If you can believe it, Saint Obama has now released an ad in which he criticizes a former POW and a mommie with a pregnant daughter. Gosh darn liberals. How dare they make this election about issues, when all that matters is the candidate's character and personal story.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
YWN, gross as always
Dear YeshivaWorld Editor:
I laughed out loud when I read this sentence at the begining of your article about the trangendered male at YU "It pains us to post the following editorial submitted to YWN, but we were left with no alternative."
Who do you think you're fooling? No alternative? What about suppressing it, as you did with Kolko? Why wasn't that an alternative, you disingenuous fraud?
You posted this article simply because you understand that the vicious hate-filled lunatics who read your reposted, stolen articles (ie. the "Yeshiva World") love that stuff. It's red meat, and you know it. Like any blogger, including me, you're trying to rile people up, so they come back to your site.
That's fine, and in part, I'm writing to congratulate you on being provocative, but I am also writing to smack you upside the head for doing something that utterly mean spirited and anti-Semitic. How can you honestly claim to be representing anything Jewish, to be representative of the Yeshiva World, when you do nothing but spread hatred among different types of Jews?
Anyway, happy Elul, you faker.
DovBear
---------
Buy my book. (please)
I laughed out loud when I read this sentence at the begining of your article about the trangendered male at YU "It pains us to post the following editorial submitted to YWN, but we were left with no alternative."
Who do you think you're fooling? No alternative? What about suppressing it, as you did with Kolko? Why wasn't that an alternative, you disingenuous fraud?
You posted this article simply because you understand that the vicious hate-filled lunatics who read your reposted, stolen articles (ie. the "Yeshiva World") love that stuff. It's red meat, and you know it. Like any blogger, including me, you're trying to rile people up, so they come back to your site.
That's fine, and in part, I'm writing to congratulate you on being provocative, but I am also writing to smack you upside the head for doing something that utterly mean spirited and anti-Semitic. How can you honestly claim to be representing anything Jewish, to be representative of the Yeshiva World, when you do nothing but spread hatred among different types of Jews?
Anyway, happy Elul, you faker.
DovBear
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Thesis: Antithesis: Synthesis-Man: Woman: Trasgendered
A Guest Post by The Bray of Fundie
YU's weltanschaung of Torah U'Madah is alternatively known as Tsintez or synthesis. This expression evokes the Hegelian dialectic. I grew up in a different Yeshiva and am no expert on this Hashqafa but the very phrase seems to say we have two antithetical concepts which can be successfully harmonized in a unified approach.
Far be it from me to declare masculinity and femininity antithetical to one another but YU literature professor Jay/Joy Ladin seems to have raised the "synthesis" concept to unimagined heights. (Or depending on one's POV plunged it to unplumbed depths)
While DovBear is upset at Rabbi Moshe Tendler's reaction I am upset with YU Presidents Richard Joel who declined comment, except to say,
"I'm proud of my university and all my faculty. "
Certainly his comments weren't motivated by homophobia. But neither were they informed by yiras shomayim or ahavas Yisrael. His response is that of the craven compromised fund-raiser cowed by political correctness and a fear of all-too-real ACLU discrimination lawsuits and/or NY Times op-ed condemnations. He fears these far more than an immaterial unseen Deity.
Wonder what the Rov would say. If this story has legs I predict that it will roil the MO world at least as much as Noah Feldman did.
Buy DovBears book. (please)
YU's weltanschaung of Torah U'Madah is alternatively known as Tsintez or synthesis. This expression evokes the Hegelian dialectic. I grew up in a different Yeshiva and am no expert on this Hashqafa but the very phrase seems to say we have two antithetical concepts which can be successfully harmonized in a unified approach.
Far be it from me to declare masculinity and femininity antithetical to one another but YU literature professor Jay/Joy Ladin seems to have raised the "synthesis" concept to unimagined heights. (Or depending on one's POV plunged it to unplumbed depths)
While DovBear is upset at Rabbi Moshe Tendler's reaction I am upset with YU Presidents Richard Joel who declined comment, except to say,
"I'm proud of my university and all my faculty. "
Certainly his comments weren't motivated by homophobia. But neither were they informed by yiras shomayim or ahavas Yisrael. His response is that of the craven compromised fund-raiser cowed by political correctness and a fear of all-too-real ACLU discrimination lawsuits and/or NY Times op-ed condemnations. He fears these far more than an immaterial unseen Deity.
Wonder what the Rov would say. If this story has legs I predict that it will roil the MO world at least as much as Noah Feldman did.
Buy DovBears book. (please)
Here and queer at YU
Speaking about a transgendered member of the Yeshiva University faculty, Rabbi Moshe Tendler said:
Even if we stipulate that this fellow is homosexual, I imagine a school as large as YU employs Sabbath desecrators, adulterers, people who loan at interest, bug-eaters, and other sundry and assorted sinners. I don't recall Tendler objecting to that. So why is he asking the university to follow a unique set of rules when the sinner is a transgendered man? (See above: Homophobia)
"He's not a woman. He's a male with enlarged breasts. He's a person who represents a kind of amorality which runs counter to everything Yeshiva University stands for. There is just no leeway in Jewish law for a transsexual. There is no niche where he can hide out as a female without being in massive violation of Torah law, Torah ethics and Torah morality."Query: Where in the Torah does it say that a man may not have large breasts? I've been to the pool, and know that many of our kugel-eating co-religonists could do with a Man-zier. Are they likewise amoral? Has this man done anything aside from enlarging his breasts? (No.) Has he committed any sin? (Perhaps; but in private.) So what precisely has the good Rabbi bent out of shape? (Homophobia.)
Even if we stipulate that this fellow is homosexual, I imagine a school as large as YU employs Sabbath desecrators, adulterers, people who loan at interest, bug-eaters, and other sundry and assorted sinners. I don't recall Tendler objecting to that. So why is he asking the university to follow a unique set of rules when the sinner is a transgendered man? (See above: Homophobia)
An irresponsible bit of constitutional speculation
If John McCain is elected president, and dies while he is in office will we have a constitutional crises? I'm no scholar of the constitution, but I have read the thing and I note that Aritcle 2 employs a masculine pronoun when it refers to the president:
[Note: I'm not seriously suggesting that the constitution, as written, excludes women from the highest office of the land. Rather, I'm mocking strict constructionism, the philosophy of judicial interpretation that insists we be subject to the errors, omissions and prejudices of the founding generation.]
- "He shall hold."
- "...receive for his Services..."
- "he shall take the following Oath."
[Note: I'm not seriously suggesting that the constitution, as written, excludes women from the highest office of the land. Rather, I'm mocking strict constructionism, the philosophy of judicial interpretation that insists we be subject to the errors, omissions and prejudices of the founding generation.]
Dealing with Interfaith Marriage
A guest post by JS
Writing this post is a lot more difficult than I thought it would be, mostly because I'm a lot more conflicted than I thought I would be. As a practicing, MO Jew I have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear about intermarriage. But beyond being MO, as a grandchild of Holocaust survivors, I grew up just knowing that intermarriage was the gravest possible sin for which there was no atonement possible. And while I hate those who toss around Holocaust metaphors so flippantly, there was always the tacit specter of Hitler whenever the subject of intermarriage was brought up - how could one marry a non-Jew and give up his own and his children's Jewishness when no more than 60 years ago people were being gassed and cremated for their Jewishness?
So when I saw an article in Ha'Aretz entitled "How can grandparents make their interfaith grandkids more Jewish?" I was livid. My immediate reaction to the article's title was a snarky "Maybe you wouldn't have to be asking this question if you made your household and your kids more Jewish!" The article is about a new organization called Granparents Circle and a new book entitled "Twenty Things for Grandparents of Interfaith Grandchildren To Do (And Not Do) To Nurture Jewish Identity in Their Grandchildren" which intend to help Jewish grandparents pass some Judaism over to their grandchildren who are the product of interfaith marriages.
The following story from the article really bothered me:
[W]hen Kurowski threw a Hanukkah party...To Kurowski's dismay, her daughter - whose husband is Christian - hung three Christmas stockings on the mantel. When Kurowski asked for the stockings to be taken down, her daughter was offended. As it turned out, the stockings had been handmade by the children's other grandmother. "When I talked about it in the grandparents Circle, I came to realize it was my problem," Kurowski said. "And instead of focusing on what I didn't like, I should be thrilled with the fact that they were having a Hanukkah party."
Again, knee-jerk reaction: "It's this pluralism and acceptance of anything and everything, including your daughter's chutzpah in your own home, that led to this issue in the first place!"
And this picture from the organization was just over the top:
But then, of course, the situation hits home and the wind is suddenly taken out of your sails. A relative of ours is marrying out of the faith. The fact that he's been an atheist for many years doesn't make it any easier to deal with. And it's all the more difficult because we're all very close with this relative and couldn't imagine cutting him out of our lives or ripping kriah or sitting shiva. Nonetheless, many family members are not attending the wedding and some will only go to the reception (which ironically will be glatt kosher) and not the ceremony. And this relative's mother (whose other child is married to a Jew) will one day (do you say God willing?) become a grandmother - one of the grandmothers in the article above. And suddenly all the snarkiness and sarcasm goes away and you're just confused and you don't know what to think - after all is it his fault Judaism never had anything to offer him? Should he be forced to marry a Jew to make his family happy? Does it even matter if he marries a Jew if he wouldn't raise them Jewish anyway? And you realize human drama isn't black and white and there are no easy answers and while knee-jerk reactions provide momentary relief they don't offer long-term solutions.
---------
Buy DB's book. (I'm eagerly awaiting my copy in the mail)
Writing this post is a lot more difficult than I thought it would be, mostly because I'm a lot more conflicted than I thought I would be. As a practicing, MO Jew I have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear about intermarriage. But beyond being MO, as a grandchild of Holocaust survivors, I grew up just knowing that intermarriage was the gravest possible sin for which there was no atonement possible. And while I hate those who toss around Holocaust metaphors so flippantly, there was always the tacit specter of Hitler whenever the subject of intermarriage was brought up - how could one marry a non-Jew and give up his own and his children's Jewishness when no more than 60 years ago people were being gassed and cremated for their Jewishness?
So when I saw an article in Ha'Aretz entitled "How can grandparents make their interfaith grandkids more Jewish?" I was livid. My immediate reaction to the article's title was a snarky "Maybe you wouldn't have to be asking this question if you made your household and your kids more Jewish!" The article is about a new organization called Granparents Circle and a new book entitled "Twenty Things for Grandparents of Interfaith Grandchildren To Do (And Not Do) To Nurture Jewish Identity in Their Grandchildren" which intend to help Jewish grandparents pass some Judaism over to their grandchildren who are the product of interfaith marriages.
The following story from the article really bothered me:
[W]hen Kurowski threw a Hanukkah party...To Kurowski's dismay, her daughter - whose husband is Christian - hung three Christmas stockings on the mantel. When Kurowski asked for the stockings to be taken down, her daughter was offended. As it turned out, the stockings had been handmade by the children's other grandmother. "When I talked about it in the grandparents Circle, I came to realize it was my problem," Kurowski said. "And instead of focusing on what I didn't like, I should be thrilled with the fact that they were having a Hanukkah party."
Again, knee-jerk reaction: "It's this pluralism and acceptance of anything and everything, including your daughter's chutzpah in your own home, that led to this issue in the first place!"
And this picture from the organization was just over the top:
But then, of course, the situation hits home and the wind is suddenly taken out of your sails. A relative of ours is marrying out of the faith. The fact that he's been an atheist for many years doesn't make it any easier to deal with. And it's all the more difficult because we're all very close with this relative and couldn't imagine cutting him out of our lives or ripping kriah or sitting shiva. Nonetheless, many family members are not attending the wedding and some will only go to the reception (which ironically will be glatt kosher) and not the ceremony. And this relative's mother (whose other child is married to a Jew) will one day (do you say God willing?) become a grandmother - one of the grandmothers in the article above. And suddenly all the snarkiness and sarcasm goes away and you're just confused and you don't know what to think - after all is it his fault Judaism never had anything to offer him? Should he be forced to marry a Jew to make his family happy? Does it even matter if he marries a Jew if he wouldn't raise them Jewish anyway? And you realize human drama isn't black and white and there are no easy answers and while knee-jerk reactions provide momentary relief they don't offer long-term solutions.
---------
Buy DB's book. (I'm eagerly awaiting my copy in the mail)
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Dignity!
Do the dignity-loving Republicans believe they are acting in a dignified manner when they (a) create from whole cloth the idea that Obama has a messiah complex, and then (b) mock him for it?
(Personally, I mock everything, but, unlike the Republicans, my long-standing opposition to dignity is on the record.)
---------
Buy my book. (please)
(Personally, I mock everything, but, unlike the Republicans, my long-standing opposition to dignity is on the record.)
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Guess who met with Kadaffi yesterday???
Hint: It wasn't Obama, the man those child-like Republicans love to mock for just about anything, but specifically his stated desire to negotiate with our enemies.
I see its okay when George W. Bush talks to terrorists when he could be bombing them instead, but why?
---------
Buy my book. (please)
I see its okay when George W. Bush talks to terrorists when he could be bombing them instead, but why?
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Divorced from reality
Asks Krugman:
Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern elites”?Why yes, of course they can. These are Republicans, and their relationship with the truth is always tenuous. It's why, for instance, Palin manages to tell us, again and again that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere when she campaigned for governor supporting it. Let's hope Obama has the brains and the courage to give us a Sarah-the-flip-flopper commercial --and maybe it can end with McCain hugging an evangelical as we hear him in the voice over telling us that "Jerry Falwell is an agent of intolerance."
Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, “marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently “cosmopolitan”?
Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running against the “Washington
elite”?
Friday, September 05, 2008
Tradition
Of line, I've been speaking to readers who find my blog subversive. "You're trying to drive people away from traditional Judaism" is one complaint I've recently fielded.
I don't mean to sound rude and dismissive, but I think that's absurd. I'm not trying to drive people to do anything but think. I don't mock the traditional view, but the idea that what you learned in cheder is the whole, and only, traditional story. See, I like ideas; anyone who refuse to engage them makes me suspicious. Put everything on the table and talk about it, I say, and the truth will come out. So many of the so-called religious blogs take the opposite, more propaganda-driven approach. They delete comments. They argue dishonestly. They omit to mention all the facts. The censor the parts of the Mesorah they find unsavory.
In my own short life I've seen the damage this approach has done. "Traditional" Judaism is narrower now that it was 20 years ago. Ideas, practices and approaches our parents and grandparents found "traditional" are now beyond the pale. [Related] The real estate a "traditional Jew" can comfortably occupy gets slimmer every day.
That's a trend worth fighting.
On this blogs, I do lots of things, and share lots of thoughts. Some of what I say and do in the book is quasi-heretical, but more often what I put forward is a traditional view (i.e. a Rashbam, or Midrash) that's so far forgotten people imagine its message is "non-traditional."
For instance, there is plenty of room WITHIN the radition for saying that what we have today is not a letter-for-letter match with the Torah Moshe received. It's perfectly TRADITIONAL to cite the Ibn Ezra, Avot d'rabi Nathan, Rav Yosef in Kiddushin 30a, the Radak, the Ramah, R. Yom Tov Lipman Milhausen, and all the other TRADITIONAL sources that recognize this.
Isn't it? And there are many more examples of this kind.
---------
Buy my book. (and see more examples of what I mean.)
I don't mean to sound rude and dismissive, but I think that's absurd. I'm not trying to drive people to do anything but think. I don't mock the traditional view, but the idea that what you learned in cheder is the whole, and only, traditional story. See, I like ideas; anyone who refuse to engage them makes me suspicious. Put everything on the table and talk about it, I say, and the truth will come out. So many of the so-called religious blogs take the opposite, more propaganda-driven approach. They delete comments. They argue dishonestly. They omit to mention all the facts. The censor the parts of the Mesorah they find unsavory.
In my own short life I've seen the damage this approach has done. "Traditional" Judaism is narrower now that it was 20 years ago. Ideas, practices and approaches our parents and grandparents found "traditional" are now beyond the pale. [Related] The real estate a "traditional Jew" can comfortably occupy gets slimmer every day.
That's a trend worth fighting.
On this blogs, I do lots of things, and share lots of thoughts. Some of what I say and do in the book is quasi-heretical, but more often what I put forward is a traditional view (i.e. a Rashbam, or Midrash) that's so far forgotten people imagine its message is "non-traditional."
For instance, there is plenty of room WITHIN the radition for saying that what we have today is not a letter-for-letter match with the Torah Moshe received. It's perfectly TRADITIONAL to cite the Ibn Ezra, Avot d'rabi Nathan, Rav Yosef in Kiddushin 30a, the Radak, the Ramah, R. Yom Tov Lipman Milhausen, and all the other TRADITIONAL sources that recognize this.
Isn't it? And there are many more examples of this kind.
---------
Buy my book. (and see more examples of what I mean.)
Wrong on Iraq
A guest post by JS
Obama is going to have some explaining to do if McCain and the media have anything to say about it.
In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, the following (excerpted) exchange took place. I have placed my comments in red:
MR. O'REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge. And I think you should admit it to the nation ... So why won't you say, I was right in the beginning, I was wrong about that?
SEN. OBAMA: I think that there's no doubt that the violence is down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.
And yet McCain and Leiberman famously endorsed the surge and called for at least 20,000 more troops when it was first formally present by the AEI on January 5, 2007. Leiberman added at the time that McCain “is taking a position that is not based on putting his finger in the air and gauging the direction of the political winds. He is doing what he sincerely believes is best for the national security and safety of our country…. John’s taking a gutsy position.”
Obama had this to say in January 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse...I don't think the president's strategy is going to work...the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment."
MR. O'REILLY: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.
SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double-down and continue on open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure in the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile --
MR. O'REILLY: It worked. Come on.
SEN. OBAMA: Bill, what I've said is -- I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
Or just Obama and the other Dem's wildest dreams.
MR. O'REILLY: Right! So why can't you just say, I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?
SEN. OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we've done. We have reduced the violence but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month.
Way to spin the issue. Keep setting a moving target so we can never declare victory. Anyone with common sense would realize political solutions in Iraq and decreased US spending can't happen without there first being security in the country.
So, will McCain make hay of it? We'll see. Obama already admitted the Surge worked to Katie Couric back in July.
Transcripts:
Katie Couric Interview
Bill O'Reilly Interview
---------
Buy DB's book. (I finally did)
Obama is going to have some explaining to do if McCain and the media have anything to say about it.
In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, the following (excerpted) exchange took place. I have placed my comments in red:
MR. O'REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge. And I think you should admit it to the nation ... So why won't you say, I was right in the beginning, I was wrong about that?
SEN. OBAMA: I think that there's no doubt that the violence is down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters.
And yet McCain and Leiberman famously endorsed the surge and called for at least 20,000 more troops when it was first formally present by the AEI on January 5, 2007. Leiberman added at the time that McCain “is taking a position that is not based on putting his finger in the air and gauging the direction of the political winds. He is doing what he sincerely believes is best for the national security and safety of our country…. John’s taking a gutsy position.”
Obama had this to say in January 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse...I don't think the president's strategy is going to work...the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment."
MR. O'REILLY: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.
SEN. OBAMA: No. Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double-down and continue on open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure in the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile --
MR. O'REILLY: It worked. Come on.
SEN. OBAMA: Bill, what I've said is -- I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
Or just Obama and the other Dem's wildest dreams.
MR. O'REILLY: Right! So why can't you just say, I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?
SEN. OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we've done. We have reduced the violence but the Iraqis still haven't taken a responsibility. And we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month.
Way to spin the issue. Keep setting a moving target so we can never declare victory. Anyone with common sense would realize political solutions in Iraq and decreased US spending can't happen without there first being security in the country.
So, will McCain make hay of it? We'll see. Obama already admitted the Surge worked to Katie Couric back in July.
Transcripts:
Katie Couric Interview
Bill O'Reilly Interview
---------
Buy DB's book. (I finally did)
Thursday, September 04, 2008
I hate this template
I want this one instead, but it's turning out to be a pain to customize. For me at least. If any of you geniuses out there can make this template work with all my existing stuff (blogads, blog roll, etc) I'll give you a free book.
---------
Buy my book. (Save $5)
---------
Buy my book. (Save $5)
God, Conservatives are idiots
A great clip, from a great American, showing exactly how corrupt Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris et al are. Just astonishing.
HT: TBOTH
Swear Obama In
by the Bray of Fundie
Well McCain's little ploy to balance the ticket backfired big time. Real Conservatives don't like McCain and they will see through this transparent VP hypocrite in an instant.
To my way of thinking all politicians are avaricious, amoral creatures. Voting is a pragmatic exercise in choosing the least malodorous stench while betting on the nominees likelihood to exercise Machiavellian Pavlovian choices most consistent with one owns socioeconomic agenda. But a supposed conservative outsourcing child-care for her own Down-syndrome baby while parenting yet another baby having a baby takes the cake.
To paraphrase the new GOP rising star the only difference between a pit-bull without lipstick and a pit-bull with lipstick is that the former is a hound while the latter is a b**ch.
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Well McCain's little ploy to balance the ticket backfired big time. Real Conservatives don't like McCain and they will see through this transparent VP hypocrite in an instant.
To my way of thinking all politicians are avaricious, amoral creatures. Voting is a pragmatic exercise in choosing the least malodorous stench while betting on the nominees likelihood to exercise Machiavellian Pavlovian choices most consistent with one owns socioeconomic agenda. But a supposed conservative outsourcing child-care for her own Down-syndrome baby while parenting yet another baby having a baby takes the cake.
To paraphrase the new GOP rising star the only difference between a pit-bull without lipstick and a pit-bull with lipstick is that the former is a hound while the latter is a b**ch.
---------
Buy my book. (please)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)