Premature Treppenwitz...

...seems almost to be a contradiction in terms, but I happen to experience it every now and then. I come up with the perfect line (well, I think so), but don't use it. More often than not, it's because the person who needs to hear it is a humorless leftist (which is usually a redundancy).

Just the other day, for example, I passed by the fashion show tent in Bryant Park, and there were a bunch of anti-fur protestors. "Not wear fur?" I felt like asking. "But what else should we do with the pelts once we're done eating the yummy animals?" Nope. You don't try humor on those types. (One of whom might well be reading this, so I apologize in advance, T.)

More seriously, on Sunday, I passed by Ground Zero on my way to pump some money into the local economy, as they say. The President and First Lady were due to arrive later in the day, and the loons were already out in force. There were a bunch of anti-war (or whatever) protestors with black balloons (huh?) and wearing black, with Arabic lettering (of course) on their shirts. Fools: They'd be the first to be beheaded if they had their way.

But then there was a real loon, ranting and raving in front of a huge banner held by some hangers-on. I caught a bit of it: How the Bush family (!) is responsible for all this country's ills, and how it all started in 1776, when they were on the British side. (Not true, as it happens.) I really wanted to tell him "You know, this really isn't the place for a comedy routine," but he really wouldn't have gotten it.

Later that day, I was re-watching the indispensable 9/11. Something occurred to me that had never really hit home before: The towers are burning and collapsing, and throughout it all, off-duty and even retired firemen are returning to the firehouse, suiting up, and heading down. There's just no words for that sort of thing...those sorts of people.

I have, incidentally, no sympathy at all with the various watchgroups that protested the (re)airing of that movie. Having grown up without a TV, I tend to have little sympathy with them at all, as they seem not to realize that no one is forcing anyone to even own a TV, let alone turn it on. But to pick a fight specifically with this movie is just stupid.

I have even less sympathy, of course, with the Democrats who are howling over The Path to 9/11. Sure, people have a right to protest. But when government (in the form of Congressional Democrats, or even ex-Presidents) does it, it's really crossing a line. Of course, there's a fundamental difference between private and public action that liberals tend to have a hard time grasping in most contexts. But there's a creeping...dare I say fascism, and join Jonah Goldberg, whose not-yet released book seems to hit them a bit close to the mark? Perhaps it's simply a matter of projection of themselves onto others, the same way that it was the Clinton Administration which was involved in writing TV scripts, or how this leftist in Mexico is refusing to abide by election results, or the way that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demands a debate without "censorship." (A nice continuum there.) Kol HaPosel, B'Mumo Posel- it's always the thing you do that you use to criticize others.

Well, let's speak of better things. This time of year waaaaay back in 1989, I was already running into trouble at my new high school, well on the path to a turbulent few years. My parents, sensible people that they are, decided that suspension from school (shiur) on a Sunday was a fine excuse for doing something much better, namely, taking in the "New York is Book Country" street fair in Manhattan. What a wonderful time! (Actually, I'm probably conflating the number of times we went.)

As was usual, Isaac Asimov himself was at the Doubleday booth, signing books. He'd just published Prelude to Foundation (actually in paperback, but the Lamms decided we'd better get the hardcover, seeing as we'd want him to sign it and all), and although I was never such a huge fan, I figured I'd better get it, meet him, and get his autograph. After all, it was Isaac Asimov!(Come to think, I've had more brushes with Great Men than you'd think. Not sure if I shook his hand, though. And, of course, we didn't know that he wouldn't be with us for much longer.)

I walked up to him. "What's your name?" he asked, flipping open the book. "Ummm...Nathan," I answered. When you have two names, you're never sure which one to give.

"Took you a second, eh?" he smiled, signing, "To Nathan, Isaac Asimov" on the cover page. (I'm looking at that volume right now.)

"Schreib nukh a bissel!" ("Write a little more!") my mother called to him in Yiddish, which, of course, he understood.

"I've been writing all day!" he answered, mock-complaining.

"But you're a writer!" she answered. Like I said, always sensible.

"Ah- but I use a typewriter!" he answered.

What a man. Did you know he was credited as a consultant on the first Star Trek movie? (I knew I had to work in Trek, my main love, on its fortieth anniversary.)

It was later I started reading some of his work, such as the Black Widowers. I remember I bought the posthumous sequel to Prelude, but never got into it. I never really got the whole series, although I read some of the Robot stuff. But his non-fiction...wow. I first read some of his science guides, which my brother has, but later got his Shakespeare and Bible guides. Great stuff.

Anyway, why do I bring him up? Because it's September 14th (or was when I started typing this). On the morning of this day, in 1814, Francis Scott Key witnessed the events that would inspire what would later become the National Anthem. And Asimov wrote a wonderful piece on the anthem (along with what looks like a cute story), which I encourage you to read- you can find it here, and all over the Internet.

I first read that piece as part of a full-page ad by Reader's Digest in the New York Times. I still have it tucked away in a drawer. What strikes me in particular are some interesting turns of phrase by Asimov. From the very end:

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the
next time you have a chance, with new ears.

And don't let them ever take it away.

Now, I'm not sure what he means, exactly, by the last line. I do know one thing: The black-shirted anti-Americans at Ground Zero wouldn't approve.

Even better, from the beginning:

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over
freedom of the seas. We were in the right.

"We were in the right." Let's not fool ourselves: Asimov was an unreconstructed leftist. But he loved this country with a passion. I'd like to hear- just once- the likes of a Harry Reid or a Nancy Pelosi use language as simple as that. Don't get me wrong- there are liberals in this country- real loons- who sometimes surprise me with their actions and words. I look at some differently after, say, I see them on a USO tour in Afghanistan. But their kind, and those feelings, are more and more rare. I'd like to think it's not just projection of my wishes that thinks that Asimov (braver than I?) would have gone up to that ranting loon at Ground Zero and delivered my premature Treppenwitz for me.

Anyway, that's enough for now. Have a good weekend, all- perhaps I'll be able to write up a bit about the Parsippany story over the weekend- and, of course, go off on who knows how many tangents. Till then!

"Infrequent"? Moi?

A few weeks back, the OU emailed to tell me they'd be printing my latest missive to Jewish Action. To be perfectly truthful, I'd written it so much earlier I'd forgotten all about it. Ahhh, quarterly publications... But they printed it, and all thanks to them.

I'm flattered that Gil Student has seen fit to compliment the letter in a post devoted to it. Thanks, Gil! And in all honesty, I was going to post the next few items even before your remark about the infrequency of my blogging spurred me on further:

First, as regards yesterday's post, Schumer gets it, a bit. A very little bit. But not so bad, for a Democrat. Of course, he doesn't really make sense, but he's Schumer. (Go back to The Corner and see the other posts on this, though.)

Two comments caught my eye in the paper today:

First, there was a piece about how the WTC Memorial Foundation is appealing for donations through advertising. Now, I've seen these ads. I think they're disgusting, in and of themselves, not to mention the fact that the proposed "memorial" is simply disgraceful: Two holes in the ground. One can only hope that, like the tower, it will improve over time. Perhaps a big donation will get the ball rolling. For a fleeting moment this morning (well, OK, longer than that), my mind was full of one outrageous idea for a monument after another, most of them, inspired by Arne Darvin, quite offensive to our Mohammedan brethren. But you know what? We've proven that we can get it right; let's just apply moving and heroic on a larger scale.

Then there was a photo of some of the members of the polygamist cult whose leader was arrested the other day. They were said to be in "traditional dress" or some such. Well, the women were: They were in what looked like 19th Century or Amish-style dresses. The boys, on the other hand (poor kids, they'll probably be thrown out as soon as they hit their teens) were in plaid shirts and jeans.

Say what you want about the crazy stuff Chassidic men make their women wear (yeah, I know, they really like it, yada yada), at least they, the men, wear stuff that's just as crazy if not more. But this sect...and even more so, the Muslims: London is full of Muslim men and their women. The latter (sometimes clearly converts, God help us) are in the full get-up. The former? You only know they're Arabs from their color. Sometimes we Jews get it right.

Religion of Peace

Well, it seems like quite a few people are outraged by the granting of a visa to former president Khatami. Being a Normal-American, I'm pretty upset myself, especially by this idea that he has something to contribute to a discussion of cultures getting along- and in honor of September 11th, no less! Nor do I see Andrew Stuttaford's point here: It's not like he's currently in office, and, even if he was, I don't see what could be accomplished talking to these lunatics.

What really put the icing on, though, was this piece from Arutz-7:

When the chief rabbi began speaking at the closing ceremony, held on Tuesday,
the Iranian delegation, led by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami,
stormed out of the hall.

Yeah, Khatami has a lot to contribute.

Note also this, from the same piece:

In his remarks, Rabbi Metzger expressed his disappointment that he could not
talk with some religious leaders because he was Jewish.

Which leaders would that be? The Buddhists, maybe? The Hindus? The Jains? Oh, I was around when Political Correctness got started (and am proud to say I published an article against it in my school newspaper back then), and now it's killing us. Witness this story out of California, merely one of quite a few we've seen recently: Dude's name is "Omeed Aziz Popal." Irish? Italian? African-American? Well, the San Francisco Chronicle won't be the one to tell you. The do mention, almost in passing- thank God for small favors- that he wound up trying to kill people in front of the local Jewish Community Center, but the PC that's killing us by a thousand cuts, and sometimes more, won't let them put two and two together. Hopefully someone- we all- will before it's too late.

Oh, one more thing: Palestinian journalists ask for protection from the PA. (Here, via here.) The kicker?

They also denounced the recent kidnapping of two Fox News journalists in Gaza
City and said those who carried out the abduction acted against the interests of
the Palestinians.

Hmmm. And if it was in their interests, it'd be OK?

"My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us Noodles."

Just wanted to get that in first.

"Dear God! What brave men I must lose this day!"

...bayamim ha-hem, bazeman ha-zeh. (In those days, in these times.)

I took a trip into Brooklyn today. It's really some borough, which I don't see enough, and, thanks to getting off the train a stop early, I got to see more of it than I had expected; to wit, the Gowanus Canal district, location of a thrilling Sherlock Holmes story (sorta).

Anyway, after a nice walk, I got to where I was going, namely, the Old Stone House:

Doesn't look like much, does it? And yet, on August 27, 1776, 230 years ago this month, in the course of the Battle of Long Island, 256 Maryland soldiers* died while attempting to take and hold this farmhouse, which the British had turned into an artillery position. (Sound familiar?) Their sacrifice was what prompted the observing George Washington to murmur the remark that is the title of this post. (If you want to get the full impact of it, watch the movie version of 1776, and see how the actor playing Thomson reads it.)

*Hence the state flag on the left; on the right is this one. Thankfully, they are now hung correctly. I'm sorry that enlarging doesn't seem to work today.

The museum is small, but gives a very full presentation. Of course, I went mostly for the actual experience of what is rightly called "hallowed ground." The actual anniversary will see a recreation of the battle, which I might well attend.

Earlier in the morning, I had had my doubts about going at all. After all, I awoke to this news, which, of course, got worse as the day progressed, and my mood was turned. However, the night before, I had read not only this piece, but this one as well. The latter ends with this trenchant observation:

The disconnect between those who serve and those of us who are beneficiaries of
their service has always felt great to me, but never greater than at that
moment...I went to my car and drove to work with no ambition for the day other
than to be worthy.

There's so little I can really do to express gratitude and to help. I hope, today, through men who died over two centuries ago, I can appreciate, if only slightly better, the sacrifices of their heirs of today, both in the US and in Israel, who continue to fight- and die- for all of us.

Here, by the way, is a picture that, as Dr. Watson would say, has "long lain in my portfolio":

Those are two Yeoman Warders ("Beefeaters") inside the Tower of London. My parents and I, in our trip to London for a family celebration last month, happened to be visiting the Tower on July 7, the one-year anniversary of the bombings in that city. The Warders are preparing to ring one of the ancient bells at noon, when the UK observed two minutes of silence.

All in all, a very good (but very brief) trip. Good to see family especially, and I also got to touch on a few sites I'd long wanted to see- the Cabinet War Rooms and its new Churchill Museum, the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery, the Sherlock Holmes Museum, and more.

Getting back to today, before leaving Brooklyn, I also stopped at the Transit Museum:

Yes, that's the entrance- it's a converted subway station, which is very cute, and useful. Highly recommended. I'd gone to see their exhibit on Robert Moses and the Triborough Bridge, but at the start of the tour was a fascinating look at the building of the subway. My goodness, what work went into it. And lives, too: I was particularly struck by the account of ten workers killed while digging the tunnel at 190th and St. Nicholas Avenue- a station I've used. Two were named, the other eight were Italians, names unknown (!). In a way somewhat related to what I've written above, it makes you appreciate even more the fact that on a Sunday, I could get from Queens, through Manhattan, to two stops in Brooklyn, and back again, so quickly.

The day concluded with a wonderful first birthday party for my darling niece Aurelia. Here she is with her proud parents. I think she's just anxious to get to that cake, made to perfection by her mother. (I know I was.)

What a great party. My sister and brother-in-law came too, which was great: I don't see them nearly enough. Too many other pictures to choose from to post them here- but I must send them to my other sister! My birthday was last week, and while I got great cards and gifts from all my siblings and parents, I must post a picture of what she sent me, for its sheer originality:

Front and center are the gummi candies she knows I like so much. (It goes without saying that a Charlie Brown card was included.) As for the rest, well, my Bar Mitzvah parsha (which it doesn't look like I'll be layning this year, sniff) contains the famous pasuk about the sheva minim. So, straight from Israel, she sends me (clockwise from left) crackers flavored with, among other things, olive oil, pomegranate juice, five-grain cakes, figs and dates, and grape candies. So cool, huh? Thanks, Nechama! I hope to see you real soon!

Hmm, not much more to report. It's always sad when someone dies, even at 86 after a full and successful life, but I cracked a smile when I heard about Esther Snyder today:

Walter: "And, yes, we'll be near the..."

Donnie: "In-N-Out Burger."

Walter: "We'll have some burgers...some beers...some laughs..."

That's the best I can wish to you all. And so some email, and so to bed.

The Challenge of Creation

This post by Stanley Kurtz, particularly the line about how depression "can even lead to philosophical introspection- or religious epiphany" got me thinking about The Lonely Man of Faith, which I am currently reading through for the first time, thanks to an impulse buy of a new paperback edition. I do not mean to say, of course, that the Rav was clinically depressed, as he himself makes clear in the opening pages. As it happens, Kurtz's point is that such technical details don't really matter in the over-medicated world we live in. In any event, it's a bit comforting to yours truly, who still gets the occasional nudge from some friends to solve all my problems (not depression, of course) with a nice little pill. Not that I'm doing anything as creative as writing a book of philosophy, of course.

This particular edition is good for one big reason- it starts with a fine introduction by Dr. Shatz that really opens the work up. (For another introduction, see this cute story.) (On the other hand, the typesetting of the Hebrew phrases is awful. One day I must go through my other edition and correct this one.) If I was half the intellectual I sometimes pretend to be, I'd write a thoughtful blog entry about all the places I find myself taking issue with the Rav (generally on side points), and on the far more, and more substantive, places where I find myself in awe of his sublime writing and ideas. But that, believe it or not, is not the point of this entry, even though the title could easily apply to the Rav's work as well.

This entry, of course, is about R' Natan Slifkin's new book, or rather, the launch event I attended last night at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills. (I'm pretty proud it was in my neighborhood.) As I left, I found myself whistling the "Ascot Gavotte" from My Fair Lady- you know, "Everyone who should be here is here..." Indeed, the place was packed, and among the crowd was a veritable who's who. I got to see lots of people who, well, I just enjoy meeting. And as Dr. Shatz was there (among other YU people such as Drs. David Berger and Shalom Carmy, R' Blau, and R' Feldman), I thanked him for the new edition, stressing what a help his introduction was.

But on to the main topic: As he was signing books, I reminded R' Slifkin that I had gone to the zoo with him last year, and then surprised him by asking him to sign not the new book (which I got as well), but the original, "The Science of Torah." "What's this?!" he exclaimed, "Put it in the genizah!" Instead of signing with his standard "Hope you enjoy the book," he wrote "Hope you enjoyed this fossil!" He's really a great guy.

So before getting to the speeches, who else was there? Well, Steven I. Weiss, who it's always good to see, and a bunch of people from the neighborhood, including Steve Brizel, who I met live for the first time. (He referred me to the post here, and I've commented.) I had best leave the rest anonymous, eh? True to my code as a vexillologist, I inquired as to the odd flag flying up front from the rabbi, and got a solid (if perplexing, to both of us) answer. That's always nice. Side note: With all the triangles in Young Israels, I sometimes wonder about Masonic plots.

I must say, R' Tzvi Hersh Weinreb spoke remarkably well. He began by speaking about the current war in Israel (I do hope I will have my own modest bit to say about it soon), and then, masterfully, linked to the topic of the evening by using the verse in Zechariah about the fasts becoming holidays- "VeHaEmet VeHaShalom Ehavu." He spoke about the importance of truth, and peace, and finished by discussing the point of view that God wants us to study the universe- a Lammian (not me, and yet my view as well) view, I should point out.

Gil Student then spoke very well about ignoring bans. He focused on halacha, and who is entitled to decide bans and the like. I have to raise some points and objections here, though: First, I'd like to point out that just as there may be opinions as whether or not to ban a book, so too there are (or should be) opinions that books are not to be banned, period. (Henry Jones, Sr.: "It tells me that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.") After all, when all is said and done, what happens if, following your "Gadol knows right, so long as I get to choose the gadol" hashkafa, you can't find one to choose? (OK, I'm an Apikores. But I won't surrender my God-given mind.)

More importantly, there was a lot of apologetics last night, as well as within the book itself. "This book is not meant for certain people" and the like. Now, I understand that part of this may have been meant to stave off further bans, as if that would help and as if they would hurt any more. But it strikes me more as groveling. (Chip Diller: "Thank you sir, may I have another!") More importantly: Charedim seem to have no problem dismissing any point of view that isn't their own, openly saying that everyone should be like them (if they don't simply ignore everyone else). Why can't the Modern Orthodox do the same? Why do we look over our right shoulders instead of saying, plainly, that intellectual openness is the one true path in Judaism, and ultra-Orthodoxy is illegitimate?

Eh, I'm shouting down the wind here. And detracting from the main point, which is that the gathering was quite good, and the book, from what I've read so far, is remarkable too. R' Slifkin, God bless him, sees the folly in Gosse as well as in Intelligent Design, and shows said follies in a lucid way. He spoke as well, of course, getting (through a humorous tone) right down to the main issues involving the book. He answered (or dodged, as appropriate) a few questions, and signed some more. I recommended the Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural History to him, and headed home.

The next event, in Teaneck tonight, would be a bit much for me, I think. Go if you can! Maybe I'll catch him at Stern at the end of the summer. A big yasher koach to R' Slifkin (and to Gil!), and wishes for all future success to them.

Please God, I shall have something substantive to say on Israel soon. Until then!

"I will do such things- what they are yet, I know not; but they shall be the terrors of the earth!"

It's all in the delivery, as I've noted below. So too the line above. To be perfectly honest, while I studied King Lear in my senior year of high school (with Mr. Schoenberg, OBM) and have seen it here and there, I don't think I ever really knew that the line above was from there. I have seen it in various contexts, however, like here, and I guess I knew it was Shakespeare. (And not in the "don't know a source of a quote, just say Shakespeare" way.)

On the face, it seems pretty fierce: "Oh, what I'm gonna do to you is so bad, I haven't even thought of what it is yet!" But today, I saw the Boomerang Theatre production in Central Park. I've always liked these outdoor Shakespeare productions: In fact, later in the day, I passed the location of the famous "Shakespeare in the Parking Lot" productions, which I hope are still around, if only for the name. (Update: Yup. Yay!) Sue me, but the idea that Shakespeare is always produced, and in such settings, stirs some deeper parts of my nature.

This production happened to be quite good. And the line of the title of this post was delivered in a way I'd never have thought: Imagine Lear, played here by an older, white bearded actor. They added an interesting touch: Lear has changed from the suit he wore at the beginning of the play to a plaid shirt and chinos while carousing with his men. It was still early on in the play, but I got the thought, as soon as I saw him, of "Damn. He gets thrown out while dressed down like that."

Now he's being thrown out by his daughters, crushed, insisting (against all evidence) that he will "not weep." And he delivers the line: "I will do such things..." And he pauses, and, voice faltering, finally says, "what they are yet, I know not..."

And it's over for him. Oh, he can finish, "but they shall be the terrors of the earth!" And that might even restore a bit of his dignity or authority. But it doesn't really matter. We've seen that he has no power, no idea what to do. Perhaps he never did. And he will have none until he dies.

Whew. Makes you think. As I said, a good production, a good location, a good crowd, a great cast and direction. And what lines!

This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune,
often the surfeit of our own behaviour, we make guilty of our disasters the sun,
the moon, and the stars; as if we were villains by necessity, fools by heavenly
compulsion, knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance, drunkards,
liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all
that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of
whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!

And then there's something Cecil Adams wrote:

My epiphany happened during my freshman year in college, when I took an
introductory lit class with one of the great teachers, a fellow named Bergen
Evans. One day Evans was lecturing on King Lear. After some buildup about the
sense of despair in this play, he read the famous lines: "As flies to wanton
boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." The last few words were
said with a sort of quiet hiss. I suppose you had to be there. All I know is, I
didn't question Shakespeare's genius after that.

Not quite the way it was delivered here- more as a shout to the heavens- but I said it along with the actor this time. What truths.

Jam-packed Sunday, as it happens. I got a haircut (saved unimaginable amounts of time and money), and went straight off to the Museum of Natural History, to see their Darwin exhibit. Very well done, and lots to report on that (or based on that), but it'll have to wait for a more decent hour. Then off to Lear, and you've seen about that.

Oh- there've been some good flag-related pieces in the Times lately. Here's one about my dream job, and here's one from today. Regarding the latter, I have to say I approve- especially considering that we know what the alternative is. (Hint: It wears headscarves.)

Anyway, I hope to have more about evolution later. Until then, have a great week, homes!

Happy Flag Day!

Only a few minutes left to Flag Day (and the US Army's birthday), so I'd better blog about it. Sotheby's today auctioned four Revolutionary War flags; you can read about it here. They were kind enough to extend an invitation to the pre-auction luncheon to NAVA members, so that's where I was this afternoon.

It was a sight to see. I've never been to an auction before, and this one was pretty impressive. The unit that was the original possessor of one flag has been re-established, and there were re-enactors there in full costume.

I took this photo without a flash, before seeing that everyone else was using one and turning mine on. The Dragoons wore horse tails on their helmets, which reminded me of the Rohirrim. (Perhaps Tolkien meant it to be the other way around.)

Also there was the great-great descendant of the British officer who had captured the flags and brought them back to England; they've been in the family since. I think I even heard him mentioning that he was wearing his ancestor's cufflinks. He posed with the unit of re-enactors in front of the flag, which was quite nice. (A bit fuzzy, sorry.) The auction was packed, standing room only. The individual unit flag, the earliest surviving example of a thirteen-stripe US flag, sold for 11 million dollars. The three regiment flags from Virginia sold together for four and a half million. They both went to the same bidder (on the telephone), who, after fees and taxes and all, will pay about 18 million dollars. I do hope they'll be on public display somewhere.

I made sure to thank the auctioneer, who had extended the invitation, and picked up a free catalog. In the cab back to work, I took in the magnificent buildings on Sutton Place. What lovely houses. (Sotheby's, a more- very- modern building, is nothing to sneeze at either.) All in all, a good way to celebrate Flag Day.

"So long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses."

That's what Ellen Terry said after Oscar Wilde was arrested. [Correction: Terry, while supportive, never quite understood exactly what Wilde was accused of doing. The above comment was made by another actress.] It came to mind after seeing a performance of The Importance of Being Earnest yesterday. As one woman sitting behind me, flipping through the program, complained to the audience member seated next to her, "They spend so much time talking about the scandal that there's nothing about his writing!" Which, unfortunately, was true. I'm not saying that things have to be swept under a rug (or, better, into a closet). But to give over a play without telling us of the play itself- its history, what Shaw had to say, its influence? Without telling us that Wilde was a great writer, who wrote The Picture of Dorian Gray, Salome? Instead, the program- I'm paraphrasing, but this is the gist- tells us that Wilde was born, went to college, wrote some articles, met Alfred Douglas in 1891, and that was the end of him.

He met Bosie in 1891, as the program states. His most famous works followed in the next few years. Nothing. But such is the state of Culture that it must be done in the streets, the horses- and Wilde himself- be damned.

Speaking of which, I found it ironic that one of the eulogists at A. M. Rosenthal's funeral described him as the man who "kept the Times straight." Now, this was an old dude, probably meaning the word as it's always been. But, as I said, ironic, considering, as I've mentioned here before, that under Rosenthal, they couldn't even use the word "gay." Now? Horse-frightening time!

Oh, the play was magnificent, by the way. It was the last performance of Peter Hall's production at the Brooklyn Academy of Music's Harvey Theater. (The theater is named for one Harvey Lichtenstein, but the first name is shorter and easier to pronounce than the last, I guess. There is a [Roy] Lichtenstein print inside, interestingly. And the building is...also interesting. By "interesting," I mean, "looks like it's about to fall down." As the guy sitting next to me said, they probably can't afford to fix it up just now, so try they pass off the boarded-up-for-decades ruins as "authentically Brooklyn" or some such.)

Whoa, I'm really getting distracted with my rants. The performance! Wonderful! Lynn Redgrave as Lady Bracknell. Every actress I've seen brings a little something different to the role, even while staying true to the original. I always pay special attention to how the "handbag" line is delivered. When I saw Patricia Routledge perform the role in London, it was an annoyed bellow, coming after Jack's endless revelations. (A news item in The Times about the Queen Mother's two daughters taking her to a performance for her birthday alerted me to it being on. I liked the way The Times offhandedly referred to how "even Aunt Augusta" sang "Happy Birthday" with the rest of the cast, as if we're all just supposed to know what that means and implies.)

Edith Evans (in a movie with another Redgrave) delivers the line with a shocked, but still upper-class nasal, cry. Judi Dench sort of sighs it, in resignation. Ms. Redgrave, yesterday, just said it, dismissively, her head almost turned, her mind already made up about Jack.

Anyway, kudos to the cast, crew, and BAM. An enjoyable three-borough Sunday, starting with a very good Kollel (as always) and ending with a bit of Wilde. What's not to like?

"I don't care who went here...their spirit is DEAD!"

"Hoo-ah!"

Well, I figured I'd drop the topics promised in the previous post (including, regretfully, Szyk, but check him out here) in favor of a discussion of Isaiah and the Messiah. But then, yesterday morning, I heard a bit on the news I felt compelled to comment on. And then another and another. So the Messiah, figuratively speaking at least, will have to wait. I'm sure my huge audience (wherever it is) is sorely disappointed on all points.

The news kicked off with a bit about Tax Day, pushed off two days to Monday this year. Here in New York, however, because we send our hard-earned money to the ever-rapacious government via their processing center located (somewhat appropriately) in Andover, Massachusetts, we got one more day, since it was Patriot Day there Monday. (It really should be the 19th, I guess, but the three-day weekend, God bless it, usually- but not always!- wins out over history.) The Mets even had free tax help last night.

Anyway, I heard that bit, and fell in love with the USA all over again. Ain't this a great country, with a great federal system, with local days and the like? It sure is.

And then came the next bit. Some pissant state legislator babbling incoherently (as the Left is wont to do) about the need to let cops break into people's homes to see if their kids are drinking. The scariest part was that somewhere in his ravings, he mentioned the need to find "balance" or some such. If this is "balance," I shudder to think what he thinks is a reasonable extreme. Taking kids from parents at birth and having the State raise them, I guess. Oh, wait, we do that already. And they always said it was the Right who'd bring us Fascism.

Anyway, this guy was from Connecticut. In New England. Had he been around on the Eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five, he'd have been lucky to get away with some tar and feathers.

That got me thinking of Paul Revere, as I like to do, and that always makes me feel better. "The Regulars are out! To arms!"

In war news, I think it's hi-larious that Moussaoui is now pleading a tough childhood. When you get down to it, these jihadis are just big infants. With bombs, of course.

Meanwhile, Hanoi Jane, in an interview that shows just how much like us (not) the privileged Left is ("Oh, I love to fish on Ted's property in Argentina!"), tells about how she'd have loved to protest the Iraq War, but had too much "baggage." Fortunately, Cindy Sheehan was there to fill in. Cindy has no baggage, apart from being a raving anti-American, anti-Semitic loon.

Speaking of the war, this piece by Ben Wattenberg is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Ben loves immigints. More than bears. He thinks they provide lots of bodies for the armed forces to stop bullets with. He likes assimilation, but not enough to mention it more than once. He produces this zinger:

Most Jews want their children to marry other Jews, but half of them don't.
Israel Zangwill was right; we are a melting pot - although Pat Moynihan used to
point out with glee that Zangwill later emigrated to Palestine!

Well, "most" is not "half." And Zangwill died in England. But I digress: This paragraph is pointless, and makes no sense, to boot.

Then he ends with this:

Native Americans, slaves in chains, George Washington, Albert Einstein, and the
guys who started Google came from somewhere else. With earlier restrictions we
could have become Australia or Canada. (Canadians let in a lot of immigrants in
a wiser manner than we do, and then many of them promptly come here, including a
few terrorists.)

Ahem. George Washington, one of the "guys who started Google," and lots of other people were born here. And terrorism should not be an afterthought.

In any event, it's a dumb show. A nation that can't keep out illegal drugs,
can't keep out illegal immigrants. If we try to do it harshly, we are begging
for trouble with Mexico, and with observers around the world.

Sure, let's worry about what the world says! Let's give up and surrender! Let's sign California over to Mexico! (I'd give up Puerto Rico first.)

Oh, Lord. On to Israel.
I wonder. Bush and all like to talk about how the vote for Hamas wasn't for terrorism, but against corruption, for better services, yada yada. I wonder if they'd make the same argument about Kadima- it wasn't a vote to withdrawal, but against...hmm. Kadima is the party of corruption. Nevermind. Let's take voters at their word, or, better, accept that once they vote, it doesn't matter what they had in mind.

Meanwhile, Katsav had this winner of a line:

"I oppose negating the citizenship of Israelis because of their religious [sic], nationality, or race, no matter what the reasons are. The rights of Israel's Arabs are not conditioned upon their fulfilling obligations [to the state], just as their obligations are not conditioned on the receipt of rights."

OK, that makes no sense. Rights may be immutable, true, but there are certain obligations that we have nonetheless. As he implies...wow, he makes less sense than Ben Wattenberg. Or maybe more...I dunno. I'd say you should only be allowed to hold office if you have a good grounding in political theory and rights, but that's arguing for a government of lawyers, God forbid. We've got that in the US, and they still don't know anything about that. Anyway, Katzav owes his position to an imitation (God knows why) of the British monarch, and as an English friend of a friend once put it, "We don't count on our Royals for brains."

As that link shows, some, alas, do. But as long as I'm linking to the Telegraph, I found something fascinating there: Shiite Islam believes in 36 hidden righteous people. (Of course, their loony president probably thinks he's one of them, which alone would be a sure sign he isn't.) Is it a coincidence that there's a similar Jewish belief? Well, maybe.

Well, we muddle along, confident that the body of the people, anywhere, is so much better than the politicians who purport to lead them. And that is what makes countries great. On to the last day(s) of chag, Isaiah, and the Messiah! Enjoy, all!

Randomness

A few random links, courtesy of The Corner:

The Queen is worth 23 millihelens. Brava, and Happy Birthday! (You, too, Hef.)

What's interesting here is what no one has yet mentioned- all these modern, successful, politically correct women- all staying home with the kids, bragging about how many they're raising. (Follow the link to the original piece, then click on the next piece, for yet another Chillul Hashem. Me, I saw the biggest seagull this morning. All that trash.)

Kurtz comes close, but doesn't quite admit what's going on here: McCain's in a position to win. Had he won the primaries in '00 (with CFR passed anyway, why didn't I support him?), you can bet the media would've dumped him then too.

Steyn's latest hits a bit close to home. The Corner (apart from the resident kike) has been making some good points as well.

The free paper today provided a laugh. Turns out that Charlize Theron and the beau (some other actor) are declining to marry until gays have the "right." I love it! Another way for guys to avoid committment, with added bonus of being Mr. Sensitive! "Oh, I'd love to settle down, baby, but the poor gays..."

Of course, silliness isn't limited to celebrities, as the same paper will reveal. Although here it's more sickening: A young person is dead, and the talkers and PTB argue over whether it was a hate crime? Does it matter? (And I ask that as a victim of a similar attack, fortunately ended a bit better.) Charge them with the crime! Jeez! This is identity politics run amok, along with these idiotic hate crimes laws. (You remember Pataki's idiotic line, about how they might have prevented Hitler.)

Anything else? Oh, yes, the Szyk exhibit and associated ironies. And multinationalism. Tomorrow, perhaps.

Chillul

Call me sensitive, but this rioting in Borough Park is really getting to me personally. I generally don't approve of starting up with anybody, and especially people who are serving you. And now I have to worry that every cop who sees my headgear will think I'm just like one of these animals? (As evidenced by this chat board that's been posted.) It's bad enough that someone named Weissman down South has to go fighting the Pledge of Allegiance. Change your name, buddy. Better yet, shut up.

Anyway, apart from the worst aspect of it- the rioting itself- one thing that really gets to me is this accusation (as if it somehow absolves the rioters) that the Chief of Police used the word "Jew" somehow. Jews, especially those who are visibly Jews, have really got to wake up to certain realities. Namely, if you appear unusual somehow, people will notice and it will stick in their minds. This is especially true of Chassidim, the whole point of whose life is to be different. So if the Chief is faced with the already unusual situation of a Chassidic riot, and sees a mob of men in coats and hats and peyot, what do you expect to pop into his head? (I guess it's somewhat related to that little tiff of putting "Jew couple" on a bill.)

Don't get me wrong: This is a great and tolerant country, where the vast majority of people, of all classes, races, and so on, have no problem with Jews and may even think they're terrific. I've been to the most WASPy events and seen evidence of this. (And no, it wasn't an Eddie Murphy-style "Especially not when I'm around" type of thing.) In addition, America is a very polite place, where even the most racist individuals are circumspect in their language, and not just because they're PC-whipped. This in opposition to wonderfully tolerant Europe, for example.

However, people notice details of skin color, head coverings, and more. It's natural, it happens to all of us, and Dov Hikind should cut it out.

Another troubling absolution-of-rioters is the harping on the original arrest. Right or wrong, I think it reflects a deeper Orthodox (and Jewish, and middle-to-upper-class) neurosis- that somehow, certain people don't "belong" in jail or shouldn't have trouble with the police. I noticed this recently in a blog entry criticizing attempts to get rabbis and the like to write letters for clemency for Abramoff. I'm sure the practice is common in many communities, and may not be completely wrong. But it certainly reflects this mindset- that there are no Jewish criminals, or, if there are, they shouldn't do hard time. And this leads to the excitable starting riots when cops do to a Jew what they do to others every hour of the day.

Anyway, put me foursquare on the side of law and order on this one, and against the enemies of society.

Wow. Back to ranting! Well, I better give it a rest for the Chag. Later, all!

Birthdays

First things first- it's Mom's birthday! Happy birthday, Mom!

It happens to be Jonah Goldberg's as well- Happy birthday!- and, as it happens, I wanted to mention this column by him. [Off topic, Brookhiser has never seen The Merry Wives of Windsor? The horror! Oh, and also: John Podhoretz is really, really, out of his element in The Corner.]

Anyway. Quoth Jonah:

...I think it’s better for everybody concerned if we start from a foundation of
libertarianism and build up from it. In public policy — as opposed to cultural
politics — I think the default position should be libertarian and then arguments
should be made for why we should deviate from libertarian dogma.

(Come to think, Ben Chorin's post is somewhat related.) The important thing is, with all this talk of new movements and all, I'm beginning to think of myself as a "Goldberg conservative." Well, as a Lamm-conservative, but he's more famous.

There's also this:

I can still be stunned by the barbarism of really anti-Semitic e-mail. What’s
even more depressing is the anti-Semitic e-mail from people who are otherwise
normal and then slip it in because they simply get comfortable.

I hate to say it, but the man has a point. Of course, it comes out on the Left more. Just see this.

One last thing: What sort of question is this?

"Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs
of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?"

Huh? Is she trying to trap Bush as being for it or against it? What do you answer to that? Well, what Bush did answer, I guess.

What the...?

I don't doubt the quote from the Vaad president here is true. It's just a prime example of not letting greenhorns into positions of influence before they realize what's what.

Of course, it's not like native do a much better job, but first things first.

Reading the dude's site, it seems clear he's pulling the old "be a troublemaker and claim they don't like you for other reasons" shtick. It also seems clear that YU is pulling the old "don't like someone and claim he's being a troublemaker" shtick. Wouldn't things be so much simpler if people were honest, and YU had lawyers and staff who had certain, well, values, aside from PR?

One more thing: I'm certainly glad I never vote for Democrats. Mayersohn represents my district. I've never voted for her.

On a completely different note: Memo to self: There are certain people out there (especially on Mail-Jewish, it seems) who take the things they have a strong interest in very seriously indeed. Do not anger them. You've done it too many times (three at least) already.

Sheloshim Yom Kodem HaChag...

(Not to neglect Caesar, of course.) Well, a bit more on Purim, in honor of Shushan Purim. (In Chevron, they celebrate both days; as a friend of the family's said to my sister, "We exchanged Purim Shel Galut for Yom Tov Sheni Shel Geulah. Hee!)

After Shacharis yesterday, I spoke with the Rabbi a bit about the two famous repeated words in the Megillah- he'd given a shiur once about what the correct version was, and I wanted to know what to do, as our Megillah has the "incorrect" versions. Turned out his does as well. In any event, we fell to talking about what may have caused this- perhaps the fact that "leharog" is mentioned twice before (and, he point out, bifneihem earlier in Tanakh with similar words) led to them being written in those forms here.

I then mentioned the fact that some people repeat "B'Omrom" when that is certainly just a k'tiv; he told me that he asked the Grach that very point, and he said the same thing. But as I read the Megillah later that day, I realized that B'Omrom, too, occurs earlier, and there may have a been a similar- and, obviously, much older- mix-up leading to the k'tiv.

Something to ponder. And now on to Pesach!

Kol Rinah V'Yeshua B'Oholei Tzadikim...

Well, that's the "official" explanation of the word "Krovetz." Probably just a form of "K'rovah," but that's typical, as we will see shortly.

What a great Purim! Relaxing and exhilirating at the same time! It does remind me that I've wanted to comment of the "Krovetz" for Purim for a while.

A passing reference at a shiur of R. Leiman led to some research in the Encyclopedia Judaica, where I made an interesting discovery: The nineteenth bracha in Shemona Esrei is not Minim, as we've always learned. That was always there, at least as a general request to defeat enemies, with the later Tanaaitic "creation" (merely) being the addition of language against internal enemies. (Come to think, the Gemara seems to differ with that idea. Anyway.) The actual nineteenth blessing seems to have been "Et Tzemach," the content of which would seem to be covered in the previous Bracha. (Or, perhaps, according to the "traditional" view, it was incorporated there by some to maintain the eighteen total?) That it wasn't added until much later, at least in Israel, can be seen by the fact that the various weekday k'rovot (and, despite what your siddurim of today will show, there were many, for many weekday semi-holidays), written in Israel, do not contain added text for that bracha.

Of course, Artscroll, proudly obscurantist to the last, as a glance at their catalogs (arrived today) will show, chooses to ignore this (if they ever knew it). Instead, they give a cock-and-bull story about how Esther and Mordechai were from the family of Sha'ul and thus there's no k'rovah for the bracha dealing with the line of David. Typical.

My father, in fact, was m'chaven to Artscroll and thought of the same reason on his own. But he, you see, is not editing a new siddur. (Nor am I.) Artscroll is, and should know better.

Speaking of siddurim, I had another interesting experience. I was going through siddurim at the YU library recently (don't ask why), and came across the Kabbalah Centre's [sic], by none other than "Rav Berg" [sic]. Right away, I flipped through to the "Shelo Asani" brachot. After all, if you're changing for a modern audience, that'll be the first to go- and not entirely without halakhic support, if I may. I was much surprised- not a word was changed. There were lots of explanations, of course, about how "goy" doesn't mean, well, "goy" and so on, but nothing too far from what Artscroll will give you. It made me wonder if the Bergs relate to their center (notwithstanding that they created it) in a similar manner to the Young Israel rabbis I discussed here- that all that stuff may be good for them, but there are some lines they can't bring themselves to step over. Odd.

One good thing about taking the day off was that I got to hear Rush for the first time in a while. He was great- oh, how I've missed him. One good moment, however inadvertent, occured right after Rush, responding to a caller, explained all about why entitlement programs, specifically Medicaid, have to (or want to) push for "customers" so hard. It was followed immediately by an ad trying to convince people that they really need to sign up for the...Medicaid prescription medication boond...er, program.

As long as we're on politics, the little bit at the end here is just ridiculous. It's not like the reporter didn't know full well where the President gets his news- and with the kid and his family right there, he tries to score a cheap point. Bush, of course, pulled it off great, God bless. (Hat tip.)

A new Tradition, and it's a beaut. Congrats, especially, to the new online editor!

Oh, and I must quote this email in full:

Dear NAVites,

Many thanks to everyone who responded to Geoff Lester's question
about his "mystery flag." Below is the email that I received from him
today. I didn't mention last time that he was referred to us by the staff
of National Geographic. Both the referral and our response are convincing
proof that NAVA is "where it's at" when it comes to vexi-matters. Well
done, everybody!

Peter Ansoff

President, NAVA

[...]

Dear Peter: What a response! The flag turns out to be that of the West Indies Federation, 1958 to 1962. I do very much appreciate your help and have thanked those who responded to your request, namely: James Ferrigan, Nathan Lamm, Steve Wheatley, Whitney Smith, Roger Baert, Luc Baronian, John Ford, David Ott and Fred Barcel. I salute you all. Geoff.

Me and Whitney Smith in one sentence! Oh, my, goodness. What a great Purim.

MiShenichnat...

Leave an entire month without a blog posting? And risk messing up the index on the side? (Yes, that's how my mind works.) Well, despite a request not to put up pictures of the simchot, I, quoting Patrick Henry, say, "Forbid it, Almighty God!" And so, some thoughts:

-As kids, we had a Purim coloring book which began with a picture of snow falling. I remember thinking that was silly- snow was for Chanukah! And this morning, the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar, we get snow! And they say the world's getting warmer. Or cooler. Or something.

-On the bus home Sunday, I observed, as I have a few times recently without comprehension, an advertisement for Burger King, in Spanish. Above it, someone had added the observation that we "have Bush to thank for this," and advising those coming to America to "learn English or go home." Below this fine sentiment was another, in a thicker pen, altering "America" to "Amerikkka", as is the way of the Left, and calling the former editorialist a (you guessed it) "racist." Well, I'm omitting some of the more pungent New York tawk. But you get the idea.

Anyway, it just made me marvel how we've reached a point where the supposed fanatical right-wing president is defended, at least somewhat and on some grounds, by the Left. Go figure. Someone on National Review recently made the point of how the lack of will among Republicans to take on certain issues (immigration, multiculturalism, etc.) only encourages the real loons further right. (Or left, or what-have-you.)

-I was on the bus as I was returning from Kollel Yom Rishon. Very good, as always. Rabbi Blech had a line that, well, spoke right to me, but was sort of rendered moot today, at least for now. And the Yiddish from the other presenter (both, really) was kept down to somewhat tolerable levels. (That reminds me- I still haven't done a review of the book I received. Not sure if it would be polite to write too honestly.) As long as I was up in the Heights, I took in a fine and hospitable siyum by a good friend and the last day of the Sefarim Sale. I didn't buy anything this time, but it was nice to see as it wound down. Although I regret giving my number more than getting it, as seems to be a theme.

-Finally, the status of gedolim seems to be an issue, as one may see here (and here), here (and here), and here (don't miss the comments on any of those posts). Two Sundays ago, I attended the OU's second Mesorah Conference, just as good as the first (although no big dinner after, alas). One thing I noted especially: The audience were ba'alei (and ba'alot) bayit, serious, certainly, but I would imagine not particularly "into" the big fights, followers of the blogosphere, militant Modern Orthodox, or anything like that. And yet whenever something particularly silly done by contemporary gedolim came up- not gratuitously or maliciously, to be sure, but these things happen more often than ever nowadays, it seems, and so come up they did- there were reactions ranging from knowing titters to outright guffaws. An offhand mention of Slifkin, laughter. An example of poskim deciding things not at all in their purview, the same.

Oh, and one more thing- it seems there's a growing number of Orthodox (again, leaning right, not part of any of the categories listed above) who have taken a real interest in Masoretic issues. An offhand reference to Ben Asher and Karaism by a speaker at the conference brought an impassioned reaction from one audience member, for example, and I've been seeing quite a bit of this in recent times. I'm getting the strong feeling that a lot of people are starting to grasp that something's not quite right with the party line ("every letter from Sinai" is just the tip of the iceberg). Lord knows where it will end, especially when combined with the other sentiments above.

Enough for now. I'll write about the Artscroll treatment of the K'rovot for Purim closer to the day itself, I hope. For now: Was there really no other option than to write the word "Bavli" over and over again in the edition of Shekalim?

Auld Acquaintance

Today is the 230th anniversary of the first hoisting of the Grand Union Flag, predecessor to the modern United States flag. A real reason to celebrate! Hope you all have a great 2006!

"Yeah, the family had lots of buffas."

A few months back, I posted about the fact that there was absoultely no reason to leave the Northern Gaza settlements. Now I see that, now that the expected rocket attacks on Israel proper has begun, the IDF has declared a buffer zone in Northern Gaza. And it follows the exact boundaries of the settlements. Doesn't even go to the eastern border. Huh. Go figure. Now why did they pull out again?

In 1966, the Transit Workers Union went on strike, shutting down New York City transit for twelve days. The leader of the union at the time was Michael J. Quill; when sent to jail, he famously remarked, in his Irish brogue, "The judge can drop dead in his black robes!"

Days after the strike ended, it was Quill who dropped dead. My father, in his wisdom, attributes his death to the accumulated curses of angry New Yorkers.

Roger Toussaint, to quote Patrick Henry, should profit from Quill's example.

Isn't staging a transit strike the wrong way to argue against automation of trains? Come tomorrow, lots of New Yorkers will likely be grumbling, "Replace 'em all with robots!"

Oh, and the "Miami Beach" is less funny the second time around. And when the driver might be on strike the next day.

Willaim Proxmire has died. "Oh, the Russians never got into space. Admiral Heinlein wouldn't allow it!"

I bash Artscroll a lot. So here's a bit of praise to them. I checked it out last night myself- not bad at all! Well, except for the last sentence (of Artscroll's), which is nonsense.

A short while back, a thought occured to me: In the old days, capital punishment used to be handed down for all sorts of things. Now that it's reserved (where it's given) for murder only- and then only in cases of certain murders- it seems wrong to give anything less. After all, if you're going to give a rapist 25 to life, how is it right to give a murderer the same?

Then, hearing a news report about Ken Lay this morning, it occured to me as well that the opposite is true: If we give 25 to life for murderers, it doesn't seem quite right to do the same for any other crime, particularly white collar ones.

Anyway, just a thought. Here's another: Who does Jesse Jackson think he is? Coming to New York to stir up a transit strike? Get lost, you poser!

Here's an email I just got:

As we approach the new year, may you and yours find peace and love among family
and friends as you celebrate the Solstice, Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, or
other holidays. ["And a Kwazee Kwanza!"- NL, channeling Krusty]

Sick. May I point out that Ramadan has been over for weeks? That's one renewal (it's from a journal I get) I'm not making.

Isn't it a bit chutzpadik for the son of a Nobel Prize winner who's traded on his name to write a book in defense of nepotism? Or is it just no-yichus me complaining?

Bus driver: "Union Turnpike subway station. Next stop, Miami Beach." If only.

Finally, Yay!

Just because...

...she's adorable.

"The Other Side"

The morning news brought a piece about yet another anti-Christmas lawsuit, this one up in Rockland County. Sickening as always, but then came one local woman's quote:

"They've got symbols for Christmas and...um...Hanukah, so it's both sides!"

This was followed by a completely inane question from the reporter about Ramadan, no doubt because the Muslim masses of Rockland are demanding their ages-old custom public displays as well. (The answer was hard to figure out.)

The worst part, of course, was the word "sides." I wonder if the Jews pushing against these displays, and those pushing to include menorahs, realize what they've done:

1. Blown a minor Jewish holiday (one of my favorites) completely out of proportion, and for reasons that are obvious to anyone who realizes what the major Jewish holidays actually are. (We have as much of a tradition of public displays as Muslims do.)

2. As a result of both facts above, turned this fine holiday into "the Jewish Christmas" and reduced one of our oldest religious symbols to a secular one akin to a tree.

3. Performed this perversion ironically on the one Jewish holiday that stands the most opposed to perversions such as this.

4. Made two great religions, in most people's eyes, into nothing more than two "sides" of a fight.

5. Let's not fool ourselves: Made not a few people resent the Jews.

Public menorahs (especially with straight arms, a not unrelated point but which I have other problems with as well) increasingly disgust me. Put up a baby Jesus, put up a tree, put them on public property, and light a menorah in your window.

Shabbat Shalom!

Well, Artscroll's begun translating the Talmud Yerushalmi. Kol HaKavod. Their ads show a picture of the walls of Jerusalem. I sincerely hope that they realize that the Yerushalmi, name notwithstanding, was not written in Jerusalem.

Looks like the Red Cross piece, with some updates, will be published. Yay! Also looks like I'm not the only one who gets it, thank God. Read this and the comments here, for example.

Cutest. Baby. Ever. Just to soften you up for an inordinately long post.

Magen David Adom

Behold, a new rant! I'm submitting for this publication, by the way, but just in case it doesn't make it (as is likely)...

The Jewish newspapers of late have featured ads telling us to rejoice: A seventy-five year old error is about to be remedied, and the Magen David Adom (the MDA is Israel’s equivalent to the Red Cross) is about to be recognized by the international community. The ads were placed by the American Red Magen David for Israel (ARMDI), the organization’s fundraising arm in the United States, which has also sent out mass emails informing us of the same event. This week, there will be a world conference in Geneva, and all will go Israel’s way, for once.

Or will it? Leaving aside the question of whether the end of such a long-standing injustice shouldn’t instead call for some quiet reflection, we Jews have learned through bitter experience- especially over the last fifteen years- that when the world tells us to rejoice, we should instead take a cold, hard look at facts and history. And even looking at the face of the ads and emails, what we find is something quite troubling instead.

Let’s begin with history: Laws of warfare, concerning treatment of civilians, prisoners, the wounded, and so on, have existed for millennia, but until relatively recently were not formally codified or enforced. Of course, while they were generally respected, the laws were broken from time to time. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded in the 1860's in response to violations of these laws in wars of that era. Under its auspices, the Geneva Conventions were drawn up, and virtually every country on Earth is now a signatory.

The ICRC is not an international organization as we generally use the term: It consists, at its core, of a few dozen Swiss citizens, and runs relief efforts around the world. For its symbol, the organization simply reversed the colors of the flag of Switzerland, the country, even back then known for its neutrality, in which it was founded and is based. (Such "neutrality" is another well-known "fact" upon which Jews have learned to cast a jaundiced eye.) An equal-armed white cross on red thus became an equal-armed red cross on white.

While religious symbols shared by many nations may be rightly seen as neutral ones, the Red Cross was therefore not invented with a religious meaning in mind. The Swiss flag was seen as a secular symbol, itself based on an older flag of one of the Swiss cantons that itself may have chosen a cross more for its design than for its religious meaning. However, this idea was not to last.

In addition to the ICRC, all the countries of the world have created national aid societies based on its principles. In most cases, the symbol of these countries is the same Red Cross as the ICRC uses. However, when, in the 1870's, the Ottoman Empire became the first Muslim nation to establish such a society, it insisted on using a Red Crescent instead, stating that its Muslim sensibilities were offended by the Red Cross. The ICRC and the Geneva Conventions both recognized the Crescent, today used by dozens of countries. The various national societies are united in the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

With the establishment of the Red Crescent, the idea of the Red Cross as a religious image was firmly planted. The Soviet Union, with both Christian and Muslim populations, used both together. Countries in the Middle East with mixed populations, like Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon, tried to establish new symbols, but eventually settled on the Crescent; countries in Asia that were neither religion, like India and Japan, also tried to establish new symbols, but eventually settled on the Cross.

However, what worked for religions like Hinduism and Buddhism- not monotheistic and therefore not offended by another religion’s symbol- didn’t work for Jews. In the late 1920's, the Jewish community of Palestine established the Red Magen David.

To make a long story short, it’s been over seventy-five years since then, and the Red Magen David is still waiting for recognition. And following in the footsteps of international organizations on a host of issues, the Red Cross has dragged its feet. It’s brought out the old argument- now meaningless for 125 years- that the Red Cross is not a religious symbol. It’s protested that it worries that opening the door to any number of symbols.

This last might possibly be a good argument (although one may wonder why, if true, one symbol isn’t even better than two). However, there’s one ridiculous fact that exposes it as meaningless: In the 1920's, just as the Magen David Adom was being established, Persia, later Iran, established its own symbol, a Red Lion and Sun (based on the symbol of Persia). It was formally recognized by the Geneva Convention. After the Islamic revolution in Iran, though, that country switched to using a Crescent. And yet in a fine display of international inertia, the Red Lion and Sun continues to be recognized, although no one uses it, exactly the opposite situation as exists in Israel. (Countries that use both Cross and Crescent, like Kazakhstan and Eritrea, are also officially out of luck.)

Time has lately run out for the ICRC and IFRC. The MDA has proven itself time and again as an incredible organization worthy of recognition, not only in Israel but around the globe, as it sends relief missions to disasters worldwide. Perhaps more significantly, the American Red Cross has refused to pay its dues to the international organization- and that’s a significant chunk of their budget.

And so that brings us to the events coming up this week. At long last, we are assured, the MDA will be recognized. But look a little closely at the newspaper ads. Odd- there’s a diamond around the Magen David. Why?

Well, it appears that simply accepting the MDA would be too much of an effort for the ICRC. So, in a process that took years, and despite their stated fears of another new emblem, the Red Cross has decided to solve the problem by...adding yet another symbol! This will be the "Red Crystal" or Diamond or Lozenge. Any nation not using the Cross or Crescent will have to use this new symbol, adding (at times when it’s allowed, which won’t be always, making things even more complicated) their own symbol or symbols in the center.

And lest we think that the good old double standard the world applies to Israel is dead, rest assured that all nations currently using a Cross or Crescent will be able to continue to do so. Essentially, the "acceptance" of the MDA will come in such a way that Israel, and Israel alone, will have to change its emblem.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, last week brought the email from ARMDI. In it, we were proudly told that the MDA had recognized the Palestinian Red Crescent. (The Palestinians, not having a country, were also out of luck.) It doesn’t take an expert in international relations to read between the lines here: The MDA was told that to "correct" a problem that never should have existed in the first place, it would have to recognize "the other side." Yes, that Palestinian Red Crescent which, as you may have read, has been implicated in aiding terror attacks a number of times. To gain long-deserved recognition, the MDA has to change its emblem and grovel before its enemy.

Don’t get me wrong: The MDA, and, in its own way, the ARMDI, do fantastic work and deserve our continued support. I have no inside knowledge of whether there are any behind the scenes deals that will, say, gain total recognition for the MDA through this process. And I am well aware of real world implications of this deal: Israel has not fought an open war with another country in twenty years, but I wouldn’t put it past an Arab neighbor to attack Israeli field medics while claiming that the MDA isn’t internationally recognized.

As for the ARMDI, I can imagine that they do run into difficulty over this issue as well. Canada, that bastion of tolerance, recently ruled against fundraising for the MDA on grounds it was not recognized. So perhaps they have real reasons for pushing this change, distasteful as it may be, as well.

I’d like to close with one anecdote. In 1928, the dean of a Catholic law school in the United States wrote a letter to Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel, first president of Yeshiva University. Apparently, he had a number of Jewish students who were uncomfortable with the cross depicted on the diploma the school awarded, and he wanted to know if there was a halakhic issue that would force them to decline it.

Rabbi Revel responded that there was likely no issue- the cross (particularly with no image on it) wasn’t meant as a religious symbol, just as a symbol of the school’s affiliation. The students could accept the diploma with no qualms. However, he concluded by praising the students whose concerns rose above the worldly, and mentioned the idea of equity- that there is more than just the letter of the law.

Certainly, the Red Cross is punctilious in adhering to the letter of the law. And perhaps we should have no legal or religious concern in adopting crystals or even crosses. But should we be happy about this process? All along, the Red Cross has had a very easy possibility before it: Issue a non-specific one sentence resolution along the lines of, "Any symbol in continuous use by a national aid society for the past seventy-five years, or any combination of these, is acceptable." That would solve any of the many concerns listed above. Better, they could be specific: "The Red Magen David is now acceptable," with perhaps an extra line saying that this is done in light of extraordinary circumstances and history, and any further changes will be much more carefully scrutinized. But issuing the first statement would give Israel the same rights as any other nation. To issue the second would be to make it even more official. And to do that- indeed, to recognize that it is a Jew who wears a Magen David who aids victims around the world regardless of origin, to grant Jews the same rights as any other human being- seems to be beyond the abilities of the world at large.

A quiet moment of brief satisfaction? Just maybe. Joy and gratitude? I see no reason for any such thing.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Jeffrey Woolf brings us this touching story. After telling it to my father, one thought popped into my head: "And in Lakewood, they're banning the internet." Well, at least my alma mater comes out looking good in that article, the rantings of comment-deleting obsessives notwithstanding. (Don't take my word for the latter- just take a look at that blog, painful as that might be.)

Happy Thanksgiving, all! Maybe I'll work on a real article for a bit today- details to follow.

It seems that everywhere one looks these days, there are ads for the History Channel's new series, "The Crusades: Crescent & The Cross".

As it happens, the crescent was a symbol, dating back to pagan antiquity, of the city of Byzantium/Constantinople. It became a symbol of Islam only after the Ottomans captured the city and made it the capital of their Empire. (See the learned comments of a Mr. Lamm, among others, at this link.) In the 15th Century. Hundreds of years after the last Crusade.

I'm thankful I don't get my history lessons from TV shows.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I found myself overhearing a somewhat overwrought conversation yesterday afternoon. It began with someone wondering about various points in Parshat Noach: "If, as the Midrash says, Noach's vine took one day to grow, where did Canaan come from?" "One day? What about Orlah?" "Did Noach keep the Mitzvos?" "Did he just know them?" It went on and on, constructing a house of cards whose only purpose was not even to reconcile the "facts" of various Midrashim but just to raise more questions.

Now, knowing the people talking, I didn't expect them to concede the obvious: That the first eleven or so chapters of Genesis are myth, perhaps a myth based on some historical fact, surely myth with deep and profound lessons to teach, myth with Divine inspiration or authorship. I didn't expect them to know that in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utunapishtim brings many people- not just his family- onto the Ark with him. I didn't expect an admission that the presence of Canaan in the curse serves quite different purposes than an indication that he was really there.

But they weren't even touching the text itself- they were dealing with Midrashim. Years ago, I was quite the fan of Midrashim, devouring them and believing in them. But I was eight years old. Ten, tops. Then, my brother, bless him, let me in on the truth. Much as a Christian kid is told the truth about Santa (a point further reinforced today as I listened to a bit about Eliyahu visiting the Seder), he informed me that no, Moshe was not ten amot tall and Og's ankle (or, better, heel) was not thirty amot off the ground. And on and on.

I got pretty defensive, but I soon saw the light. Even later, I got to see the conflict between various Midrashim that negates the possibility that they may all be true. Also later, a Bible professor demonstrated the same about Aggadata (such as in the Talmud) in general. If I can be a bit smug, I've also come to see how Midrash can reflect (even if only inadvertently) some deeper truths. But around that table, there wasn't a hint of that. Just Midrash as fact, Midrash as fact.

Ah well. Chalk it up as another disillusionment. I got a few of those in the last few weeks, as incredible as they were- perhaps another day?

Have a great week, all!

Merach-Shevan

(Yes, that's the proper pronounciation.)

I remember that back in elementary school- oh, this must have been the fifth grade- we were always disappointed when we got out of a long no-Tachanun period on a Monday or Thursday. Like, you're cruising along, jumping from Chazarat HaShatz to Kaddish, and suddenly- Bam!- you're hit (granted, often after a two-day Rosh Chodesh, and sometimes more) with VeHu Rachum.

I guess all these years later I should have a more mature attitude toward things...but hey, it's Friday! We just missed it! Would a "Yay!" be misplaced?

As to my amazing trip to Israel, I hope to have more later. (Sorry for not blogging from there.) Right now, I'll just note that I said Birkat Kohanim (no Yiddish terminology now!) thirty-three times. In three weeks. To be mathematical, that's more than 2.5 times as much as I do it in one entire year in Chutz LaAretz. It included two times at the Kotel, during the mass Birkat Kohanim, an amazing experience, and a full three times on Yom Kippur.

More later, I hope!

Shana Tova!

That's all for now. A good year to all!

The Hunter

The sun, as it is wont to do in this season, has been rising later and later. And I having been rising earlier and earlier to get to Selichot this week.

This morning, as I ventured out in the dark at about 5:45, I turned a corner on the way to shul and happened to glance up at the moon, now in its last crescent. A bright object close to it (a star, a planet, a space station) caught my eye, and as I looked up, I realized that the sky was full of bright lights. It was remarkably clear, quite dark, and the usual city lights weren't as annoying for some reason, and I saw the stars like I haven't seen them in a few months or more. There, right above me, was my old buddy Orion, the only constellation I ever recognize.

In an early section of his posthumous Or HaRaayon, Rav Meir Kahane, zt'l, speaks of the fact that many of the founding figures of Israel- the Avot, the Shevatim, Moshe, David- were shepherds. (I believe he may have been citing others who point this out. And I wonder if it's a coincidence that Hevel, not Kayin, was a shepherd.) The job, Rav Kahane continues, is well suited for meditation, introspection, and the like. You're out there with the sheep, not too active, staying awake at night, just watching over them. You start to think, to wonder- and to look up at the stars, and marvel at the grandeur of creation. It's not surprising that such people thought about the big ideas, and the meaning of it all, and came to find God.

That was me, shortly before six this morning. All of a sudden, 72nd Drive melted away, there were all of the thousands of visible stars instead of New York's relative handful, and I was on some hilltop in the Fertile Crescent, leaning on a crook and thinking some deep thoughts as the new year approaches.

If only for a moment. It's cold, I'm tired, I must get to shul, to work...and I'm back on a sidewalk, with nary a sheep to be seen. But the feeling lingers for a while.

I begin to understand waking early for Selichot. The feeling may be gone now- or soon- but there's always tomorrow morning.

More penguins!

Sure enough, the point I made about the Central Park did not go unmentioned. In yesterday's Science Times (which, it turns out, is likely the last time I will get a Times for some time- perhaps ever), after an idiotic (and, of course, politicized- it's OK if you're a liberal) piece on the history of foul language, there were letters about the penguins and conservatives. Said letters ranged from the inane to...the more inane. Samples:

...after all the clearly documented (easily Google-able) cases worldwide of
long-term monogamous gay pair bonding and child rearing that occur among
penguins.

Animals aren't "gay." People weren't "gay," or even "homosexual," until recently. There were people who engaged in homosexual acts*; there were no homosexuals. To take a concept so recently created for humans and apply it to animals that have no concept of it is ridiculous. And, of course, a long-term male relationship may well have nothing to do with sex. I strongly suspect that's the case with these penguins. As to "clearly documented"...really? One story, repeated over and over, can make it big on Google.

If those penguins huddle collectively to keep warm and survive a storm, does it
mean that Americans should support the welfare state and a well-financed FEMA?

Welfare and mutual cooperation are two different things. I hope to post a bit on this later.

...perhaps they will also embrace gay partnerships, since penguins around the
world have been observed living in monogamous, long-term same-sex
relationships.

and

They will perhaps be surprised to read about gay male penguins of Central Park
Zoo, who happily set up home (fittingly) in Manhattan, though one couple
apparently ended their relationship recently.

Honesty! Make that, of course, "the one couple." And see above.

Then there's this from a "Dr.":

They are opportunistically pair bonded in the extremes of the Arctic winter to
maximize their reproductive success.

There are no penguins in the Arctic.

I used to think the non-news sections were one of the main reasons to read the Times. No more! Goodbye, Pinch!

Oh, before I do say a final goodbye: Clyde Haberman has joined the crowd that jokes about prison rape. You can't link to it, so here it is: In talking about Kozlowski, he says, "For one thing, Attica or wherever else he winds up may not be the best place for jokes about shower curtains." Even Eliot Spitzer's made some remarks in that direction. ("Oh, he's going to state prison.") Absolutely disgusting.

*Or none at all. Both an increased acceptance of homosexuality and a hypersexualizing of society (i.e., "You must have sex with someone. Not interested in women? Then you're gay!") has led to forced identifications, including self-indentifications, and situations such as we've just seen at the Catholic Church (on the seminaries issue) and at the Yeshiva of Flatbush.

I thought something was fishy...

...no pun intended, when I read the Science Times article on "The March of the Penguins": There was no mention of the Central Park "gay" penguins! After all, if you're trying to claim that a movie loved by conservatives isn't so conservative after all (they've bemoaned this situation at least twice), why not point to the obvious? (I will leave untouched the fallacy that we can apply current defintions of "sexuality" to any other species- or era, for that matter.)

Well, today, I got my answer: The Central Park couple is no more. One's taken up with a female. My theory? The Times reporter called Central Park to get a quote, found out the truth, and decided it was too damaging to his (and his readers') tidy litte worldview, and supressed it. Paranoid? You betcha.

I do love this quote in the latter article, though:

"Liberals can find something in it too," he told me. "The male penguins take
care of their children. They sit on the eggs for days and days. They don't
complain that they're not allowed to drink a beer and watch the Bears game on
TV. They just do their duty. It's quite humbling, actually."

Oh, sure. Because that's what conservatism is all about. Neglecting your kids.

And now I just remembered: They even wrote a book about it! Oh, the humanity! Errr...penguin-ity.

Speaking of takes on movies, there's a little contrast here: The new movie "Just Like Heaven" seems to be well-reviewed, and seems to, somehow, come down on the pro-life side of the Terri Schiavo issue. How to deal? Well, the Washington Post savages it, potentially spoiling it, and the New York Times praises it, but dismisses the pro-life stuff, claiming that the movie "turns them into the stuff of farce." How odd. I had no plans to see the movie (hey, I don't even get around to seeing most of the movies I do plan on seeing, even on DVD), but now...

Eh. I'll just read it on The Movie Spoiler. That site saves me time and money: I read the end and no longer have the desire to see a movie.

Amid all the talk...

...of whether Bush will appoint the "first Hispanic justice," I thought I'd point out that that title was taken long ago by Benjamin Cardozo. Hey, if Bill Richardson (or Linda Chavez) can be "Hispanic," he certainly can be called that.

Of course, Democrats often do this. Lieberman was supposedly "the first Jew on a major party national ticket," and after Abraham Beame died, we were told how he was New York's "first Jewish mayor." Both, of course, were preceded by decades by others that at least had a claim to being Jewish, but who were, unfortunately, Republicans.

A few links before I fly off to Boston again:

Fascinating!

And three excellent pieces on Katrina:

Mark Steyn.

Ben Stein.

And the Irish Times.

Today's New York Times op-ed page contains five separate sets of questions various thinkers would want to ask Judge Roberts for his confirmation hearings. For your convenience, I shall link them:

Jean Edward Smith's first question is odd. It's a classic "We could all get along if we were all liberals" sort of thing. Otherwise all is cool.

Glenn Reynolds is OK. He seems to be the only Normal-American of the bunch. [Correction below.] He's a bit fixated on his pet ideas, but that's what's expected here, I think.

Ron Klain can't spell his own name. He also seems never to have heard of the word "abortion" (note the euphemism repeated in question one); not to be able to imagine that others may have different starting principles on what should be law (question two); to too-cutely try to avoid labels, even for others (question three); and not to recognize the difference between private and government actions (question four). The last question is just stupid. Clearly a Kool-aid drinker.

Whoa, another Normal-American! Dick Thornburgh has normal questions, as we tend to. It's the others that go nuts.

However, it's Kathleen Sullivan's contribution that's the most troubling. This is a famous law professor, author of casebooks (I think I used one), maybe even a justice herself one day? Question one is cool; two is out of the box (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's sincere). Four is a bit of a Kool-aid question. Five tries for the ridiculous "The real activists are conservatives!" line. (See here.) But three is the worst:

3. Do you believe that the Constitution contains commitments to any rights or
structural principles that are not expressly set forth in the text? If there are
tacit structural principles, like federalism, must there also be unenumerated
rights, live privacy?

Tacit? The great professor thinks that federalism is "tacit" in the Constitution? Has she ever read the thing? That's the whole point of the document! The entire Article IV is about that! Has she ever seen or thought about the Tenth Amendment? Does it mean anything to her?

As to her cute close, ha ha ha. I'd agree privacy is "tacit," but like Mr. Klain, she obviously means abortion.

Oh, so only crazy racists and right-wingers are trying to exploit the tragedy. No mention that the left has done nothing but that since it happened.

Aren't people who speak out against Bush so brave? So very, very, brave and daring? It's the last piece that's the most disgusting, painting those who wish for apolitical rememberance as politically driven, snidely pointing out that the government didn't shut down an "art" exhibit (as if it ever does, much as these "artists" wish they did), and, in general, having such a condescending tone toward other newspapers, family members of victims, and any of us who can't grasp how one might use bacterial cultures and rank juvenile stupidity as "art" that it just might drive me to cancel my subscription, even if that does leave me without my favorite blog whipping boy.

You know, in their ignorance of the private/government difference, their pretended bafflement over how terror works, and their rank incompetence in their chosen fields, the "artists" here and the professors above have quite a bit in common.

Sigh

It's (lovely) days like this, as literally hundreds (if not thousands) of bike riders pass my window in one of their grand citywide tours as I sit at the computer, that I really wish I knew how to ride a bike. As it is, the only thing with wheels I've ever learned to handle is a car, and that only recently and only barely. Bikes, skateboards, rollerskates- even anything for ice or snow- nada. Sigh.

I do wonder why they chose humble 141st Street, though. Well, I hope they enjoyed it.

Rav Kook, OBE?

I was flipping through a book on Rav Kook ("An Angel Among Men", by Simcha Raz), and came across something fascinating: A photo captioned "A letter from Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, informing Rav Kook that King George V has decided to present the Rav with a medallion of honor".

The letter in the photo isn't clear*, but on the same page is another photo, showing Rav Kook wearing the "medallion" in question. The caption to that photo goes on to say, "Notice that it is partially covered, because of its cross shape." Indeed, a fold of Rav Kook's coat covers one arm of the cross**, but it's clear that it's an Order of the British Empire, probably a Commander's badge, based on the dark (in a black and white photo) ring at the center.

(Commander is the third of five levels. This badge might indicate a higher rank, in which case Rav Kook would be a Knight and thus "Sir Kook" if residents of Mandatory Palestine were British citizens or subjects- I don't know if they were.)

Anyway, I've searched, but can find nothing more on this. I'll admit I'm not the biggest student of Kook-studies, but does anyone else know?

*It's typed in Hebrew, signature in English. I can make out that it's dated June 11, 1922, and has words that would translate to "Order of the British Empire," ending with the word "BeYoter"- "high degree."

**Rav Kook is holding a book at the point where the coat folds over the cross. Is the fold inadvertent? Was he holding the book to cover up a deliberate fold? Is it possible an arm was broken (after all, a covered cross is still a cross) and he's covering that fact, not an actual arm?

William Rehnquist, R.I.P.

The President, of course, said it best. But I'd like to add this one bit, courtesy of Wikipedia. It was the first thing that came to mind:

Rehnquist also created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. It
has four golden bars on each sleeve. In the past, Chief Justices had not dressed
differently from any of the Associate Justices. Rehnquist's robe was modeled
after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta
Iolanthe, first staged in London in 1882. The costume that inspired Chief
Justice Rehnquist, an acknowledged Gilbert and Sullivan fan, is worn by the Lord
Chancellor, a character called upon to settle a dispute among a colony of
fairies.

What a man. I'm glad I got to be welcomed to the Court by him.

I'm liking the Clement idea, provided, of course, that she really deserves it. (Hmm. All but race.) As well as NR's convention idea.

Hillel Goldberg has a nice piece in the latest Commentator about the JTS fire of '66. (Hat tip: El Presidente.) Since I heard about his story earlier in the year, though, I was a bit troubled by one point: Didn't they worry about how R. Lieberman would feel when two YU students came to him with the question: "We want to save your institution's sefarim, but lots of us think that JTS isn't worth working for. How do you pasken?" Offended? Hurt? Puzzled at the dichotomy?

I hope R. Goldberg was more diplomatic than that. Say, "Well, we have no problem, but some of the 'frummer' students do." Or, "We have no problem with JTS, but guys are wondering whether any sefer is worth the bittul torah/zman." At least I now know that the books weren't actually burning when they asked (I think).

Oh, as long as I'm on the Commie: It's nice to see that old tradition of IBC-bashing is alive and well. Not. And Norman Lamm proves how pessimistic he can get, so long as others can be blamed.

Nu. A happy Labor Day! Did you know that May Day originated in the US- and we're the only country whose Labor Day is at another time? I wonder if they were trying to limit the Commies.