Very touching. And since this post applies to me (well, apart from the narcotics), you know what else I was thinking...
(H/T)
Edited to add a few more links:
Gettysburg, seventy-five years later. (And seventy-one years ago. See also this.) The part that always strikes me is when you see the veteran talking to a bunch of Boy Scouts, passing on the knowledge of generations. Five years later, many of those Scouts were probably fighting themselves. And speaking of that, read this.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Passover is nigh
Well, here I am in Israel. (In answer to Hal's question below- and don't feel bad! I just hadn't let on!) Friday we (my brother-in-law and I) went matzah baking, the first time I ever did. Some pictures, courtesy of Chanan Morrisson, are here. (Late addition: Video.)
I recently saw something that made me think of a recent post by Fred. The post is self-explanatory- a lot of "professional historians" put in a lot of work so that he could do what he does, and the sneering (especially when it takes on a tone of religious judgmentalism) is really uncalled for. And this book only drove the point home more strongly. Don't get me wrong- it looks like a great Haggadah and, innocent or not, I have no problem at all with studying R' Eybeshit'z works; my only issue is with the following passages in the various introductions. (I can't say I'm the world's biggest expert here, so while I'm pretty sure of some things, other things I simply question with some basis. But it's the tone that's most important. For background, see here and here.)
Anyway, the Haggadah first has an introduction by Berel Wein. Thank God for little favors (for something of the opposite, see, for example, the end of this post), they face the whole controversy head-on. But on their terms, of course. R' Wein writes:
Then, the author of the book, in his introduction, quotes...his rebbe, R' Wein:
Anyway. My point is, leaving the revisionism, bad enough as it is, aside, there's that sneering attitude toward "academia" that Fred rightly decries. To make matters worse, there's this placing "academia" and "traditional" somehow in opposition when, in fact, some of the more well-known academics dealing with this are very much "traditional." And R' Wein, at least, knows that. Or should.
I recently saw something that made me think of a recent post by Fred. The post is self-explanatory- a lot of "professional historians" put in a lot of work so that he could do what he does, and the sneering (especially when it takes on a tone of religious judgmentalism) is really uncalled for. And this book only drove the point home more strongly. Don't get me wrong- it looks like a great Haggadah and, innocent or not, I have no problem at all with studying R' Eybeshit'z works; my only issue is with the following passages in the various introductions. (I can't say I'm the world's biggest expert here, so while I'm pretty sure of some things, other things I simply question with some basis. But it's the tone that's most important. For background, see here and here.)
Anyway, the Haggadah first has an introduction by Berel Wein. Thank God for little favors (for something of the opposite, see, for example, the end of this post), they face the whole controversy head-on. But on their terms, of course. R' Wein writes:
Traditional Jewry has always sided with Rabbi Yehonatan [NL: I appreciate the sentiment, but that's quite a stretch from "Yonasan"] and accepted his(Notice that R' Wein either thinks, or would want his audience to think, that a "rarified atmosphere" is somehow a bad thing. I'll be the first to admit that academics live in an ivory tower, but "rarified atmosphere" isn't the phrase I'd use.)
denials of all the charges made against him [NL: Did he really deny it? Not so sure about that]. Only in the rarified atmosphere of Judaic academia does the dispute still rage in our time.
Then, the author of the book, in his introduction, quotes...his rebbe, R' Wein:
Rabbi Yehonatan [NL: OK, I'm pretty sure R' Wein's original didn't use that form] rallied [NL: Really?] his disciples and colleagues to hisThe reason he's telling us this, he assures us, is to emphasize what a brave man R' Yonasan was.
defense. [NL: The Vilna Gaon is among those listed, which is really quite a stretch, leaving aside that he wasn't really a "colleague"] The innocence of Rabbi Yehonatan Eybeshitz has been established...
Anyway. My point is, leaving the revisionism, bad enough as it is, aside, there's that sneering attitude toward "academia" that Fred rightly decries. To make matters worse, there's this placing "academia" and "traditional" somehow in opposition when, in fact, some of the more well-known academics dealing with this are very much "traditional." And R' Wein, at least, knows that. Or should.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
"The Missing Mahatma"
(Let me just start by pointing out that anyone who so blithely holds up Ghandi as a role model in matters involving Jews is pretty massively historically ignorant. But that's small potatoes.)
As a run-of-the-mill fanatic, I was, of course, deeply troubled by this piece. I was also troubled by where it appeared- perhaps I should be puzzled, but seeing how easily the neocons drop all other principles (if they ever had them) is possibly the reason I'm troubled as well. Oh, and the fact that I wasn't really surprised that internet searches for criticisms of the piece yielded mostly- exclusively, actually- leftist (Jewish, natch) kooks saying that this Gershom Gorenberg character sold out to those same neocons probably kept me from being troubled in that regard, even if I was disgusted. So, b'makom asher ain ish...is a herring a fish. Here I go:
But I was troubled for two somewhat contradictory reasons. First, like I said, as a good extremist, I'm not as rah-rah about "peace," even accomplished under "good" circumstances, as some. Oh, I'm all for peace, of course- who isn't? (As Meir Kahane once pointed out to some peacenik in the US, he was the one with the kids in Tzahal.) But that word is used under certain definitions, as if certain people had exclusive rights to it. That...I don't like. Not the exclusivity, and not the definition.
And that ties into my second objection. Read Gorenberg's little "fantasy." Isn't it odd that his dreamed-of "Mahatma" decides that his number one thing to do is lead a massive (and thus, by definition, about as "nonviolent" as, say, any state action if not less so) demonstration against...Israel, as if that was their number one problem? I don't care what his point is, peace, religion, etc. With all due respect, those people have bigger problems than "free access to Al-Aqsa as the first step toward Palestinian independence alongside Israel." And even if independence is the number one issue, I can think of better (well, bad, even if not worse in the big picture, but better for them) "first steps." Like actually, you know, declaring independence, say. Or generating their own electricity.
(Said "free access," by the way, is not only a dangerous concession that whatever Muslims say must be true, but is an absolute joke when one considers that Muslims have far, far more "free access" to "Al-Aqsa" (barf) than Jews.)
It goes without saying that his little "fantasy" ends with the Jews- sorry, Israelis, no anti-Semitism here- shooting people. These people have some issue in their heads, I just wish I knew what it was.
So us fanatics can breath easy. Even in the fantasies of non-violence triumph created for them by their non-Arab "friends," Palestinians still come out the bad guys. The non-fanatics can continue their lily-livered (but sincere and most effective- don't get me wrong!) defenses of Israel while still paying lip service to peace. Of course, the problem is there are those who don't even do that, and the perverse desire of one Ben Nitay to keep them around. But as to whether the Arabs will ever catch on...well, I'm not so worried, for the moment. May they continue not to catch on for as long as it takes. And you know what "it" is.
Greetings from Jerusalem, one and all.
As a run-of-the-mill fanatic, I was, of course, deeply troubled by this piece. I was also troubled by where it appeared- perhaps I should be puzzled, but seeing how easily the neocons drop all other principles (if they ever had them) is possibly the reason I'm troubled as well. Oh, and the fact that I wasn't really surprised that internet searches for criticisms of the piece yielded mostly- exclusively, actually- leftist (Jewish, natch) kooks saying that this Gershom Gorenberg character sold out to those same neocons probably kept me from being troubled in that regard, even if I was disgusted. So, b'makom asher ain ish...is a herring a fish. Here I go:
But I was troubled for two somewhat contradictory reasons. First, like I said, as a good extremist, I'm not as rah-rah about "peace," even accomplished under "good" circumstances, as some. Oh, I'm all for peace, of course- who isn't? (As Meir Kahane once pointed out to some peacenik in the US, he was the one with the kids in Tzahal.) But that word is used under certain definitions, as if certain people had exclusive rights to it. That...I don't like. Not the exclusivity, and not the definition.
And that ties into my second objection. Read Gorenberg's little "fantasy." Isn't it odd that his dreamed-of "Mahatma" decides that his number one thing to do is lead a massive (and thus, by definition, about as "nonviolent" as, say, any state action if not less so) demonstration against...Israel, as if that was their number one problem? I don't care what his point is, peace, religion, etc. With all due respect, those people have bigger problems than "free access to Al-Aqsa as the first step toward Palestinian independence alongside Israel." And even if independence is the number one issue, I can think of better (well, bad, even if not worse in the big picture, but better for them) "first steps." Like actually, you know, declaring independence, say. Or generating their own electricity.
(Said "free access," by the way, is not only a dangerous concession that whatever Muslims say must be true, but is an absolute joke when one considers that Muslims have far, far more "free access" to "Al-Aqsa" (barf) than Jews.)
It goes without saying that his little "fantasy" ends with the Jews- sorry, Israelis, no anti-Semitism here- shooting people. These people have some issue in their heads, I just wish I knew what it was.
So us fanatics can breath easy. Even in the fantasies of non-violence triumph created for them by their non-Arab "friends," Palestinians still come out the bad guys. The non-fanatics can continue their lily-livered (but sincere and most effective- don't get me wrong!) defenses of Israel while still paying lip service to peace. Of course, the problem is there are those who don't even do that, and the perverse desire of one Ben Nitay to keep them around. But as to whether the Arabs will ever catch on...well, I'm not so worried, for the moment. May they continue not to catch on for as long as it takes. And you know what "it" is.
Greetings from Jerusalem, one and all.
Friday, March 20, 2009
A Snowy Day in Spring
Somewhere, Michael Crichton is having a good laugh.
The end of Rush's show today: "I won't be here Monday...Mark Steyn will be substituting. Nothing to worry about, another celebrity golf benefit...plus, you like Steyn, so it's all cool!"
Exactly right! I never know when to tune in for Steyn days ahead of time. Thanks for the heads-up, Rush.
A few links, just because they're funny:
Okay, I see the bus coming right at me, so let's be clear: this was His ad lib. Read the whole thing.
"Thanks for having me on the show, Jay. You seem like a pretty nice guy for an Italian."
"In my country, shervish people shervish! Cooks cook!"
The end of Rush's show today: "I won't be here Monday...Mark Steyn will be substituting. Nothing to worry about, another celebrity golf benefit...plus, you like Steyn, so it's all cool!"
Exactly right! I never know when to tune in for Steyn days ahead of time. Thanks for the heads-up, Rush.
A few links, just because they're funny:
Okay, I see the bus coming right at me, so let's be clear: this was His ad lib. Read the whole thing.
"Thanks for having me on the show, Jay. You seem like a pretty nice guy for an Italian."
"In my country, shervish people shervish! Cooks cook!"
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Post-Purim
Went up to YU this morning, later joined by my parents for an amazing special Kollel Yom Rishon all about Birkat HaChama. Three speakers (the first basically an introduction, but still meaningful) with different angles, but all of them really added to my understanding and appreciation of it all. Now I can't wait for Erev Pesach- in Jerusalem this year, which, I recently realized, makes three regalim in a row- all five major chagim, actually- in Israel. Of course, I hope to make it much more than that come next year.
Before the shiur, I picked up the Purim issues of The Commentator, The Observer, and Kol Hamevaser. I devoured the Purim issues back when I was in YU, and even saved all the Hamevaser (as they used to call it) ones. I think this is the first time Hamevaser has done one in a while (they were recently revived in any event), and...wow. They still have it. All three do. I laughed and laughed.
Purim, by the way, was great, and this was a nice capper to the week. I got a good laugh out of Star Trek today too, come to think.
Torah and fun...what could be better?
Before the shiur, I picked up the Purim issues of The Commentator, The Observer, and Kol Hamevaser. I devoured the Purim issues back when I was in YU, and even saved all the Hamevaser (as they used to call it) ones. I think this is the first time Hamevaser has done one in a while (they were recently revived in any event), and...wow. They still have it. All three do. I laughed and laughed.
Purim, by the way, was great, and this was a nice capper to the week. I got a good laugh out of Star Trek today too, come to think.
Torah and fun...what could be better?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Another paper bag
Well, it's good to see the folks at National Review defending Rush, as is correct to do. Those who are attacking him are acting exactly as I expected them to do, especially one particularly nasty Canadian Jewish pseudo-conservative whose new site (he quit NR) I visited for the first and last time today.
But Jonah Goldberg alerted us to this chortle-fest. Wikipedia, our good friend, informs us that Jackson was born in 1962. I doubt she saw much if any de jure (or de facto) segregation.
Second, as Jonah's correspondent's point (that they all had the same pipe) reminds us, drinking fountains by definition have safer water than most other sources.
Third, as to actual discrimination...see the title of this post.
I guess she just has to racialize her job or she feels like she's selling out to the man or something. The history of the Left in America, in times of madness.
One of these days I'm going to present my list of points relating to Jonah's book. Maybe when the paperback comes out.
But Jonah Goldberg alerted us to this chortle-fest. Wikipedia, our good friend, informs us that Jackson was born in 1962. I doubt she saw much if any de jure (or de facto) segregation.
Second, as Jonah's correspondent's point (that they all had the same pipe) reminds us, drinking fountains by definition have safer water than most other sources.
Third, as to actual discrimination...see the title of this post.
I guess she just has to racialize her job or she feels like she's selling out to the man or something. The history of the Left in America, in times of madness.
One of these days I'm going to present my list of points relating to Jonah's book. Maybe when the paperback comes out.
Love Story
Over two years ago, I marveled at snow on Rosh Chodesh Adar. This time, the snow hit even later in the year.
But hey, being a "progressive" (especially a "green one") means never having to say "I'm sorry," I suppose. Heck, you don't even have to learn a lesson, acknowledged or not. The movie was based on Al Gore's life, wasn't it? With a non-dead Tipper, of course.
But hey, being a "progressive" (especially a "green one") means never having to say "I'm sorry," I suppose. Heck, you don't even have to learn a lesson, acknowledged or not. The movie was based on Al Gore's life, wasn't it? With a non-dead Tipper, of course.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Let's do it for the Race!
There are ads all over for the upcoming Baseball World Classic- the real "World Championship," so to speak. Generally, players from a specific country (Mexico, Colombia, etc.) play for that country even if they play in the US the rest of the time; countries with less native players (Canada, Panama, etc.) can reach a bit further- say, American players who are children of Panamanians.
Anyway, the ads show a specific player in his country's uniform with some rah-rah line. Why any ad in the US should show any player other than an American one (Derek Jeter in this case) is one question; another is why some are in Spanish.
But for sheer offensiveness, you can't beat the statement of the Mexican player: "I'm not just playing for my country. I'm playing for La Raza."
Can you imagine some white player saying "I'm playing for my race"?
Oh, and that assumes a sort of uniformity among all the peoples of Latin America. Trust me, they can't stand each other- country against country, and race against race within countries. But let's all play for "La Raza," eh?
Anyway, the ads show a specific player in his country's uniform with some rah-rah line. Why any ad in the US should show any player other than an American one (Derek Jeter in this case) is one question; another is why some are in Spanish.
But for sheer offensiveness, you can't beat the statement of the Mexican player: "I'm not just playing for my country. I'm playing for La Raza."
Can you imagine some white player saying "I'm playing for my race"?
Oh, and that assumes a sort of uniformity among all the peoples of Latin America. Trust me, they can't stand each other- country against country, and race against race within countries. But let's all play for "La Raza," eh?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By the way, the post below shouldn't detract from what I think is perhaps the funniest line ever uttered on Friends: Phoebe is bearing her brother and sister-in-law's triplets ("I'm just the oven, it's totally their bun!") and confides in Rachel that she wants to keep one. Rachel's very first, almost automatic reaction? "Oh, I'm gonna to be on the news." (Corrected quote. See here at about 0:50.)
Hilarious, but also a profound statement on our society.
Profundity on Friends? Why not, if R' Carmy is quoting The Simpsons? (Granted, the latter can be a deeper show.)
Oh, also: You don't rile up the environmental nutjobs by attacking their sacred cows. Hee, how quickly they turn.
Hilarious, but also a profound statement on our society.
Profundity on Friends? Why not, if R' Carmy is quoting The Simpsons? (Granted, the latter can be a deeper show.)
Oh, also: You don't rile up the environmental nutjobs by attacking their sacred cows. Hee, how quickly they turn.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Regression
A few years ago, I read Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade. The topic of the book is human evolution, a subject I find fascinating. (I think I picked up some of this enthusiasm from John Derbyshire, which is how I also think I first heard of the book.) The quest to learn more about ourselves, today, based on the actions and needs of our ancestors hundreds of millennia and more in the past, the way different angles and aspects can be seen to fit together, and studies of that nature appeals to a part of my personality and mind. (The flip side is that reducing everything to chemicals, chromosomes, neurons, and instinct can take much of the mystery and wonder out of life from another end, and I'm not sure if the former balances out the latter. Of course, what this can do to religious belief is an issue as well. But I digress.)
One of the points Wade makes is a theory about the appearance of children. We've all heard people go on about how a baby "looks just like his father" or "has his mother's eyes" or whatever. The sad, cold, scientific fact is that while this certainly becomes true as a child ages (some of my cousins are virtually identical to one or the other of their parents when they were the same age), babies...don't really look like anyone. They all look pretty much alike. Some of the details of their appearance, we're told, stirs deep instincts we've got from way back- the disproportionately large eyes, for example, are supposed to make us more protective. (This is also why we like Bambi.) But the similarity of appearance, Wade cites scientists as alleging, has a deeper purpose.
Not to put too fine a point on it, paternity (as opposed to maternity) is never certain, and, very often, isn't what you may think it is. This was certainly true among the cavemen, and, studies have shown (now that we can test DNA), it even holds true, in large numbers, today. So the identical appearance of newborns is somewhat defensive: A man, thinking his woman/spouse's child is his own, will not be disabused of that notion too early on and is thus prevented from abandoning them, at least at that stage and possibly forever. Going hand in hand with this are assurances that "the baby looks just like you!"; there is one crucial detail, and proof, of this which I will discuss below.
I had reason to think of Wade when reading of this horror story in England- the one with the thirteen year old kid who fathered a baby with a girl a few years older. That's not the half of it, of course- just when you think things can't get worse, you read on in the articles and discover that they can, and do. And then another paragraph, and it gets worse. And then another... Theodore Dalrymple is right; civilization really is breaking down in the scepter'd isle. (But isn't it everywhere, each place in its own way?)
The thing that made me think of Wade was a statement of the young lad's. Amid suspicions (based on some rather obvious vocal issues and the fact that he looks about five years younger than his age) that he, erm, isn't yet able to procreate, revelations that the young lady, despite her protests, was a bit of the village bicycle, and the claims of at least two other of her "lovers" that they are the proud daddy (there's gold in them thar tabloid hills, which seems to be one reason why a lunatic on another continent had fourteen kids in six tries), the young paterfamilias protested that his whole dysfunctional family claims the spawn looks just like him: "My Mum says she has my eyes!"
His eyes! Ha! Nicholas Wade lives! Some bearskin clad mammoth hunting ancestor of this kid (and, if statistics are to be believed, most of us) just moved his (more likely her- see below) lips in the grave!
Now, lest you think that living the stone age life somehow vindicates our modern day messed up choices, let me remind you that we should, in fact, evolve, not just physically and mentally but morally as well. (It is here that God enters- or, better, re-enters- the picture.) Not only is there no moral evolution in this picture, and not only has there been a regression since, oh, only a few decades back, it gets worse than that. Worse than the aforementioned mammoth-hunter, in fact.
You see, Wade points out that there's an interesting proof to the claim that "he has your eyes" (true or not) is a defense against paternal abandonment: Studies have shown that overwhelmingly, the claim is made by the mother's relations to the father regarding his appearance. Simply put, it's an instinctive move on behalf of the person and family who would be harmed by abandonment- namely, the mother's- to appease the father by assuring him that, indeed, it is his kid.
But note the crucial difference in the English story: The lass and her family need fear nothing. Abandonment is a way of life (Exhibit A: the father's family) and a coddling nanny state will surely provide. Here, it's the (alleged) father's family that's pushing paternity. And why not? It's not like he's going to have any responsibilities (he doesn't even know what "financial" means), no matter how old he'd have been, and, more importantly, there are the aforementioned tabloid fees, which seem to be the thing most on the family's mind (the baby being referred to as a "business interest" by the great-grandmother being a particularly sad touch).
Our supposedly primitive Cro-Magnon ancestors (and, to be fair, much more recent forebears as well) worried about such things as responsibility, care, support. We worry about getting on TV and making a buck. (Or, alternatively- just so we don't forget what's really at stake here- blowing ourselves up for Allah.) Regression indeed.
One of the points Wade makes is a theory about the appearance of children. We've all heard people go on about how a baby "looks just like his father" or "has his mother's eyes" or whatever. The sad, cold, scientific fact is that while this certainly becomes true as a child ages (some of my cousins are virtually identical to one or the other of their parents when they were the same age), babies...don't really look like anyone. They all look pretty much alike. Some of the details of their appearance, we're told, stirs deep instincts we've got from way back- the disproportionately large eyes, for example, are supposed to make us more protective. (This is also why we like Bambi.) But the similarity of appearance, Wade cites scientists as alleging, has a deeper purpose.
Not to put too fine a point on it, paternity (as opposed to maternity) is never certain, and, very often, isn't what you may think it is. This was certainly true among the cavemen, and, studies have shown (now that we can test DNA), it even holds true, in large numbers, today. So the identical appearance of newborns is somewhat defensive: A man, thinking his woman/spouse's child is his own, will not be disabused of that notion too early on and is thus prevented from abandoning them, at least at that stage and possibly forever. Going hand in hand with this are assurances that "the baby looks just like you!"; there is one crucial detail, and proof, of this which I will discuss below.
I had reason to think of Wade when reading of this horror story in England- the one with the thirteen year old kid who fathered a baby with a girl a few years older. That's not the half of it, of course- just when you think things can't get worse, you read on in the articles and discover that they can, and do. And then another paragraph, and it gets worse. And then another... Theodore Dalrymple is right; civilization really is breaking down in the scepter'd isle. (But isn't it everywhere, each place in its own way?)
The thing that made me think of Wade was a statement of the young lad's. Amid suspicions (based on some rather obvious vocal issues and the fact that he looks about five years younger than his age) that he, erm, isn't yet able to procreate, revelations that the young lady, despite her protests, was a bit of the village bicycle, and the claims of at least two other of her "lovers" that they are the proud daddy (there's gold in them thar tabloid hills, which seems to be one reason why a lunatic on another continent had fourteen kids in six tries), the young paterfamilias protested that his whole dysfunctional family claims the spawn looks just like him: "My Mum says she has my eyes!"
His eyes! Ha! Nicholas Wade lives! Some bearskin clad mammoth hunting ancestor of this kid (and, if statistics are to be believed, most of us) just moved his (more likely her- see below) lips in the grave!
Now, lest you think that living the stone age life somehow vindicates our modern day messed up choices, let me remind you that we should, in fact, evolve, not just physically and mentally but morally as well. (It is here that God enters- or, better, re-enters- the picture.) Not only is there no moral evolution in this picture, and not only has there been a regression since, oh, only a few decades back, it gets worse than that. Worse than the aforementioned mammoth-hunter, in fact.
You see, Wade points out that there's an interesting proof to the claim that "he has your eyes" (true or not) is a defense against paternal abandonment: Studies have shown that overwhelmingly, the claim is made by the mother's relations to the father regarding his appearance. Simply put, it's an instinctive move on behalf of the person and family who would be harmed by abandonment- namely, the mother's- to appease the father by assuring him that, indeed, it is his kid.
But note the crucial difference in the English story: The lass and her family need fear nothing. Abandonment is a way of life (Exhibit A: the father's family) and a coddling nanny state will surely provide. Here, it's the (alleged) father's family that's pushing paternity. And why not? It's not like he's going to have any responsibilities (he doesn't even know what "financial" means), no matter how old he'd have been, and, more importantly, there are the aforementioned tabloid fees, which seem to be the thing most on the family's mind (the baby being referred to as a "business interest" by the great-grandmother being a particularly sad touch).
Our supposedly primitive Cro-Magnon ancestors (and, to be fair, much more recent forebears as well) worried about such things as responsibility, care, support. We worry about getting on TV and making a buck. (Or, alternatively- just so we don't forget what's really at stake here- blowing ourselves up for Allah.) Regression indeed.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
"Eric Holder sworn in as first African-American Attorney General"
...the news breathlessly informs us.
Um, is it just me, or does it seem that once the frickin' President of the United States is an "African American" (OK, he technically isn't, but whatever, for now), any black "first" becomes a whole lot less special, and maybe shouldn't be stressed quite so much?
[Crickets.]
Just me, then. Chalk it up to bitterness at just listening to two hours of "diversity" crap as part of a CLE course.
Yowza. Just checked out a picture of Holder. Talk about brown-paper bag tests. (See A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe for the definition of that. Looks like Holder is taking a bit of Brother Wes' advice too.) Gonzales is darker than him. Come to think, the AG position- and the Cabinet as a whole- has had quite a bit of "diversity" in the last few years. But you wouldn't hear about that.
Um, is it just me, or does it seem that once the frickin' President of the United States is an "African American" (OK, he technically isn't, but whatever, for now), any black "first" becomes a whole lot less special, and maybe shouldn't be stressed quite so much?
[Crickets.]
Just me, then. Chalk it up to bitterness at just listening to two hours of "diversity" crap as part of a CLE course.
Yowza. Just checked out a picture of Holder. Talk about brown-paper bag tests. (See A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe for the definition of that. Looks like Holder is taking a bit of Brother Wes' advice too.) Gonzales is darker than him. Come to think, the AG position- and the Cabinet as a whole- has had quite a bit of "diversity" in the last few years. But you wouldn't hear about that.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
OK, this goes back well over ten years. After a particularly harsh winter (or, knowing the national media's insularity, perhaps just a single heavy blizzard in New York), Time magazine ran a cover showing some people struggling through the snowfall with a headline informing us that this, too, was a result of "Global Warming."
Even at that point (remembering the setting in which I saw the magazine, it was 1997 at the latest), anyone with eyes in his head should have been able to see that "climate change" (they hadn't yet developed the trick of calling it that) is a religion rather than science. And over a decade later, and after shoveling out yet another heavy snowfall this morning (a few weekends ago, I did it three times in one 24-hour period!), it seems that quite a few people still don't get it. Well, that's a cult for you.
Even at that point (remembering the setting in which I saw the magazine, it was 1997 at the latest), anyone with eyes in his head should have been able to see that "climate change" (they hadn't yet developed the trick of calling it that) is a religion rather than science. And over a decade later, and after shoveling out yet another heavy snowfall this morning (a few weekends ago, I did it three times in one 24-hour period!), it seems that quite a few people still don't get it. Well, that's a cult for you.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
"Obama: Lawmakers should put politics aside for stimulus bill" (AP)
That headline concerns me:
1. I fear our President doesn't get that there's a difference between honestly held policy views and "politics." That is, that he's a politician without any real views.
2. I fear he has views and ideology, but doesn't realize (in true Alinsky fashion) that there are many things in life outside of politics and confrontation, and that policy can be discussed in an honest manner.
3. I fear he knows all that and is just trying to use the bugaboo of "politics" to keep any real opposition from arising. (Not that politics or partisanship are always a bad thing either.)
You may change every "he" above to "He" is that's your bag.
1. I fear our President doesn't get that there's a difference between honestly held policy views and "politics." That is, that he's a politician without any real views.
2. I fear he has views and ideology, but doesn't realize (in true Alinsky fashion) that there are many things in life outside of politics and confrontation, and that policy can be discussed in an honest manner.
3. I fear he knows all that and is just trying to use the bugaboo of "politics" to keep any real opposition from arising. (Not that politics or partisanship are always a bad thing either.)
You may change every "he" above to "He" is that's your bag.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Well, Bush has left the building...
...meaning that this legend has finally been put to rest.
Although considering the "explanation" they thought up for Reagan, I suppose they'll think of one here as well.
Although considering the "explanation" they thought up for Reagan, I suppose they'll think of one here as well.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
HaBayta
By the way, as long as I'm quoting songs, I have to say that preparing for Aliyah in weather like this really calls to mind the words of Shimon and Garfinkel:
And I'm laying out my winter clothes, wishing I was gone, goin' home
Where the New York City winters aren't bleedin' me, leadin' me to go home
Lupins
From The Corner come two postings about how Barney Fa...er, Frank has decided to allow beneficiaries of the government's bailout money (i.e., bigwig execs, although it looks like the congressmen themselves, plus some of the usual suspects, are gonna get some of that green) to keep flying their corporate jets. This is done, apparently, to protect Kansas's corporate-jet industry, and was pushed by two congressmen from that state, one from each party.
The Democrat is named Dennis Moore.
The Democrat is named Dennis Moore.
Dennis Moore, Dennis MooreQuite apropos, eh?
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor, and gives to the rich
... Stupid b****.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Achdut
I tell ya, there's nothing that gets my Jewish happy-juices flowing better than seeing a diverse crowd at Mincha. I went to the Radio City Synagogue, in the middle of the Diamond District, yesterday, Asarah B'Tevet, as I usually do on fasts, and the usual spectrum of people were there. (Fasts, of course, bring out more people than usual, myself included, what with a Sefer Torah needed.) Satmar, Lubavitch, one clearly not-at-all religious guy whose wife needed a Mi Sheberach, and all the way to me, who some bloggers probably wouldn't even count for a minyan. I even bid for Kohen and won; twenty-six dollars well spent. The Sefer Torah was the smallest I've ever seen in my life- not more than five inches; our faces were practically right on top of it so we could read. Tehillim for "Eretz Yisroel" afterward, of course.
Perhaps the wrong emotion for a fast, but it made me feel a lot better. Perhaps, in fact, that's the most appropriate emotion indeed.
Perhaps the wrong emotion for a fast, but it made me feel a lot better. Perhaps, in fact, that's the most appropriate emotion indeed.
Monday, December 29, 2008
L'Hodot U'LeHallel
Just said the last Al HaNisim until Purim. The last day of Chanukkah is always a little anticlimactic- you've lit the last candle the night before, and then...not much else. A nice long layning in the morning, and then, we have one more Mincha (and bentching, at least in my case) to remind us of what a nice Chag it was. Very good times indeed with friends and family, and now on to the last week of the year.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
I just really like this photo. (Thanks to Keren.) That's R' Seth Mandel, one of the greats, standing in the same spot as his rebbe did when he delivered his famous drashot (Lamport Auditorium- note the especially appropriate legend on the front of the lectern), speaking at the Kosher Bird conference sponsored by the OU and YU this past Thanksgiving. (A fitting date.) His co-star (one of many) in the cage next to him is a Silkie Chicken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)