all. I discovered that the spirituality I once felt at the Kotel that was once powerful enough to move me to tears, didn't exist inside me anymore. Instead, what moved me most this time, was being able to watch people who were obviously seeing the Kotel for the first time, experiencing that wave of emotion that I was once able to feel.

One particularly powerful moment was when I witnessed two young people with their hands covering the eyes of their friend until he became close enough to the Kotel to get a full view. When they uncovered his eyes, he couldn't move, he just stood and stared. His experience of awe was almost palpable. I think I miss being able to feel that way.