Brent Bozell, Give Me a Break

As someone who grew up without a TV, I have to say I have very little sympathy for the various campaigns to clean up shows, lawsuits against networks, letter-writing to the FCC, etc. Sure, TV can be nasty. But you simply don't have to have one in your house. It was your choice to bring it in. And once you did, there's always the "Off" switch and channel changer. I guess it doesn't help matters that my political bent makes me wonder why the government has power to regulate airwaves in the first place.

Speaking of TV, go to the Seinfeld site and see their Barney Martin retrospective. R.I.P., Morty.

I can't believe I let last weekend go by without mentioning Wilbur McLean, Ely S. Parker, or, of course, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. Remind me again next year. Meanwhile, I'll try to remember Lexington and Concord next week.

It's always a good time to quote Wilde (this time on Dickens): "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing." I feel that way often when I hear a particularly bombastic pulpit rabbi. I had to muffle my cackles and groans last Monday, at what ended up being quite a good presentation at the YU Museum (another one, yes). Ironically, yesterday's paper brought us news of Neusner (hee), whose theories (thankfully not accepted) would challenge Professor Elman's. The presentations were remarkable, and my brother, who asked the only questions, rocks. But, again, I'm glad I don't go to a synagogue with a rabbi who speaks like that.

One ironic point about the Museum exhibition. There's a section that shows Talmuds and related books that were printed for anti-Semitic purposes- to "prove" how evil it is, to convert the Jews, etc. I found a nice symmetry in the computers at one end of the exhibit that allowed you to surf various Talmud-related sites. One link was to a site with large sections of the Soncino translation transcribed- and it's a vicious anti-Semitic site.

Let me close with a quote from Mugger. I think I've commented on this phenomenon (acceptance of homosexuality "ruining" male friendship, and our view of it) before, but he puts it quite well:

You can flip to almost any page of The New York Times and find an objectionable article—Cranky Frank Rich is the gold standard—but it's been at least a week since I've read anything as stupid as Jennifer 8. Lee's [Gag- NL] April 10 piece about "man dates." Lee explains that a "man date" is when two heterosexual men get together for an activity in which neither sports or business is involved.

She writes: "Anyone who finds a date with a potential romantic partner to be a minefield of unspoken rules should consider the man date, a rendezvous between two straight men that is even more socially perilous."

Why is this "socially perilous"? Apparently, in today's culture, at least according to this dippy writer, two men going to a movie or dinner together could lead to the conclusion that they're gay.

It wasn't so long ago that such an excursion was called "hanging out."

Later, y'all. And if I don't see you before the weekend, have a good one!

In a review of the new movie "Fever Pitch," Manohla Dargis writes:

Other than the fact that she looks like Drew Barrymore and is impossibly
beautiful, Lindsey is just like any other overworked single woman who has ever
turned a blind eye to a beer gut, a receding hair line and years of indulgent
mothering for a date.

Now, Ms. Dargis may be revealing a bit too much of herself here. But my reaction came from an ancient Greek epigram, courtesy of an old National Geographic volume: The Cnidians bought a statue of Aphrodite sculpted by Praxiteles, who used the courtesan Phryne as a model. (The statue had been made for the people of Cos, but they rejected it because it was, shockingly, nude.) The statue was said to be so true to "life" that the saying arose:

"The Cyprian (Aphrodite) said when she saw the Cyprian of Cnidus, 'Alas, where
did Praxiteles see me naked?'"

As long as I'm revealing some of myself, today I attended an event that marked the opening of the YU Museum's new exhibit on the Talmud. (I highly- highly- recommend it, by the way). In any event, this event was a tribute to the late Jerome Schottenstein, with speeches by Richard Joel, Norman Lamm, Nosson Sherman, Adin Steinsaltz, and many others, and it once again led me to a topic I've been considering the last few days. (Obsessive? Moi?) Basically, how is it that people accomplish so much in their lives? I see hugely accomplished and knowledgeable CEOs, for example, taking over in their mid forties or early fifties. And to imagine- to take this a step further- that all of that will be gone from the world, through retirement and, eventually, death, in no time at all!

Eh. I'm soon to turn thirty. (And have accomplished...) The morbid thoughts will pass. In the meantime, here are some more cheerful photos. Have a great week, all!

In light of the events of today, I figured I'd finally post some shots from my trip to Israel (as part of the OU Convention) last November. The whole week was awesome, but the capper was the last day (or was it? it's been too long), with Shacharit at sunrise at the Kotel (a cacophony multiple and diverse minyanim all going silent at once), touring the new Southern Wall excavations, and more as the day continued. Oh, and in between those two mentioned events, a walk around the Har HaBayit. I have many shots, but this, I think, is the best, and the closest we got to the actual Makom HaMikdash.

Here's a nice shot of Masada taken from our bus as we approached it (a few days before the previous). 

Here's a closer shot. The top, of course, more than lived up to the view from below. Come to think, that whole day was pretty good. 

News Roundup

Arutz-7 email news yesterday led off with a story which, interestingly, does not appear on their website. In all likelihood, they got the story from here, explaining the delay. In any event, I wanted to take the opportunity to debunk a bunch of tired cliches used by the distinguished rabbonim here:

1. "Elevating the Land into an Avodah Zara" is a despicable argument, akin to Godwin's Law. I won't bother with it.

2. "There's no mitzvah to risk one's life for the Land" is just stupid. Even if we accept the bloodless fantasies of various midrashim, war, by definition, involves risk to life. And war is commanded to conquer the Land. (One can argue if it applied pre-1948, but with five million Jews in Israel, it's academic.) If this argument was true, there'd be no justification for any of the wars of Moshe, Yehoshua, the Shoftim, the Kings, Nechemiah, the Maccabim, Bat Kochba...or the IDF, to this day. After all, we can just leave. While Yehoshua is the most obvious example, I find Yiftach even more compelling, as he's dealing with another nation that has a semi-legitimate claim on land that's not even Biblical Israel and is offering true peace for it. He rejects the offer. (Don't say I can't quote Nakh. R. Lamm does.) Finally, all of this happens to have implications for practical halakha, in the Shulchan Aruch.

3. "Yishuv HaAretz isn't a yehareg v'al ya'avor." This is the most tired cliche of all, and the stupidest. After all, it's comparing apples and oranges (leaving aside the argument above). (For starters: One is Aseh, the other refers, by definition, to Lo Ta'aseh.) The concept of yehareg v'al ya'avor means, "Don't do this even under threat of death." The question here is so far removed from that, I don't know how to begin to respond.

4. "The Rav said..." Uh-huh. The Rav assumed rationality and lack of conflict of interest or other factors in decision-making. Ha. A true Brisker.

5. A new one, "Dina d'malchuta dina." Sure, that's good if you think Israel is just another [non-Jewish] country. And, of course, if you assume this isn't anti-halakha. (And as has been pointed out, when making claims of elevating things to avoda zara...)

6. "What's your alternative?" Well, this is a good one, inasmuch as the opposition, much to my frustration, can't muster up a good answer to it. I can: Kahanism. Learn it, love it, live it.

Moving along, I can't stand the phrase "fervently Orthodox." Not that it's not more accurate than "ultra-Orthodox," but it's a complete creation of Agudah lobbying of secular Jewish newspapers. I don't like artificial labels. Stick with what people use.

Moving along again, you know what's weird here? If I had to guess, "Rabbi Gruber" isn't involved at all, and just relies on the OU. But people want a "heimishe hashgacha" or it's a no-go. I doubt such people even know who he is. I do know the OU actually has a "heimish-style" symbol they sometimes use.

In the follow-up to the Slifkin controversy, people wondered about Leo Levi's new book. I took a look at it over the weekend, and was quite underwhelmed. He basically posits far-out, but quite modern, scientific theories- which would have been completely alien to chazal anyway- to explain "scientific" ideas of the latter. Eh. It's apologetics, not at all "brave." And then I saw his credentials...huh? It confirms what I've long thought of the AOJS, who they pay homage to, and what kind of "scientists" they are.

Like clockwork, every year the New York Times runs a series of articles that clearly and shamelessly screams "OUR PULITZER PIECE." And every year, like clockwork, they win. And every year, the Times proudly (and, once again, shamelessly) promotes the "victory."

Speaking of the Times, there's this. Kills two birds with one stone for them- "No Social Security crises!" and "Illegal aliens good!" To which I reply, even if true, who cares? Illegal is illegal, as Sonny Bono would say. Isn't it?

As to Social Security, I'm not saying Bush wants to eliminate it, but having just mailed my taxes, which included 100% of my payment to the "Trust Fund," I wish he did.

An Officer of the Supreme Court

This past week was especially eventful; the highlight for me came on Tuesday, when I was sworn in as a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kudos especially go to the Alumni Office of Cardozo Law School, which set the whole thing up- breakfast, sponsorship, and all. We got to see all the justices in action, as we sat right up front through the reading of decisions and oral arguments. (Sorry, no pictures allowed in the courtroom.) An amazing time all around.

As long as I'm photoblogging, I include a few other pictures which, as Dr. Watson would say, "have lain long in my portfolio." (Looking through my files, I see I've never posted my Israel photos from November. Some day, perhaps.)

Here's most of the Cardozo delegation from that day. There were about fifteen of us total on Tuesday, and a similar number Wednesday as well, plus a few other groups. I'm at the upper right; click to enlarge this or any other picture, if you so desire. Note the crowd on the steps; the Grokster case was argued that day, and drew a lot of press, protesters (rather colorful ones, at that), and, of course, lawyers. Lawyers who are members of the Supreme Court Bar, as, I should point out, I am now as well. (Sorry- I'm not quite over it yet.)

Here's me alone in front of the Court, pre-ceremony and pre-crowds.

Since I was in the neighborhood, I took advantage of a lull in the action to visit the Folger Shakespeare Library (right behind the Court) and take pictures of all the bas-reliefs of the various plays they have on one wall, as I've long wanted to do. Here's my favorite play. Tom Stoppard's, too, as he once told some girls ahead of me in line at a book signing.

Ah, why not give the whole story? He was discusing, and signing copies of, the screenplay of Shakespeare in Love, a movie I saw who knows how many times. I brought along my copy of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead for him to sign as well. (That reminds me- I have to order the new DVD.) Anyway, on line ahead of me were two teenagers, who asked him what his favorite Shakespeare play was. "I'm not sure, but it's certainly not 'The Winter's Tale,'" he cracked, before saying it was probably Hamlet. I had a nice little chat with him myself.

Shakespeare's coat of arms is a repeated motif on a fence outside the library. That is waaaay cool, as I involuntarily blurted while snapping this shot.

As long as I'm showing you pictures of DC, here's a few I took when I was there on business a couple of months back. One night, I did the tourist bit, as you can see. The Lincoln Memorial, true to cliche (remember Lisa Simpson?) is beautiful, and very moving, at night. Here's the shot I like the best. 

To be honest, I was a bit worried about the new World War II Memorial. I needn't have been- it's magnificent, appropriately so. I liked this quote especially; sorry it's a bit fuzzy. 

This is the Washington Monument as seen from the Memorial. I think it's a nice shot. 

As part of a busy Purim last week, I read the Megilla at Goldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Island. I found this plaque, tucked in a side room of the Jewish Chapel, particularly interesting. The island as a whole is an interesting place, loaded with history. And as Al Lewis once pointed out in a documentary about the "other islands" of New York, all the people overlooking the river on the East Side pay a fortune and get a view of Queens, while residents of the island pay much less and get an amazing view of the Manhattan skyline.

Most of what can be said about Dan Rather's departure has been said already. Now, I've actually never watched the TV news, but this one line, courtesy of the MRC, struck me. Apparently, Rather was "approaching tears" right after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and signed out with this:

I'd like to leave you with the words of that popular, secular, patriotic hymn:
"Long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light."

Now, right when I saw this, something struck me as odd. Like, Rather is such a liberal that he specifically had to choose a "secular" hymn, and point that fact out to us. What makes it even funnier, of course, is how that very same stanza runs:

Our fathers' God, to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!

It is, in fact, the most religious stanza in the song.

So, Dan, once again you got the facts wrong in your pursuit of your liberal fantasies. But do not fear! Courage, Dan, courage!

Speaking of PC-cliches, you've gotta love how the cliche at the end of the letter here is what drove the victim of some campus political correctness to retaliate. Go, brother!

And, as long as we're on the Times, there's an article about Wil Wheaton (and his "Web log, or blog," as Times usage still goes). The article gave me more of a sad vibe than anything else. Read it and see if you feel the same way. But a couple of points: First, Wil, if you don't want to be seen as a "jerk," it would help not to be quoted insulting River Phoenix in the very next paragraph. Also, check out the last photo. It's worth a thousand words in summing up the nature of Wesley Crusher, the first season of TNG, "Gene's vision," what a "Mary Sue" is, and much, much more. Bleah.

Speaking of jerks, I could have used one of these on the subway this morning. I don't have to hear your music, idiot. On the other hand, I will get one of these.

In shul today, a woman bentched gomel, and for the first time, I realized that no siddur prints the feminine response. Can anyone better at dikduk than I formulate one?

Speaking of Jews, I wonder how hard it would be to pull a Slifkin on Cross-Currents. Just wondering.

Finally, on the way back from a delighful lunch, we passed a huge pro-Tibet march. Well, anything to get the Commies' goat (yak?). Free Tibet!

I'll tell you the truth: This blogger is wrong in so many ways, and clearly, reacting to a bad upbringing (on my terms), has swung to the opposite direction while still, oddly, keeping all the old methods (that is, accepting modern theories blindly in the same way s/he was told to accept religion). But this smackdown...well, it's like a stopped clock. (Sorry, Gil, but the [wo]man has some good points.)

Ah, nuts. It's getting easier and easier to ignore that paper. (Notice a pattern, by the way? The Home section, not to mention much of the rest of the paper, is already...that way, and now...)

"Ah, nuts" again. Of course, it's the old government's own damn fault, but see what happens when every culture is treated equally? The really valuable ones disappear.

Finally, go Jonah!

Commandments

Remember what I said about Dawn Eden yesterday? For further confirmation, check Kudlow today. Oh, I agree with every word. But just check out the list he presents. And don't think of yourself as Catholic or Lutheran. That takes in a lot of ground, which Kudlow doesn't seem to realize (or, worse, doesn't want to acknowledge).

Well, I avoided Central Park for as long as "The Gates" were up. They were supposed to come down last Sunday, so, walking into the Park yesterday, I thought, "Hmm. Construction." Nope, it was the Gates. My God, they're horrid. Even my previously-enthusiastic companion was underwhelmed, to say the least. Take 'em down already!

Over at Hirhurim, there's a bit of a debate on abortion, to which I've contributed. If I come off as being on the pro-life side there, well, it's because I am- but I have to say that the absolutism of Kathryn Lopez on National Review is really starting to unsettle me. A few weeks ago, she was all rah-rah about a woman who died rather than risk her fetus. And now, it's...well, see for yourself. Her buddy Dawn Eden is even worse (follow the link two posts up- you can see how Ms. Lopez obsesses). Much worse. In the former's case, it's clearly that die-hard Catholicism which not even her fellows share (K-Lo, for example, follows the party line in opposing capital punishment); in the latter's, it's clearly the old and tragic story of the Jewish convert to Christianity becoming frummer than the Pope.

Speaking of NRO, TKS brings up a disgusting remark from W. J. Clinton. All I have to add is this: Note how the ex-prez assumes that "progressive" in any context, even Iran, equals "Democrat." Ha. These people are fighting for things a world removed from partial-birth abortion.

As long as we're on the news, let's bring up this Italian bird, as Austin Powers would say. Let's just say the wrong person died in this tragedy- and if you know me, you won't be surprised by my saying that if we don't have a policy targeting Communists for extermination, we certainly should. (And if you're offended by that, well, look at this and tell me your reaction. Personally, I think it's distasteful, to say the least. Is yours any different?)

Seriously, of course she wasn't targeted or anything. I sense a bit of attempted rehabilitation of Eason Jordan here- "See, they do target journalists! (Erm, not that he said that...)"

The Times today runs a doozy on some blogger (oh, just a nobody, until you get to his family history and personal resume at the end) and his quest to make hay from the woefully underreported (HA!) Guckert thing. Once again glossed over is that it's the press themselves who make these decisions, not the White House. Me, I wouldn't put it past them to have granted this guy the pass just to make his point. And he's so surprised the MSM stood up for him!

Speaking of the Times, this looks like a nice move from YU. And considering what we used to go through with these things, this was a nice touch from Mr. Joel. (Also, check out the "typical YU family" here. Heh.)

Siyum

Troubling post on Chakira. As Dr. Bevan used to teach us, "politics abhors a vacuum." (One may wonder, of course, the purpose of a siyum of this nature in the first place, and whether its very existence proves that point.)

Apart from my comment there (scroll down a bit), I don't have much to add but a support for each respective point I made. One is this event at Gracie Mansion. The other is that Wall Street rally from a few years back.

That, and I wonder if Daniel Bomberg will be thanked. OK, I'll admit that's probably a bit much. But I've got other plans.

UPDATE: I've heard that some of my concerns were addressed, however obliquely. Well, it's a start.

Fundamentalism

Last night, I attended a symposium on religious fundamentalism at Cardozo. Since I was in the neighborhood, I took in some "old haunts," and that was about the only worthwhile part of the day.

Let's be honest here- academics discussing current events can be worse than boring (which it nearly always is)- it can be startlingly irrelevant. People who dwell in ivory towers, whether of academe or elsewhere, are remarkably bad at illuminating real life issues. Here's a hint and a half: If, in a discussion on fundamentalism, someone brings up the bugaboo of "Gush Emunim," something that doesn't really exist, you know you're dealing with someone who reads lots of dated books.

Add to that the fact that these academics can be so smug and self-confident in their beliefs- and, oddly, so assured that they alone hold the answers to all the world's problems, and you almost come away with the sense that the real fundamentalists are sitting before you. There's also the patronizing and the anti-Bush sermonizing that I stepped out for, but I'll stop there.

Most sickening moment? One of the (many) introducers, who shall go unnamed (leaving people unnamed was quite the fashion at this fest) actually tried out the "We all believe in one God, so why the bloodshed?" line. (Actually, the exact quote was more like "Why the bloodshed? Why the bloody [as an intensitive, not an adjective] violence?") I felt distinctly embarrassed that one supposedly so educated could say something so stupid and trite. I expected him to bust out, Rodney King-style, with "Can't we all get along?"

Anyway. As something of a fundamentalist myself, I felt more bored than offended. Well, that and upset I wasted time I could have used for ironing my shirts. Instead of staying for the questions (usually the worst part of these things), I grabbed a few cookies (no big spread) and went to Forbidden Planet, where the clerks (no pun intended) were carrying on a much more interesting conversation, to me at least, about the relative qualities of talking Jay and Silent Bob dolls. (The latter says nothing, of course; the former won't stop.) Hilarious.

Oddly, I had a bit of a run-in with fundamentalism myself on my way to the event. Yep, Meah Shearim (and Boro Park) style broadsides have come to Kew Gardens Hills, Hashem Yiracheim. Rav Elyashiv, in his glory, wishes us to know that Metzitza B'Peh (squick) is a fine and safe practice that must not be altered by any means. Leaving alone the fact that it isn't usually practiced in the US (or even in Israel), except by the Chassidim and those influenced by their obscurantism, and leaving alone the chutzpah of he, or his followers, presuming to tell us what to do, was the funny point that first, the poster had to assure us that they had medical advice that this was true- and, in an added line, that a mohel with a sore should not do this. Of course, all three clauses contradict each other. If there's no medical danger, there's no need to fear sores. If medical advice is needed, then it is possible that the procedure should be changed, etc. etc. I shouldn't expect this to be consistent, but it'd be funny if it wasn't so infuriating and just plain scary. (Slifkin's taken down his controversy page. Hmmm.)

Meanwhile, over at Cross-Currents, they're running into the monkeywrench in the numbers question: Homo Flatbushensis, or "cool dudes," or "frum and 'with it,'" or whatever Jdate or Frumster feel like calling them, or what-have-you. We all know the type- I know some personally, and there was a pack of them on a plane with me once. (Remember that full-page ad in the NY Times a while back?) People who live completely modern lives, often much less observant of actual halakha than even the Orthodox left, yet would be shocked to find themselves described as "Modern Orthodox." That messes up lots of numbers and assumptions, I'd think. Of course, HBFIs are the opposite phenomenon, or, perhaps, a somewhat parallel one.

Not to sound like I'm defending Edah and the like. Ever since Saul Berman rather ostentatiously and patronizingly referred to God as "She" in a Commentary symposium, I've been a bit wary of them. I'm reminded of O'Sullivan's Law: Any organization not conservative will become liberal over time (and even many conservative ones will). How much more so an organization devoted to being liberal, in some senses. My point is this: The OU, RCA, YU, etc. do not start out to be Modern Orthodox, but merely synagogue bodies, rabbinical organizations, seminaries, etc. Once you start out to be specifically modern, you've already put yourself on the fringe- and, ironically, conceded the point that modern may not be mainstream. Of course, an organization devoted to modernity is one thing, but a seminary seems wrong. Get your basics, let the other ideas follow.

Whew. That's some rant. Have a good week, all.

"Bunch of savages in this town."

The above is from a "work of minor genius," as Rich Lowry once referred to another favorite movie of mine. In any event, I've been reminded of it twice in the last two days. But enough on that.

Happy Shushan Purim Katan, all! I've celebrated a bit already (including a shorter davening this morning), but here's a cute line in the spirit of the day, from TKS:

We remember Sen. Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington stating, "We've got to
ask, why is this man [Bin Laden] so popular around the world... He's been out in
these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building
infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health care facilities,
and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."

Notice how Sen. Murray has so absorbed left-wing block-talk that she includes "day-care facilities." Oh, sure. Um, aren't day-care facilities meant for the kids of women who are working? Last I checked, Bin Laden wasn't a big fan of that.

A question: What's the point of a diet lemon soda without calories, carbs, sugar, or caffeine, especially if it tastes awful? (I'm looking at you, Sierra Mist.) Might as well squeeze a lemon into water. Or vodka.

An interesting take on Daf Yomi.

Marvin Schick is upset over a study saying that 75% of New York Orthodoxy is Modern (with a solid majority even in Brooklyn). How does he respond to this blatantly factual assertion? By using a trick he has in the past: Redefine "Modern Orthodox" to include only the left-wing of that movement (Edah, etc.), and creating a new category called "Centrist" (generally, the two terms are used interchangeably) into which he puts YU (separating RIETS, interestingly) and most others. Ergo, if YU isn't "Modern Orthodox" (ha!), neither is anybody else. (Nor, it seems, is anyone ultra-Orthodox either.) A very cute, and very disingenuous, way of arguing. Obviously, under most definitions, even Mr. Schick would have to admit that the numbers are correct.

Perhaps Mr. Schick figures if he obscures the truth enough, people (say, actual charedim who don't want to face the truth) will have reason to doubt it. Or perhaps he's trying to define himself out of the Modern Orthodoxy to which he clearly belongs? That's too deep for me.

Unfortunately, Mr. Schick begins by labeling the left-wing as not being Orthodox at all. Being charitable, I'd say that he still hasn't quite grasped the difference between "religious" and "frumkeit." (Many haven't.) Just because someone is vigorously in favor of modernity doesn't mean they're any less religious than the Moetzes. Or that you can call them "modern" and more "frum modern" types "centrist."

Mr. Gil Student has the right idea about rereading posts to make them more civil, although I can't promise I've succeeded.

The Secret of Success

Speaking of Joel, and chatting about the OU, reminds me of an old theory of mine; namely, that Joel owes the presidency position to none other than Baruch Lanner. Joel for quite a while was seen, I think, as a Jewish leader who happened to be Orthodox, nothing more. After all, the organization he headed wasn't Orthodox, so while he was there in people's consciousnesses, I don't think people ever really thought of him as, say, a possible successor to Norman Lamm.

Which perhaps was why he was chosen to head the commission of inquiry at NCSY. After all, he wasn't an "inside" type possibly tainted by any associations. And that, in turn- I think- led people to start associating him with Orthodoxy as a movement, not just his personal faith. So when the time came for a new YU president, his name came up, and he eventually got the job.

This isn't, of course, to take anything away from Joel- I think he's doing an excellent job. It's just one of those little ironies of history.

Alma Mater

This story in today's Forward made me a bit upset. Why is it that every story out of YU has to be turned into a "left vs. right" thing? Granted, Joel may just be making excuses so as not to attend the Edah conference. (I will say, some of their sessions look quite interesting, but I doubt I can make it.) But perhaps there are simply more prosaic reasons he's not going: Before his mind started spinning "appeasement of the right" fantasies, didn't it occur to Mr. Eden that Joel may simply not want to publicly support what has become a competitor (of sorts) for him? Or try this one on, to blow your mind: Perhaps the very fact that he's pushing for Modern Orthodoxy on his own campus- which is, after all, the whole point of the article- leads Joel to believe that he will one day make Edah superfluous.

In any event, all we get here are dated depictions of how the "right" can't stand Joel (he even mentions the Tehillim rally), on the one hand, and how Joel (and Lamm!) are too weak to enforce modernity, on the other. Not only are those two ideas contradictory, neither is true, at least any longer (and not just for the crass monetary reasons the article suggests). Granted, God on the Quad makes similar claims- but that's a book, with greater lead time and based on older articles. For the Forward to lapse into these cliches is inexcusable.

Talmud

Maybe I'm over-sensitive, but I notice something a bit troubling in the first picture here. The second, on the other hand, is hi-larious. The article isn't that thorough- not really any criticism or background- but nice overall.

Further thoughts:

First, I find the second photo troubling as well, for other reasons.

The more I think about it, the more this whole thing troubles me. As you may know, I already have problems with Artscroll's obscurantism, most notably this example, but also others. ("The Second Temple stood for 420 years." Period.) So of course, this sort of uncritical lionization of the Artscroll is bad. But this goes even further: What we have here is a translation of the Talmud aimed at- let's be honest here- American Orthodox Jews, modern and ultra, learning Daf Yomi, who can't "lein" a Gemara. (Don't get offended, I include myself.) It's not even the first complete Talmud in English, as Soncino's (far superior, scholarship-wise) edition filled that role fifty years ago. So why is a "presentation" to the Library of Congress treated as such a big event? It's almost- others have commented on this in similar circumstances- as if the Charedi world needs validation from the "outside," particularly the non-Jewish world. (They don't need validation from Modern Orthodox or non-Orthodox Jews [as such], just money.)

Notice, for example, this. At first blush, I thought, "Good for them! Being consistent, at least." (If stupid, in more ways than one, both in terms of educational priorities and, well, earning money- and asking the wrong people, from a halakhic angle.) But then I saw that they decided to employ the most outrageous libels against a state that has been unusually generous to them (especially compared to the US situation)- and to non-Jewish governments specifically! Disgusting.

Interesting things you find while searching the Jerusalem Post. Like Shmuely Boteach using the word "chickenfeed" in place of a more obvious one. And this article, where some idiot announces for the world what he thinks the biggest priority of Israeli marriage ceremonies should be (bad it's there; worse he's announcing).

Rav Michael Katz, Zt'l

When R' David Lifshitz passed away over ten years ago, I went to the funeral, held at YU's main campus, with my father, who'd been very close to him (he married my parents). It was in the middle of the summer, a broiling hot day, but we, being kohanim, couldn't go inside to the Beis Midrash, where the funeral was held, or to the auditorium, which they opened, with loudspeakers, for the overflow crowd. So we stood out front with all the other kohanim, which happened to include a number of YU Roshei Yeshiva, and listened over the outside loudspeakers.

One thing sticks out in my mind from that day above all else: Rav Michael Katz, who'd been my father's ninth grade rebbe back in 1950 and was by then a senior YU Rosh Yeshiva, standing with all of his kohen colleagues for the duration of the funeral. Seats were provided, but he, already in his seventies, I think, somewhat frail, in his hat and jacket- in that heat!- refused to sit down. I think eventually he was literally placed in a seat by his students.

Unfortunately, I never got to learn with him. I only met him once, when he drove me to a bar mitzvah or some similar event. I remember him being so...real, I think, is the right word. Almost like he wasn't one of the world's top talmedei chachamim and I wasn't some kid.

He passed away last night. Baruch Dayan HaEmes. At his funeral today, I'm sure that he will rightfully receive kavod of the kind that he gave to others throughout his life. T'hei Nishmaso Tzrura B'Tzror Hachayim.

Via The Corner, a few links I'd like to post here as well:

Patton's speech. To get the blood pumping.

Mark Steyn. The last line of paragraph two is precious.

One smart parrot.

Check out the stirring video here.

New York Mag sez, "[Columbia University President Lee] Bollinger is a First Amendment scholar, a useful credential for a man who’s been forced to fathom the limits of academic freedom."

Um, I hope his scholarship tells him enough that he should know that the First Amendment has nothing to do with what happens in a private university like Columbia.

The ACLU is like a stopped clock- right twice a day.

This Super Bowl ad- a salute to the troops from Anheuser-Busch- (see also here and here) really had me choked up. Leave it to the New York Times to make a snarky remark: "A gauzy valentine to American troops, which ended with the Anheuser-Busch corporate logo superimposed on screen, was touching, but some viewers may have wondered whether "Busch" had been misspelled."

Uh-huh. Equate patriotism and support of troops with one political view, liberals, and you're gonna keep wondering why people question your patriotism.

Ronald Reagan's birthday was yesterday, and here's a nice piece of history to go with that.

Finally, all those people criticizing Bloomberg (pareve as he's being) for not being ra-ra about the courts forcing gay marriage on us should read this.

Prequels

Have I ever shared my prequel theory with you? In light of the cancellation of Enterprise, here's a good enough time to share it as any. It's pretty simple: A good sign that something has entered our "modern mythology" is whether it's spawned a prequel. That is, if we're interested in a story enough to find out the backstory of its characters, it shows that we've become pretty invested in it. (I note that this isn't always true.)

Interestingly, the main examples I can think of are science fiction and the like. There are the Star Wars prequels, of course, and the reason for this post, Star Trek's latest series. The comics have been giving us backstories of superheroes for decades, of course. It may just be a way of making sure that new audiences "get it," but it seems that most superhero movies begin again with the origin of the character (the 70's Superman, the 80's Batman, the recent Spiderman and other Marvel movies, the upcoming Batman and Superman films, etc.). Of course, now there's Smallville as well.

Although The Hobbit was written well before The Lord of the Rings, it's usually described as a "prelude" to the later stories, and I imagine most of its appeal (good as it is on its own) lies in that fact. Of course, after Tolkien's death, quite a few more posthumous books of "backstory" to the Middle-Earth stories came out.

Outside of sci-fi (but not always!), our modern myth par excellance, Sherlock Holmes, has gotten the prequel treatment as well. Even some of the original stories may be described as such.

Anyway, it's not too profound, I know, but an interesting note. Shabbat Shalom and a good weekend, y'all.

So some Shinui minister proposes that Israel make it illegal to put people into Cherem (excommunication), considering the real consequences such things can have in the ultra-Orthodox world. And Arutz-7 labels this an "anti-religious" proposal. Please. It's an anti-fanatic law. Why does Arutz-7 try so hard to flatter the crazies? It's not like said crazies care at all about the sentiments of the national-religious community. Eh. I guess this is a worldwide question for the modern Orthodox.

Speaking of which, it's fun to watch Luke Ford asking Tova Mirvis about the Rambam's Ikkarim. He acts like an Ani Ma'amin accurately reflects the Rambam's point of view, and labels it "Yigdal." For her part, Mirvis doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. And Ford doesn't seem to have delved any further than Potok novels for his answers. Talk about the blind leading the blind. Not that doesn't mean that SHA-lit (whoops, Sha-LEET, can't offend those '60's yordim ["Reform" my tuchis] sentiments) isn't completely off base herself.

Hmmm...aren't we lucky to have this President? Inaugural, on the Iraqi election, State of the Union- for the ages, every one.

So the big news of today, the most tragic for me (yes, this should be the worst of my tragedies): Star Trek is no more. Possibly forever. A major part of my life...gone. Alas and alack.

After having had one scratched-up Blockbuster DVD too many, I'm back to ordering some from Amazon (or DeepDiscountDVD, if I can make up my mind). And now I see that new editions of some are yet to be out? This is not good for my already-fragile decision-making process.

Kojo Annan is said to be singing like a canary. Still no picture.

Some more blegs:

What's a "car-park service?" The Times, in all its elitism, mentions it like we all know what it is. (I should also say "in all its anti-Semitism" after this Sunday's Week in Review.)

Can anyone name a real right-wing dictator? I got a bit disgusted when an op-ed piece on Phillip Johnson once again equated "fascist" with "right-wing" (and suggested that dead Communists and Fascists alike don't get breaks in their obits- yeah, right). Remarkably, Huey Long becomes "right-wing" in this equation. OK, I've got Latin American dictators here. I guess they count, somewhat, if you ignore their eventual legacy.

Everyone's upset over this now-pulled Superbowl ad that included a priest lusting over a car and a shot of a girl. (Nothing really to do with each other.) I wonder how many of these scandals actually involved girls (not to minimize them, of course).

Some interesting links:

The entire new edition of the Guide. Thanks to Gil. That Salanter book looks interesting.

Brill's Modern Orthodoxy class, which I'll have to sit down with one day.

Brisk. Hat-tip to Menachem. See ya at the sale, dude.

"Ain't the most masculine fella in the world, if you know what I mean."

In another interview with [Geraldo] Rivera last November, [Michael] Jackson
commented that the Eminem video is "not just about Michael Jackson but a pattern
of disrespect that he's shown to our community."

Um, what community would that be, Michael? The "freakshows who dye their skin white" community? Because if you meant the black community (like O.J., once prosecuted, Michael found his race like some find religion, hooking up with the Fruit of Islam and buying into the "White men can't rap" stuff), well, I can't think of anyone who "disrespected" them- and separated himself from them- in the way you did.

A Great Day

I have to say, I breathed a sigh of relief when news came across that the election's been a resounding success in Iraq. And then got all choked up as I heard the president's speech and read more reports in The Corner (check it out). One nice piece from there can be found here.

You know what's hilarious? Wendy Shalit writes a piece in today's New York Times Book Review. (No, not the funny part.) I'm sure I wasn't the only one to think, "Hmm! She finally resurfaces!" (Still not the funny part- patience!.) What's funny is that the Times actually includes a special note not only acknowledging that the wunderkind had dropped off the face of the Earth- but more importantly, answering the second thing that popped into my- and, I'm sure, many others'- minds: "Is she married?" Welcome to the velt, NY Times.

Speaking of books, this link is not for the easily offended (hat tip to Stephen M. T.).

I'm trying to find a clean link to the new Rashi stamp from France. Can't yet. It's very nice, though.

Googlefight!

"Nathan Lamm" 886, "Nachum Lamm" (many of which aren't even me) 103. Yay Nathan!

"Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled..."

Reading the prodigious efforts of a friend and fellow blogger, I've been shamed into making a puny effort of mine own.

The title of this post is thus both an inside joke and a tribute to Robert Burns, whose birthday is today. Have some usquebaugh! Have some haggis (or kishka, if that's your bag)! Also, blink and you miss it, but it's Tu B'Shvat today! Yay!

Anyway, something substantial: I picked up that "Sixty Days for Sixty Years" book in shul. Actually very nice effort from our brethren (soon to be literally so for me) in the UK. Anyway, it seems to me that while in the US and Israel we commemorate the Holocaust with Yom Hashoah (and, to a lesser extent here, on the anniversary of Kristallnacht), throughout Europe, the commemoration is on the anniversary (this week) of the liberation of Auschwitz. I don't know if that means anything- my suspicious mind sees glorification of the "glorious Red Army" at work, but probably not- but it's something to consider about Israel/Diaspora relations, US/Europe relations, and so on.

Anyway. It's as good a day as any to remember them, and learn in their memory. Of course, the usual suspects in Europe are using this as an opportunity for more Israel-bashing (and, basically, anti-Semitism).

One more question- I am a humble lawyer, and thus can't understand the intricacies of staying an execution to see if someone was competent to refuse a defense- after he confessed, was convicted, sentenced, and sat on death row through appeals for two decades? Let's say he wasn't competent- so what?

"Never give in."

Do not let us speak of darker days: let us speak rather of sterner days. These
are not dark days; these are great days--the greatest days our country has ever
lived; and we must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according
to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable in the history of
our race.

Winston Churchill, dead on this day forty years ago.

Peace Through Superior Firepower

Growing up, we were always told that Alfred Nobel established the prizes that bear his name because he was so wracked with guilt over inventing dynamite. Not so, apparently: Nobel felt that with dynamite available, nations would fear making war, and thus he'd already done his share for world peace.

The article that I read this in (about the latest Peace Prize receipient) pointed out that by that logic, Edward Teller should have received the Peace Prize (as, indeed, Sakharov did, albeit on other grounds). But, of course, the Nobel never actually goes to those who promote actual peace and freedom, like George W. Bush. No, it goes to people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Face facts: Most often, peace comes only through defeat of belligerents.

Deepak Chopra has some new book about "peace beginning with you," somewhat akin to Yoko's ad of a month or so ago on the same theme. Of course, these people are ridiculous. They ignore the facts that, on the one hand, there are people in this world who want to have war regardless of our feelings for peace, people who will not just "go away" with good vibes, and, on the other hand, just because we make war does not mean that we are not, in fact, bringing peace, perhaps the only or best way it can be brought.

Condi!

Dr. Rice, in her confirmation hearings, just made reference to the old chestnut (frequently touted by race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton) about her ancestors being worth "3/5 of a person." Condi, of all people, I'd expect you to know better: The 3/5 compromise was meant to be favorable to slaves. If measuring the value of a person was absolute, the slaveowners would be looked on favorably- after all, they wanted to count their slaves as a full person (without letting them vote), while the Northerners wanted to count them as zero.

I'm Back!

Seems like leaving and returning is always cause for a big blog.

Well, I'm back, after a week in our nation's capital. Not much to report- mostly work. The first night I was there, I took a long walk around the city, looking over the impressive preparations for the inaugural (which, sadly, I don't think I'll be able to make) and various monuments. I'd never seen the Korean War Memorial before, and it's really nicely done. I'd had my doubts about the World War II Memorial, but seeing it for the first time, I was blown away. I also paid homage to Lincoln at his Memorial, and got choked up reading his Second Inaugural Address.

The rest, as I said, was pretty much work, meals at the JCC, davening at Kesher Israel, a very friendly shul indeed whose website was invaluable (and with a "Quf" of its name on the cornerstone clearly corrected from "Kaf"- hee!), and downtime at the (luxurious) hotel. (OK, I'll lay off the links a bit.) Some friends- especially a blogger and commenter at this site- called and made things much better. (If you're a Lamm, don't tell your family an ex [not the aforementioned blogger] called you, or they'll start planning your wedding.) By the way, I apparently look suspicious enough that they pulled me over for special screening both coming and going. At least, I hope it's suspicion, and not just random stuff to be fair to Arabs. (There was an elderly woman with me too, come to think. Oh, I feel secure.) Eh. I'll forgive this. I guess I have to.

Upon returning to shul this morning, I was greeted with all sorts of "The Kohen's back!" statements and remarks about how others "got to be Kohen" in my absence, how they always wanted to be kohanim, etc. I was polite enough, but these people? Have no idea. Don't get me wrong- I think it's great to be a kohen and would never give it up- but I wouldn't wish what I've been through because of it on anyone.

Speaking of religion, I find it odd that non-religious Jews see a need to justify themselves when they're around me. It's actually happened to me a few times- people refraining from eating non-kosher meat, opting for vegetarian stuff instead, etc. I guess that's a good thing.

Speaking yet further of religion, on the plane back, I sat next to a young man who spoke a Slavic language to his family. Before eating, he crossed himself extensively, and did so again when the plane landed. You know, I wish Jews were that comfortable in expressing their religion (as in the former action- of course, Christians are the majority here), but, more importantly, that we had that relationship with God in which we actually feel Him when landing in a plane. I imagine many of us do, but more should. Me, I missed saying tefillas haderech and only was reminded of it by this young man. To quote Joyce, "I wish we had something like that in our Church."

More religion! I seem to have missed the explosion of the Slifkin story into the general consciousness. My God, they've really screwed him. God bless him. Maybe I'll buy The Science of Torah after all. I hear this is really causing crises of faith for some. Pulling for you to see the light!

In time for Parshat Bo, I hear they're remaking The Ten Commandments. It's so cheesy, with that dialogue and all, but the actual Exodus scene always gets to me.

Yet more religion! Norman Lamm, as might be expected, has weighed in on the Gaza issue with the old "The Rav says pikuach nefesh outweighs kibush haaretz" argument. Of course, this is wrong on so many levels, halakha included- but let's look at logic. There's a concept of milchemet mitzvah, to conquer land. War involves risk of death, by definition. Hence, the Land of Israel does outweigh pikuach nefesh. Me? I blame all these midrashim that pretend that no Jew was ever killed in a war in Tanakh. It's childish and leads to mistaken notions like this. To repeat: We are commanded to wage war to conquer land. War is dangerous. Q.E.D.

OK, one more religious piece before I go on to secular politics. I just got the latest Torah U-Madda Journal. It has a review of the whole Reinman-Hirsch book. Besides having a pedantic first footnote (reading between the lines: "I wish I didn't have to use the goyish term 'Orthodox.' I wish I could pointedly refer to Reinman, and not Hirsch, as 'Rabbi'."), it fails to point out that Hirsch chose Reinman as a strawman, who, sure enough, couldn't respond to many of his arguments. The only reason Reinman comes out on top is because Hirsch is even more ignorant than him.

Today, by the way, is the 35th anniversary of the infamous Radical Chic party. Read the book.

So, the New York Times, arbiter of all that is Right and Good in this world, gleefully announces that media- and power-whore Eliot Spitzer has nailed Macy's for racially profiling shoplifting suspects. Here's one line:

The store's official policy is to handcuff detainees if they are determined to
be dangerous, but in a number of cases investigated by Mr. Spitzer at New York
City stores, almost everyone was handcuffed, regardless of age, size or
behavior, according to officials close to the investigation.

Of course, one wonders if they handcuffed regardless of race. That, after all, is the whole point here- and if they did, there's no racism claim. Well, there's also this, earlier in the article:

Mr. Spitzer's investigation found that most of people detained at a sampling of
Macy's stores around the state were black and Latino, a disproportionately high
number when compared with the percentage of blacks and Latinos who shopped at
those stores, according to the complaint.

Of course, one may wonder if the proportion of shoplifters is disproportionately minority. If so, Macy's was just doing its job. But as Peter Brimelow once said, this is a question we may Never Ask.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Sherlock Holmes!

It's also Twelfth Night, or day, or whatever. Good times all around.

Question: Is Mr. Sharon at all embarrassed at the fact that his plans are proceeding only through outright bribery? Are the charedim of Israel, their parties, or their leaders at all embarrassed that they are the eager recipients of such bribery?

Likely answer: No. No, they're not. (See here to see how ridiculous it can get.)

"You know about Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves?" I asked a friend. (Don't ask why.) "As in the Get* of Cleves?" he replied.

I'd never thought of that- two of the most famous divorces in history, both from the same city. Go figure.

*Jewish Divorce. One account of this famous story can be found here, but focuses on another angle and omits the happy twist at the end.

A little while back, I wondered about consecutive multi-term wins. Now, with the New York mayor's race beginning, I'm wondering about a possible effect of term limits: Do you think that once someone is term-limited, the public is more forgiving when they run for reelection, thinking that the candidate doesn't have long in office anyway? Consider that since Eisenhower, the first president affected by term limits, five presidents have won reelection and only two (not counting Ford, who was never elected and could have run twice) have lost. I'll have to crunch the numbers of everyone from before, though.

I also wondered about Religious-Zionist accommodation of chareideim. Looks like some of the backlash (toward the end of the piece) has begun, thankfully.

Meanwhile, Safire and his good buddy Sharon continue to be blithering idiots, with Safire all busy justifying Mazen's support of terror. And there's this beaut: "But disengagement or relocation, euphemisms for withdrawal..." Why not, "Withdrawal, a euphemism for expulsion of Jews..."

Elsewhere on the op-ed page are two good pieces on France: The one by John J. Miller (picture on this blog!) is great, of course, but surprisingly, the other piece, which I suppose was chosen to "balance" it, isn't bad either. Sort of a "Yeah, Frenchmen are jerks, but be nice to us" thing. I would add one point to his reasons Americans don't like France: There may be something of a backlash against the "high culture" France supposedly represents, and which we're all supposed to be in awe of.

Rush has a Kojo Annan song. Hee! Question: Can anyone find a picture of him? It's for my mom.

Chaviv Adam SheNivra'a B'Tzelem...

...or, as a more recent writer put it, "[A]ny man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in makind..."

It's difficult to live up to that standard, especially in the light of massive natural disasters, but it's a goal we should strive for.

It's best to read this as well. God bless us, every one.

One more thing

If you were the Prime Minister of Spain, this Shoemaker fella, and had been elected due to an outbreak of national cowardice, don't you think you'd rather sweep that under the table? Instead, he's actually trumpeting it! "Yeah, we got elected due to Islamic terror, and the previous government tried to say it was Basque!" Man.

Condescension

Look, I'm as much for seeing baseball back in DC as the next guy. I feel it's important that the nation's capital have a team from the national pastime. But if the people of the city feel they're being screwed, they have the right to reject it. Indeed, they should reject it, or look for a better deal.

Of course, the good white liberals of the city are doing their usual, treating those poor ignorant black citizens like children. There was a great picture in a story yesterday: A black DC councilwoman voting "no," and the white councilman next to her (a Democrat, of course) covering his face in anguish and disbelief. What, she doesn't want you spending her hard-earned money on a stadium? How ignorant! The horror!

Speaking of liberal condenscension, there's this doozy from a otherwise-OK Times article on police revolvers today: "More than anything else, it is carrying a gun - the daily familiarity of it, the expectation that it must be used on a second's notice - that most sets apart the police from the policed."

Of course. No ordinary citizen (least of all the criminal element, the "policed") owns guns, and none should. Only police know how to properly use one. Reminds me of Mayor Bloomberg's answer to a question of why a councilman (a retired policeman) was carrying an (unused that day) pistol when he was shot: "I don't know. Guns kill people." Um, Mayor Mike: That would include the gun that another cop used to kill the assailant, right?

Speaking of New York, I was watching flocks of gulls and pigeons dueling in the skies over Main Street while waiting for the bus today (and hoping I wouldn't be caught in the, um, crossfire), so this nice piece from the New York Press comes to mind.

There's a funny juxtaposition of articles on the front page of this week's Forward:

"Holiday Invite List Showcases White House's Tie to Orthodox", about how the President, this holiday season, is meeting with lots of Orthodox leaders, but few Reform and no Conservative.

and

"Top Conservative Rabbi Floats Idea Of 'Peace Holiday'", in which Jerome Epstein- who appears, complaining, in the first article- gives us that crackpot idea.

Gosh, Rabbi Epstein- do you think the irrelevance and leftism you demonstrate in the second article have anything to do with what results in the first?

Which leads me to wonder: Why is the Religious-Zionist community in Israel so enamored of charedim? Arutz-7, for example, is always protesting budget cuts to that community. Part of it may be their audience, part may be that the national-religious have never been overly "modern" in outlook, and part may be an overall right-wing trend in modern Orthodoxy, but after the current events, with the chareidi parties screwing everyone (and I do mean everyone, except for tired Likud and Labor hacks) to get some more cash, they're still at it?

YU has a summer plan for 11th graders- "Prepare for your time in YU" and all. Very nice idea indeed. The program, however, is typical of current YU student viewpoint- lots of Jewish-subjects learning and choices in courses in business or medicine (for men) or computers or medicine (for women). Liberal Arts? Humanities? Social Sciences? Ha! It's becoming a professional school.

Ironically, the picture they choose to illustrate this program is of the facade of the main branch of the New York Public Library- which contains, as its name says, only Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences material. The Business and Science library is a few blocks downtown, actually not far from Stern. But not as photogenic.

By the way, if you were wondering if the weekend lived up to my hopes, the answer is, yes, it did. In spades. And now for the last candle! Later, y'all.

Very funny:

Sign taped to lamppost: "LOST: 18-karat gold wedding band of great sentimental value."

Penciled underneath: "Answers to 'My precious.'"

Also in yesterday's paper: I'm a cynic. Sue me. How much is this couple getting in 9/11 money for their "Center"? And what the hell is in the water in Crown Heights?

Speaking of getting government grants, there was also this. The New York Press already pointed this out, I think: Partying in a club 'till 2 AM? Get a cab! Ah, "charity" for the upper class.

Finally, to finish catching up with yesterday: Misheguneh Cockamamie is mad. I should get this book.

Blackmail threat of the day:

Credit card industry specialists had surmised that a deal between American Express and Citibank was imminent. In November, American Express filed a lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and eight major banks seeking monetary damages for the business it said it lost as a result of the defunct rules. Notably absent from the list of banks were MBNA and Citigroup.

Mr. Chenault said that similar deals were still possible with the companies American Express is suing, which include J. P. Morgan Chase, Capital One, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. "The fact that compensation is owed to us for past misconduct should not stop banks from entering into partnerships with us and doing the right thing for their customers and their shareholders," he said.

Play ball with us or we'll sue you. Nice.

Seems like most others share my feelings about cellphones on flights. Good.

Dumb question of the day: "If these words and concepts [intellectual, liberal, secular] are a force for good in Islamic culture, why are they discredited here in our own? The words have the same meaning whatever the context."

Simple answer: No. No, they do not.

Zot Chanukkah

You know what would be nice? If all the Chanukkah decorations put up to complement the Christmas ones were removed tomorrow evening, when the holiday ends. After all, Chanukkah is Chanukkah and Christmas is Christmas, and I don't see why menorahs have to stay out just because the holiday season isn't over yet.

Exactly what we need...

...cellphones on planes. It's bad enough pre-take off. Yuck.

It's been a busy (and enjoyable) last few days, and the weekend promises more of the same (I hope). Hope y'all have a good one, a Shabbat Shalom and a Happy Chanukah!

Back in law school, I worked in a Legal Services clinic that was, not to put too fine a point on it, quite left-wing. In our first seminar, we were treated to the "two theories" (the only two, mind) of why welfare is distributed: Either it's a way to help the poor or, to take the Marxist view, a way to keep them under control. No mention of the idea that it's a misguided way to help the poor, let alone the more cynical view that it's a way to preserve them as a voting bloc.

As I consider it, though, I'm starting to ponder the Marxist idea more. Every time a liberal's (not every liberal, to be sure- certainly not the feminists) argument about abortion, for example, boils down (or begins with) a point about unwanted children filling welfare rolls and prisons, I consider it. Of course, that may just be an extreme argument they reserve for those opposed, either from a "how are you going to raise them" angle or a "this is how fascists like you think" one. Or it may be Marxist thinking they've heard bubbling out. But I wonder nonetheless how much of liberals' "care" for the lower classes is just so much paternalism and/or fear.

Two links:

A good piece- but my God, it's bad up north.

Squandered opportunities, the biggest tragedy. I agree wholeheartedly.

Pearl Harbor Day...

...and congratulations and best wishes for a bright future to Mr. Karzai and his nation.

An odd line in a Times obit:

Jane Bancroft, Mr. Hansen's wife of 51 years, died in 1994. He once described
their relationship as that of a gay man and a woman who happened to love each
other. "Here was this remarkable person who I wanted to spend the rest of my
life with. We were married 51 years. So something was right about it, however
bizarre it may seem to the rest of the world," he said.

This alone should cause us to ask all sorts of questions of what defines "gay" in our world today; the politics behind such definitions, and much, much more.

Immediately following the above, the kicker:

The couple had a daughter who later had gender reassignment. He is Mr. Hansen's
only survivor.

And a nice line from an interview with a German Nobel-winning scientist (come to think, they should eliminate all but the science Nobels):

Back in 1999, I hoped my gesture would be an example, particularly in Germany,
where people can be very stingy about charity. In the United States, the wealthy
have a tradition of charity. But in Germany, the rich say: "We pay taxes. It's
enough." Once I did this, many rich Germans called me saying they wanted to meet
this crazy man who gave away $1 million. And so, the Friends of Dresden raised
much, much more.

Maybe snotty Europeans (and domestic liberals) should take a long look at both halves of that equation.

The Rambam (Maimonidies) once wrote a letter in which he described a trip to Israel. In it, he mentions that he went up to the "Great and Holy House of God," which many see as a reference to the Temple Mount. As if to reinforce that point of view, he writes that he's made the day he went up a personal holiday.

I just came across that letter again, and it's reminded me to set the 15th of Kislev as the day I mark. I hereby set it down.

Another letter of mine- with a point I made below- made it to The Corner! (Edited to add: Someone else succeeded with my technique. Hee!)

This may reveal more about the cynical pathways of my mind than I'd like, but shortly after 9/11- it may have been the very day, with the Towers still standing, for all I know- I recall thinking, "I bet some relatives of victims didn't get along at all with the deceased, and will now gladly use this tragedy as a springboard for whatever agendas they may have." Oh, come now, you think. Well, I remember Mr. Zelmanowitz' sister, whom he hadn't spoken to in years, immediately launched into an anti-Afghan (!) war crusade using his name. And the more the "9/11 Widows" (I mean the agitators' group we usually think of when we use that term- "The Jersey Girls," as Rush calls them- not the whole generic class) shrilly attack Republicans and the President whenever they get a chance- this week, it's intelligence reform- I'm reminded of my initial impression.

Uncharitable? Maybe. Unseemly of them? Without a doubt.

The World Almanac used to have a rule: Wait until after the World Series in odd-numbered years and after the election in even-numbered ones, so as to get the information in. I think they gave up in 2000, what with the long election count, and not only don't wait for election results anymore, but don't even include the Series. I'm not sure what the problem is- it's still published in mid-November, and I imagine printing technology has improved so they can take even less time. Maybe it's competition from other publishers, but I still don't like it.

Speaking of baseball, the DC team is going with "Nationals," the official name of the original Senators for almost all of that team's existence. The reasons they didn't go with the obvious (the latter name) were, I think, because another team (Minnesota? Texas?) still owned the name (which makes sense), and because the mayor of DC argued that Washington has no senators (which is stupid). In any event, it's a nice touch of historical awareness (as "Grays" would have been) so why not? I can always go for history. (And, unlike before, it's even an NL team.)

Well, it's nice that they have a team again. It would have been nice had Bonds not messed up his pursuit of Aaron (would said pursuit then have existed?), but that's another story.

Back home

Sometimes it's the little things that really drive it home. I was tying my shoelaces this morning- double knot, as always, because they tend to come undone- when I sighed a bit. You see, for the last week, saying Birkat Kohanim every morning, I only did one knot when getting dressed, so I could get them off more quickly. And now, after duchaning more in one week than I have in six months, I'm back to the galut.

They say that one reason we don't duchan every day in Chutz LaAretz is so Kohanim will miss it and want to move to Israel, maybe taking others with them. Well, I miss it. Move to Israel? Alas, not a major force in me right now.

Speaking of which, it's funny what you don't hear when you're in the middle of something. The new president of the OU made a bit of a tumult with his comments on olim. He apparently said (or, it seems, was misquoted as saying) that while the people who made aliyah in previous decades were losers who were fleeing from something and ended up schnorring, the ones who make it now are successful and doing it because they're really idealistic (i.e., their lives here are so good they must have higher goals).

What's funny is that I had just been discussing this with a friend and my sister (in reference to some people we met in Israel), and took a completely opposite view. To me, it's "cool" and easy to make aliyah now. I much more admire those who did it years back, when Israel was tougher to make it in and they had stars in their eyes. I guess where he sees ideals, I see fashion, and where he sees failure, I see idealism. Go figure. Eilu v'Eilu? Maybe. Or maybe he's thinking of a different decade in the past than I. Ah well. I think it's a big contretemps over nothing, alas.

And the trip and convention itself? A-MAZING. I had such a great time. It deserves a new post, so I'll try to add more (with photos, I hope) at some later point.

Yay for Yehudit!

(And yay for alliteration!) If I read things right, she finished in just over six and a half hours. Here she is, half a mile from the finish, pausing for the camera. Again, Yay!

Of course, I missed the good shots, like the guy running in full Star Wars Stormtrooper costume, or the two Brits with a flag and poppies (gotta remember to wear mine this week). I did get a guy with a cake on his head (it was his birthday), and another in a kilt, and more, but hey- this is the most important! Yet again, Yay!

Have a good week, y'all. And savor that victory, Yehudit.

"Jerusalem is the city where Jewish kings are buried, not Arab terrorists."

Have I ever mentioned that there are times (OK, lots of times) when I just love Tommy Lapid? This is one of them. (I can't help noticing that it's "Tomy" on the official site, with "y" as an email initial.)

The Good News

To tell the truth, I've been smiling- at least on the inside- for the last day or so. The election news is fantastic, if for no other reason than who it makes mad and shows up. Of course, a lot that's much more important rested on this election, so it's good news for that as well. (Indeed, some of the former are related to the latter.)

Geez, that makes no sense. So the better news: The two main points made by the president in his victory speech dealt were reforming the tax code and social security. A man after my heart.

Anyway, I was thinking. I have no idea what this may mean, but consider: Clinton won two terms, followed by Bush, who's just won his second. Last time this happened? Well, FDR won four times (and Cleveland's second nonconsecutive term was followed by McKinley's first and incomplete terms), but the last time there were two two-victory presidents in a row was Lincoln and Grant. Of course, Lincoln didn't finish his term, so the last time it really happened was Jefferson-Madison-Monroe. Perhaps we're at a stage of consensus, where we don't throw presidents out. Or something like that.

I'm searching for a word here...there's a certain distinct kind of tragedy in seeing a U.S. Army deserter, returning from North Korea after forty years, being court-martialed while wearing a detail-perfect modern uniform that's clearly been supplied just for this occasion.

I suppose justice has been served. I'd hate to have been the prosecuter on this one, though. Or the defense, come to think.

Bloody Typical

Bertrand Russell's son is dead, and the Times obit offers this beaut of a quote:

...he had gained a reputation as a defender of the disenfranchised during his time in the House of Lords. In 1997, he admonished Prime Minister Tony Blair for saying he never gave money to beggars.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, he wrote that Mr. Blair "should remember that need may happen to anyone."

"If, after Mr. Blair has reformed the welfare state and gone out of office at the moment his pension fund goes broke,'' he continued. "I find him at King's Cross chanting 'give a tenner to Tony,' I will give to him, even if my gorge rises at it."

First, note how he equates "reform" with "end." (If only it were true!) But more importantly, note how he fails to connect the dots of how a welfare state enables people to avoid giving charity without qualms. ("Hey, the government is helping them, with my taxes!") Of course, he also avoids the issue of whether it's best to give out money on the street. Typical socialist claptrap.

Baseball

At least with the Astros out, we'll be spared the otherwise-inevitable silly comparisons to the presidential race.

Anyway, the nature of old boys' clubs hit home with the Cardinals' victory. Since there are no longer an American League and National League, they have an "Honorary President" to perform certain tasks, like award the league trophy. So there's this older guy presenting said NL trophy, named for his father. As he gives it to the owner of the Cards, he says something like, "It's named for my father, who was also a good friend of your father." An interesting coincidence- or various connections of old white dudes playing out in public?

Quoth the New York Times:

Red Sox rapture struck Jeff Brown like a thunderbolt.

Mr. Brown, 43, had already driven five and a half hours from his home in Loudon, N.H., to see the Red Sox crush the Yankees at Yankee Stadium and win the American League playoffs. On Thursday morning, he dashed back to New Hampshire, did a load of laundry and made two ham, cheese and mayonnaise sandwiches, then drove to Boston to be fifth in line at Fenway Park.

And then the kicker. What does he do for a living?

Equipped with a tent, 10 wool blankets and 3 layers of clothing, Mr. Brown,
a union negotiator, was prepared to camp out until Saturday to be there when
day-of-game tickets to the World Series are scheduled to become available at
the ballpark.

Eh. I should be more charitable. Good luck, Mr. Brown, and your team as well.

I'll get to the loathsome Mr. Jonas later, I hope.

A few links:

Funny, but oddly painful to watch after a while.

And here I thought Lincoln Chafee was immature. These are the lights of American libertarianism? What a bunch of whining, unsophisticated ninnies. From now on, I feel confident in saying I'm not a libertarian. Why, if my ideas match? Because I live on this planet, unlike these idiots.

Also very funny is this BBC video from Tikrit. (Thanks, Russ!)

Two observations (I'll post more later):

-Why does Canadian coinage mirror American so closely? Their 1-, 5-, 10-, and 25-cent pieces are the same size and color of their American counterparts. Go figure.

-Why do people feel obligated to say "Mashiv Haruach" and the like aloud? OK, you remembered. We're proud of you. Now can it. Maybe it helps once or twice, but at this point? Or Ata Chonantanu every week? Distracting.

A Christian nation, thank God.

After the Red Sox won last night, Curt Schilling (pitcher) was interviewed. The first thing out of his mouth was, "I became a Christian* seven years ago, and God has never been with me the way he was tonight." He went on to mention God a few times.

So I have a question for all the Jews out there, particularly the supremely confused "Frum liberals": How does that make you feel? And why?

Me, I'm pleased as punch that I live in a country where people (athletes, politicians- sincere ones only) talk that way. You'd never hear of such things in, say, France, or in Jimmy Carter's Earthly paradise of Canada. Or in the Democratic Party. And all are the poorer for it.

Come to think, you wouldn't find this in the mainline Christian churches, so beloved of liberal Jews now confused as to why they're turning on Israel, not realizing that liberalism, nonoffensiveness (when it comes to Jesus talk) and anti-Israelism tend to come as a package. "We worked so well together!" Yoffie and his ilk exclaim. Well, yes: You worked well on a left-wing agenda, not on anything religious. And now that they've found a new victim, it's turning on you. Hey, these people have a right to be liberal, but they shouldn't expect to be satisfied on all counts. If they want abortion (and cuddly nondenominationalism), they're going to have to take divestment. Me, I'd rather have Jesus talk than anti-Semitism. It helps that my politics match, of course.

*For reactionary ignoramuses, "became a Christian" means "became religious," not "converted."

...and all that

"Harold, king of England, killed defending the country on this day in 1066."

They used to take out a death notice in The Times (of London) every year saying that. I wonder if they still do.

Another anniversary: "There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, seven hundred and fifty miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier."

The demon was beaten fifty-seven years ago today. And that's the second time I've quoted that movie here recently.

And on Britain again, one link: Steyn's terrific piece. As has been pointed out on NRO, who knows how we'd react in this situation, but it's a compelling read.

Israel, Baby!

Going to the OU convention! Yay! (And going to see Nechama! Double yay!)

Coincidentally, I've just heard that Steve Savitsky is the new president. I guess he'll be sworn in (or whatever) there.

Richard Posner seems to have taken a course in missing the point (actually more than one, concerning "The Game," the detection/oddity issue, and the whole idea of fiction), at least for this article. I actually registered for The New Republic just to read it. Interesting, though. He, like I, notices the Imperial bent, but he draws different conclusions than I.

My thoughts: The Annotated Series, three of the volumes of which I own, is quite good. But I'll wait on this one, at least until volume three. Plus, I own both Baring-Gould (who seems to have had a bit of an Annotated Series of his own) and Oxford, which do a good job covering it from both angles.

I wonder if all of Klinger's individual volumes are included in these. In both cases, there's the money thing too. We'll see.

It just occurred to me that I really don't like people who maintain multiple blogs. Or, for that matter, post on one with multiple posters and keep another one (or more) of their own. Get off your high horse and make up your mind, will you?

And no, I don't think even my blog is so important. But then, I have only one.

It doesn't help that the one linked above, the cause of this epiphany, is so weak, the best parts are (of course) my brilliant responses. (Like shooting fish in a barrel, but still.) I tried to keep them civil.

Showing off his fine high-school education, Sean Penn provides better entertainment than any angst-ridden movie. Does anyone take this guy seriously (outside of the New York Times, of course)? "Disembowelment?" What is this, the Middle Ages? "You are...primarily young guys." Snerk.

James Derrida is dead.

And with those four words, I've disproved his entire life's work.

And yes, I know what his first name is. It's James.

Protest Warriors in Australia. The IDF t-shirt is a nice touch.

Excellent piece. And follow the links from there, and from there...ahh, the Internet.

From today's Times: "Mr. Cipel canceled plans for an interview last week, citing scheduling problems relating to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot."

Maybe this is ungenerous of me, but I've having a hard time imagining Cipel wandering the streets of Bnei Brak with a loupe in his eye, searching for the perfect mehudar esrog.

Also: Janet Leigh, R.I.P. "You don't scare me, Mr. Grand-ee!"

And another sad loss: "But on that glorious day in May 1963, Gordo Cooper went higher, farther, and faster than any other American - 22 complete orbits around the world; he was the last American ever to go into space alone. And for a brief moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen."

One wonders how anyone as immature as Lincoln Chafee can be entrusted with a position of such power:

"I'll vote Republican," he said, explaining that he would choose a write-in
candidate, perhaps George Bush the elder, as a symbolic act of protest.

Oh, Give. Me. A. Break.

One also wonders how one can actually attend YU and yet make so many simple, dumb, factual errors (not to mention overall ones of tone) in one article. Those who actually know the author have juicy reasons to give, and I defer to their judgment.

Speaking of factual errors, a "maven" means "expert", you dolt. You immoral dolt.

The Jewish Week (no link for you, you mamzers) seems determined to be as offensive as possible. A few weeks back, it was a piece explaining how gorging on tarfus as part of a contest is based on deeply-rooted Jewish traditions. Last week- on Yom Kippur, of all days- it's not one but two pieces fawning over gay issues. This week- surprise!- an utterly pointless article about how gay Israelis who marry in Canada won't be recognized back home, plus lots of letters on, well, gays. But the kicker was a piece about how getting tattooed is based on, you guessed it, deeply-rooted Jewish traditions.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Marvin Schick's latest advertorial causes me to quote Cyrano de Bergerac: "I need but three letters to describe you, and they are A-S-S." I'd personally add another four, but then his son might start up with me again. Besides, it's Tishrei. So I'll let him insult as much as he wants, telling me that I should have no political opinions other than what's good for the kikes, but, if I must, I certainly shouldn't hang with the "fascisti" at the GOP and the NRA.

Then again, nothing beats the New York Times telling us about "children" being killed on "both sides" in Israel. Sure. A two year old and a four year old cousin are killed by a rocket (in Israel proper, the Times doesn't note) on the one hand, while three Arab teens, Darwin award nominees all, decide to throw rocks at tanks instead of going to school and suffer the logical result on the other. Yup, that's equivalent. (Although the perfect followup is Monday's op-ed piece by some PA dude.)

Why am I being so grumpy here? It's Yom Tov! Chag Sameach, one and all!