Here's the amazing Eleff brothers, Michael, Eric, and Scott, at Esti's sister's house (that'd be Noemi Stern) Saturday night. Alas, the Eleff sister, Connie, is just out of the shot. 

Here's my dad, reading the kesubah under the chuppah. "Not bad for a monkey, eh?" he asked when done. (Don't ask- it'll just rile me up.) He also had a geshmak vort, to coin a phrase, about simply reading the kesubah. 

I'm back!

Back from Manchester, where my cousin Yale developed a taste for kippers, where we were served Waldorf Salad, where I met a Dr. Hibbert and a Ms. Lebowski (OK, different spelling), and, to move off of pop culture references, where I had occasion once again to curse complicated hotel showers. But enough of that- it was great! Great times, great people, great wedding, all too brief stay. I have many (many, many) photos, but here are a few representative ones to whet your appetite:

Here's the chussenkallah with my parents at the photo shoot. If these seem a bit unposed, it's because I (or someone else) was jumping in ahead of the official photographer. 

Here's one of the whole family (our side, plus Esti, of course, who's also "our side" now as well) taken at the photo shoot. Of course, I didn't take these- I'm in them. Esti's marvelous niece and nephew proved to be quick studies at the camera, and took a bunch of the photos I have here. 

Here's another shot of the extended family. It gets some details the previous one doesn't, so combine the best of each and ignore the rest, OK? 

Turt-le Bay!

This afternoon and evening, National Review had a pre-convention get-together at Turtle Bay on the East Side. Good times, good times. Packed to the gills when I got in (early), and it only got more crowded. I met lots of people I know only electronically, and I'm sure I saw many others who I didn't identify. (And I even got mistaken for Stanley Kurtz! Hee!) Anyway, this allows me to demonstrate my new expertise with photoblogging. So here goes: (Click to enlarge, if that's your bag, baby.)

Here's a reason I came early: Goodies! Buttons, a lapel pin, and, of course, the most recent NR. (Well, I'll get it in the mail soon anyway, but why not?) The buttons say "John Kerry: Just Say Non!" against a French flag- it took me a bit to get that one; "Kerry is #1 (Senate Liberal)"; "I Don't Believe The New York Times" (perhaps I'll wear that when reading the rag in public); "Save A Hamster- Vote Kerry"; and "I Believe the Swifties" (ah, but which? Kerry would ask). The lapel pin is laid out like a cover of the magazine with a flag. As for the issue itself- well, you're gonna have to buy it. Or, better, subscribe. There's a handy link right at the top of their site.

Here's Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online Editor-at-Large, holding court at the bar. Don't worry, it gets better. (A bit of the old demon liquor- ok, a beer- helped get my courage up to actually approach these people, as you'll see.) 

A view of the banner on the balcony above the second floor room where the shindig was held. This particular place is actually hosting a few RNC-related events this week. The balcony looks empty now...

Here's Rich Lowry, the Editor-in-Chief of National Review (the Dead Tree version). He was standing by the door greeting everyone, and I even had a few words with him. The NR crew is rather young, cu ne? (A bit of Esperanto there.) Not that there's anything wrong with that...else this wouldn't have happened, perhaps.

Ah, the reason I came. (Well, a big one of many.) Me and Derb, the great John Derbyshire. Derb was the first of a few who not only allowed me to take a picture, but offered to take one with me. He was patient enough to wait for the guy to figure how to work the camera, which, of course, figures- he's a gentleman. He even said he remembered our correspondence. Made my evening. 

Jim Geraghty, who writes "The Kerry Spot" for NRO. Jim is worried, rightly, that people might lose their jobs because they spend all their time at work reading him. Yes, he's that good. And younger than me, I think. 

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor (editrix?) of National Review Online, who I think set the whole thing up. Hurrah for K-Lo! (As she's called.) The guy with her had some role in setting it up too, I believe, but I'm afraid I don't know him. 

Me and Ramesh Ponnuru, an NR senior editor and all-around nice (and brilliant) guy. Alas, I didn't get to compliment him on any specific pieces, but they're all great.

Me and Jonah! Yay! Another unexpected offer of, "Why not take one of us together?" I look a bit poleaxed here. Chalk it up to hero worship. Jonah may not have gotten onto the LOTR DVD. Sniff. 

This is another view of the balcony- by this point, it had even gotten crowded up there. And no, I don't think the woman in pink is waving to me. 

Here's a view of only some of the crowd, taken from the stairs to the balcony. It's something, huh? The place was packed even at 4:30, and only got more so. The guy in the hat is Roger Simon, who I believe is Someone Important. 

Here's a view to the bar itself, again to show a bit of the crowd. When I turned around after taking this one, I saw Lindsay Young of the Manhattan Institute and Fabiani Society, and we had a few friendly words- I thanked her for emailing a list of events, and asked about her plans for the year.

This is John J. Miller, the NR political reporter. He seemed a bit surprised someone would want to take his picture- they're a modest bunch that way. 

I was on my way out when a few more people with yarmulkes came in (there had been a few before- I think I even saw a chassid). One was Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the famous Jewish conservative. Maybe they'll call me that one day- a guy can dream, can't he? Or maybe I should aim for "the famous conservative." (That's K-Lo behind him, who'd just greeted him, which is how I knew who he was.)

Well, this is the place where it was held, Turtle Bay on 2nd Avenue between 52nd and 53rd. I took this on my way out, going to the train. (K-Lo assured me there'd be no speeches, or I'd have stuck around even longer.) Note the large crowd even outside.

As a test for the above (posted in reverse order), a picture of my brother Sam and his friends M. Hirschman, M. Gombo, and Z. Zelingold, after the wonderful aufruf we had this past weekend. (Obviously, no pictures from the Sabbath day itself, which rocked. Everyone and his brother came to the davening, and my old friend and poster to this site, M. Sussman, stayed for the meal as well.) Great guys, great time.

Grrr

So this morning, I only had a twenty with which to pay for the one dollar Forward at the stand I always get it. Guy wouldn't take it. So I went to the office, got change, and bought it from a machine. Guy's lost a customer, I think. Although I will miss the dog.

So speaking of the big story in the Forward, I don't see how it extends further than the schvuntz it's about. How does it touch on any organization? And what could they do? He wasn't doing anything illegal.

Meh, is what I say.

Outrage of the day? I've learned that Charedi papers give female author's only first initials, so nobody will know it's a woman. (Of course, if some people have first names, you gotta wonder about the rest. Unless there's a more misogynistic point being made here.) This is disgusting. At least if they didn't hire women, it would be consistent, if also wrong. But this...

Feh, is what I say.

I choked up a bit watching this video. I think the anchor did too.

Here's a question to John O'Neill from a discussion at The Washington Post:

Mr. O'Neill, you are questioning the validity of medals awarded to John Kerry by the U.S. government. Aren't you also by implication questioning the competency of the medal eligibility determinations made by U.S. military brass? If so, aren't you in reality calling into question the authenticity of every medal awarded to every U.S. serviceman? If so, how do we differentitate the "good" medals from the "bad" medals?

"You can say what you want, but I won't stand here and let you insult the United States of America! Gentlemen!" [Walk out, humming "The Star Spangled Banner."]

It's a sad state of affairs when Jews don't realize that "Episcopal" and "Catholic" are two separate things.

Call me jingoistic, but reading something like this makes me proud to be an American. O brave new world that has such people in't!

Meanwhile, today's Times has an article about the soon-to-open National Museum of the American Indian. (Well, it's always been in New York- now it's moving to Washington.) Oddly, this article, too, stirred up some good ol' patriotism in me. And then came this:

But not only the sunny side of Indian history will be on display. Some of the
knottiest topics will be addressed, Mr. West said.

Actually, I was waiting for this. Will the museum talk about tribal warfare? Bloodthirsty practices? Scalping? Oh, no: They mean how badly the Indians were treated by the Europeans. Well, that's all well and good. But honesty is honesty.

Jonathan Rosenblum has really crossed a line with this piece. You want to talk shunning, Jon? (I hope that's all you want- but if you do, you're quite naive.) Decent people should shun you.

Speaking of indecency, the Jewish weeklies seem to be having a treif-fest. Last week, the crown jewel of Anglo-Jewish journalism (monkey*) saw fit to devote the major cover story and two whole pages within to Jews who participate in eating contests (non-kosher, of course). So not only is it treif, it's gluttonous treif. Lovely.

Oh, but the Forward will not be left behind. This week's number includes a recipe for- I kid you not- mealworm latkes.

OK, people, I know you don't keep kosher. But a little sensitivity? And leaving kashrut aside, a little, well, taste?

Finally, National Geographic, predictably (and ignoring my vote against) made its latest global warming fright-piece its cover story. (It seems on the newsstand version, too.) The editor freely acknowledges that controversy exists in his introduction- so why, in a huge three-part piece, isn't there the slightest hint of that? Not one dissenter interviewed? Not one word? (The insults in the online forum are precious.)

One letter in the issue is quite funny- a woman demanding that US troops pull out of all places they supposedly aren't needed. Of course, now that the President has proposed just that, I imagine it still won't make her support him. Hell, John Kerry called for it only a week or two ago, only to reverse himself once Bush declared for it. Yolds.

I'm back to ranting, baby!

*A TWoP term meaning "not."

Life imitates art

A little while back, I shared a bus ride with a graduate of Morehouse College (he was wearing a T-shirt). Today, as part of my job, I looked into Ralph's. Name the works of fiction these bring to mind.

Some light stuff

Don't worry, the serious stuff will follow soon:

Cleo strikes again, with another masterpiece.

The Washington Post gets in on the act.

Halakha and latent O.C.D. make a grand cocktail...

Too true. There was once a piece in The Commentator about this, and the author tried to link every obsession with the words, "He worries that his prayers will not be accepted if he doesn't..." and the like. That's wrong: Obsessive people don't need a reason. They (we) just do this stuff. This article is a must-read. Nice ending, too, for the religious amongst us.

This is too funny. Apparently, crotch-grabbing and wedgie-giving are legal moves in Olympic (all?) water-polo.

Chutzpah

It takes some kind of chutzpah to use Moshe's speech to Reuven and Gad as proof that chareidim shouldn't be serving in the IDF.

Of course, when chutzpah is needed, Shas is sure to step to the bat.

A Thought

When you begin blogging, you start getting a compulsion to blog almost anything that comes up. Lord knows it's happened to me, and I know- or can tell- that it happens to many (most? all?) others. And true to my neurotic self, I make lists of what to blog, and then never get around to it.

Which is a blessing in disguise. Because the cure for this compulsion? Is to just let the urge blow over. Give it some time (or a little procrastination), and the urge passes, either because the intended post becomes irrelevant (either because it's old news, if it's a news item, or because it doesn't apply anymore, if it's a personal thing) or you just don't feel the urge to talk about it anymore. (When actually blogging, I've found this is also a solution to a related phenomenon, the compulsion to stick in links for every last thing. And no, this post has nothing to do with the comment below.)

Clarence Thomas was once asked why, unlike other justices, he asks few if any questions during oral arguments. He answered that, first, he's noticed that most of the questions asked are unnecessary- the justice (or any judge, I'd say) asking them knows the answer already, and is trying to make some other point (if that). He also gave another, more personal, answer: He was raised speaking Gullah, an African-American (literally) dialect of the Carolina coast.
He didn't speak standard English until relatively late, and then, for a while, only with a thick accent. As a result, he was somewhat embarrassed to speak up in school, and even when he began to speak well, this reluctance carried over to law school and beyond. One thing he observed, thanks to this trait, was that if one has a question, it will invariably be asked by someone else.

And so it is in the blogosphere. Want to mention a news item? Someone else- likely with more exposure- surely will do so, or already has.

So what to do? Should I simply collect my links into one spot, tell my readers to go to them, and give up?

Of course not. Blogs are, at least, a great place to vent, and just maybe I'll occasionally have something original to say. I'll have more to post later. But for now, just these general thoughts. Have a great week, all!

A bit of Googling reveals that this latest bit of anti-Bush idiocy can be traced to a someone with a JTS address. Typical.

You know, in the old days, Jack Ruby killed Oswald.

"Kahane is the Jew of Israel"

(With apologies to Yoko)

I once read that Jews are sort of a "litmus test"- that is, you can judge a society based on how it treats the Jews living within it. (I suppose this might hold true of any minority, but it probably fits Jews best for various reasons- history of persecution, etc.)

Anyway, I've decided that Kahanists are a similar litmus test for Israeli politicians and American journalists. They're so universally condemned and despised, it's easy to fall into the defaming masses. If I see someone falling into that, I know I don't like him.

For example, Jeffrey Goldberg keeps up his baseless accusations against the Israeli Right- for which he's already been lauded by Gary Rosenblatt- in today's Times. (As with Chaim Strauchler and Yossi Klein Halevi, he's discovered that the true ticket to success comes from attacking Kahanists, better if you were once one of them.) The article, of course, is quite disgusting, once again dealing in innuendo without foundation. (Is that redundant?) The Kahanists, and Israeli right-wingers in general, particularly the evil American ones, want to kill Sharon, blow up the Dome of the Rock. "I have met dozens more who would not sit shiva," he writes, "certainly not for the Dome, but not for their prime minister, either."

I imagine he means "sit shiva" in a figurative sense. (The Times assumes the phrase need not be explained for its kike readership.) Jeffrey, you yold, want to know how to get me not to "sit shiva" for you? Write an article advocating more administrative detentions. Yup, there it is, right in the article: "Let's lock up more Kahanists without cause!" (I doubt many Times readers know what "administrative detention" is, but to define it would probably result in many of them being turned off from it, and so it, too, is left unexplained.) The Times, of course, wouldn't even advocate such a thing for Al Qaeda members in Guantanamo Bay, but it's thrilled to print this piece.

Oh, and then there's his- and surprise! Abe Foxman's- ridiculous call for "the rabbis" to do something. He doesn't elaborate, because it's a nonsensical call.

As for Israeli politicians, some, ironically from the left, protest such tactics. The right, fearful they'd lose support to Kahanists, always took the lead in banning them. And now the latest right-wing "savior," Effie Eitam, has come out for the detentions. His main reason? Not that Sharon is at risk, but that it "could cause untold harm to the entire right-wing camp". Oh, that's nice. His precious party is at risk, so let's lock up some more people.

You keep people from voting for the party of their choice, you have the same tired old faces in control year after year, you lock people up without cause, you should be worrying.

Edited to add one item to that last list: You threaten to expel them from their homes. Or is Goldberg suggesting that if the US government decided to expel him from his (Upper West Side, I bet) home, he'd meekly go along with it?

The question for someone over on the Agudah end of the spectrum (as well as some others) can be boiled down to this: With the arrival of Mashiach, we can safely assume that the nation then established will require police, a fire department, courts, sanitation, an army- maybe even a parliament. As the modern State of Israel supplies all such things, isn't it logical to assume that they will simply continue (as, lehavdil, Mandatory institutions did)? And if this is the case, isn't there some level of significance to the State as a first step toward an age of Mashiach? (I won't approach of the question of whether the modern day State, with some ideological changes not outside the realm of possibility, might one day accomplish the acts required of Mashiach without there being one recognizable [at least at the time] individual in that role.)

To someone of the Satmar or Neturei Karta persuasion, the answer is not difficult: No. To them, the State is an evil that must be entirely swept away, consequences be damned (although they're blindly not really concerned about those), before a Messianic age may arrive. But they're evil gits. I'd like to assume that the Agudists are not.

But I don't have much cause for optimism. In another context, Meir Kahane would say, "I say what you think," and sometimes I wonder if Satmar fulfills that role for much of the Charedi world.

For example: You can't get much more mainstream charedi than Artscroll. Once, out of curiosity, I looked into the Artscroll Talmud to see what they say on the "Three Oaths." Now, they could simply say, "There's too much to discuss here, and there are numerous opinions." After all, it's not halakhah, and it doesn't play much of a central role in Judaism to anyone outside the Satmar. And, indeed, Artscroll begins its comment with exactly that line. However, a few pages later, it goes on- despite its own introduction- to give one point of view. It doesn't say there are other views, and it never mentions that the view it gives is the most extreme, namely, that of the Satmar Rebbe. It's too identical to be a coincidence. I imagine that almost all of the Modern Orthodox Jews who are Artscroll's main market, and almost all of the Charedim who use this Shas as well, have no idea what it is they're being presented. This is troubling- far more than the relatively silly ways in which Artscroll sanitizes history or translations or Bible commentary. And yet no one, so far as I know, has commented on it. (Off to Google...)

Jains and Jews

You know, I'll get to the Zionist question in a bit, but I just noticed a few points in Rosenblum's piece I couldn't ignore:

1. The whole point of the piece is how we should be nice, how he was mean to Heilman, how nice Heilman was, etc.- and then he included a parenthetical remark about how Heilman probably just despises him and doesn't want to deal with him. Oh, that's nice.

2. He mentions Sherer as being a model of civility. One thing I'll always remember about Sherer is that he contributed an essay to the second edition of The Sanctity of the Synagogue (it's in the third edition as well). Now, he could have written an article about Mechitzot, etc., like every else. But no, he had to take the opportunity to attack YU, the OU, and the RCA.

3. On Sherer's style: "On many occasions, that respect translated into concrete benefits for the Torah world on such bodies as the Claims Conference." Of course, the Agudah is well known for opposing any cooperation with non-Orthodox bodies, and attacking anyone who disagrees- but to get money out of Germany? (And, unintentionally I trust, create chillulei Hashem, as described in a Times column yesterday?) Money? The Agudah is right there, just as they're right there for Sharon for the same reason in the coalition talks going on in Israel now.

Hey, money makes the world go 'round. But don't make a point of acting sanctimonious about your values when you chase it.

On another note: Jains, members of a religious group in India, cover their mouths to avoid inhaling insects. A new chumra for the velt? Why not?

This blog is about rants, right?

Well, my planned rants are now yesterday's news. One involved some guy that smuggled artifacts from Iraq, got arrested, and hid behind a Jewish phrase. A nice chillul hashem (worse in Iraq, already prone to Jew-hatred, where it came up, I believe) made worse, and so, of course, Brafman for the defense. Note: If you don't want to have the image of a "mob lawyer," it helps not to dress and style your hair like one. Well, it helps even more not to defend mobsters, but hey. Anyway, yesterday's news. Hopefully, Brafman will be one day as well.

Another rant involved the fact that of forty-odd books on Barnes & Noble's "Meet the Writer" list for August, approximately one-quarter- one-quarter- are anti-Bush. (One, by Malachy McCourt, seems particularly silly). Don't these people realize how over-the-top they've gotten with this sheer hatred of the man?

On that topic, the radio informed me this morning that Mrs. Kerry, a.k.a. (within the Kerry campaign) "Stepmoney," responded to a bullhorn-wielding protestor shouting "Four more years!" by starting a chant of "Three more months!" Um, Mrs. K.: Presidential terms end in January, not November. Our favorite Mozambiquan also stated that Republicans want "Four more years of Hell." Hell? What? Have the last four years (apart from one terrible day) really been that bad?

Hell, by the way, is the news media picking up Dean's wacky claim that the latest terror alert is politically motivated with such alacrity. Again, don't they realize how hateful and, well, just plain predictable they've become?

Well, on to the glory that is Jonathan Rosenblum.

Rosenblum includes a tricky and cute (he hopes, hopes that I will dash) line in his piece apologizing to Ephraim Zuroff. Zuroff has claimed that during World War II, the Vaad Ha-Hatzalah was only saving yeshiva people. Rosenblum points out, incidental to his main point, that the Vaad included both Charedi and "Mizrahi" (sic) rabbis. (Use of the word "Mizrachi" is a dead giveaway that one is fighting fights of the 1950's, or was taught by someone who did.) And therein lies an interesting sociological point.

A few years back, Moshe Meiselman, nephew to the Rav, wrote an essay in Tradition about his uncle's views on contemporary issues, especially women's prayer groups.* There was an interesting footnote where Meiselman suggests that Kol Dodi Dofek isn't as Zionist as people think it is.** (Let's grant this ridiculous assertion for a moment.***) He then wonders: Why do Religious Zionist schools teach it?****

This, of course, is Meiselman projecting his views on others. Since he's a happy book-banner in his own yeshiva- he even banned his own mother's memoir because it was too truthful about history- he assumes that everyone else is, and should shun books they don't agree with. Of course, the whole point of Modern Orthodoxy (well, one of them) is lack of fear- just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to avoid something. (Me, I studied the Satmar Rebbe's point of view on Zionism in YU. More to follow.)

This mindset is what gets Rosenblum to try his little "trick." After all, Rosenblum reveres his gedolim. To him, they can't do any wrong. Therefore, with his blinkered worldview, he assumes that Modern Orthodox Jews feel the same. So if he points out that the rabbis Zuroff is criticizing include some "Mizrachi" ones, then Modern Orthodox Jews' reaction should be, in his mind, "Oh, 'our' gedolim did the same thing! We'd better shut up!" Of course, one point of Modern Orthodoxy is that gedolim are not sacrosanct, so Rosenblum's little ploy falls flat.*****

Thinking of Rosenblum led me to some questions on Zionism, which I shall post later.

*When criticized, Meiselman's only defense boils down to "I'm the Rav's nephew, so shut up." Come to think, that's probably how he gets to appear in Tradition in the first place. Why he'd want to be in Tradition is beyond me. Probably because no one further to the right cares what the Rav thought. Maybe his nephew-hood pasuls him elsewhere. Poor man.

**This is a classic example of how Da'as Torah operates. While claiming to follow gedolim blindly, it often boils down to changing the views of gedolim to suit oneself. After all, one can't reject gedolim (more on this further on), especially if it's the one gadol who's your meal-ticket to get Modern Orthodox followers, as the Rav is for Meiselman, but one really doesn't want to change one's own views. Ergo, the gedolim's views are altered, ironically.

***Of course, the essay is complex, but it's still more Zionist than Meiselman would like to think.

****He does not ask why they teach it "as Zionist literature," which would make (slightly) more sense. (My God, this has turned into an anti-Rosenblum piece with an anti-Meiselman piece tacked on as footnotes.)

*****If it's a footnote, it must be Meiselman. Anyway, he, of course, is falling into the same trap by trying to prove a point based on what the Rav felt.

Happy Tu B'Av!

In honor of the day, and the YUWO invite, I wonder what questions shadchanim would have had to ask back in the First Bayis period:

-Do you plan on sacrificing your firstborn to Molekh?

-When was the last time you brought an offering to Asherah?

Fortunately, it seems there were no shadchanim then.

Birthday went great, by the way. In the words of his fiancee, my brother is "gorgeous." (Apparently, that's Brit-speak for "terrific.") I got an amazing gift from him, cards from my sister and parents (they bought a talking one in England featuring "Basil Fawlty" and the Mrs. giving birthday wishes), e-cards, phone messages...the works. I've got a good circle of friends.

We tend to have lots of birthdays cakes among the Lamms. I was wondering when one would show up during the Friday night meal- they come out as a surprise- but was still taken off-guard. And then, another during the day! Wow. That was a surprise.

I've got some rants, but they can wait.

What does the OU mean by this?

Take ths chance to protect Jewish freedoms by joining our Voter Registration Campaign!

Eh.

This story is such BS. The line about his mother being a schoolteacher is obviously meant to imply that the family wasn't well off- look, he didn't have his own car! Of course, his father (whose position had nothing to do with his success and articles- there've been others- like this) makes a bloody fortune.

Then again, his father is busy "saving the world." Riiiight. And he's getting stuff he reviews for free.

Double Eh.

Anyway, Shabbat Shalom. (Yay!)

DNC Over...

People should wonder: Whenever Kerry talks about "restoring credibility," he means, essentially, doing things other countries (well, the French and German governments, not to mention North Korea, Iran, etc.) will approve of. A problem- one of many- with this is that it denies American exceptionalism, a key feature of this country since it was first settled. Yes, we are better than most (all?) other countries. What we do is just plain right. Others should imitate us. And Democrats feel uncomfortable with that idea.

"Why doesn't Madonna convert to Judaism?" the kikes ask. Simple. She has no idea she's doing anything remotely related to Judaism (is she?), just some idea called "Kabbalah."

The YU Women's Organization is getting into the shidduch business- I got my invite for a buffet dinner (a number are being held) yesterday. They actually ask for "level of religious observance." Oh, Lord. Well, we'll see. End the Madness has interesting plans too.

Hmmm. The Sars reading. Hmmm.

You know Kahanists are involved...

...when liberals start wondering why more people aren't jailed without charges in Israel. What was that about fighting for the rights of those you disagree with? Bueller?

These articles are all over now. Never mind that there's not a shred of evidence. None. Nothing. How simple does it have to be? Well, the Jewish Week simply says, "No smoking gun." (Funny, they'd demand one of Bush.) But there's not even less than that. Eh. Sentence first, trial later, if at all. Sound familiar?

`Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a careless tone. `For instance, now,' she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster on her finger as she spoke, `there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'

Noam Federman would laugh bitterly at that.

Good Times, Good Times

First: Mr. Brosnan, say it ain't so. Say it's a negotiating ploy or something. We need one more Bond movie out of you. Just one, at least. Casino Royale, as Tarantino wants? Why not? It'd have a nice symmetry.

My college roommate's sister's name was Margarita (in Polish). She wasn't frozen, though- she was very nice. Frozen margaritas, on the other hand, can be very nice as well...

Where was I? Oh, yes. My birthday is Saturday! Yay! There's a longstanding tradition- I could go back and count the cards if you want to know how many years- of my ("younger"- older than me, but younger of two) sister giving me a Peanuts card. And although she's in Israel now, a card showed up in the mail yesterday. A very nice card, and a Hebrew Daf Hashavua, and a nice message...she's such a sweetie. As are my other two siblings (and parents, come to think), who I know have plans as well. Family is the most important thing, you know. And we've got these nice traditions in ours. I have to be alert Friday night, but know I'll forget. Maybe I'll report more Sunday. Anyway, being a bad brother, I finally got around to writing to her there only now. Email makes it so easy- why shouldn't we be in touch?

Also got some DVDs I ordered, and some Glarkware (more of both expected, though), and three magazines I was expecting- hit the jackpot, as my father would say. (Although: Mr. Feulner should show that "Useful Idiot" is a term from history and its use does not equate to someone using the word "idiot" as an insult. Furthermore, he tries to show that "there are baddies on each side" by comparing similar language used on both sides, but hey- sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong, you know? I'm sure he does.)

Well, the Forward features the pre-bat mitzvah (but somehow already twelve- I know, I know) "Kid for Kerry" founder on its cover. So predictable (I mean that it'd be a kike, among other things). So disgusting.

Oh- and she's "preternaturally self-possessed." Kids who are described like that need a slap upside their heads.

In better political news, John Derbyshire put me up on The Corner again, as his favorite post on a subject. Yay! again. (Speaking of The Corner, K-Lo calls Ms.  Preternatural "Little Orphan Annie"- only seeing the Forward cover do I get it, as I've been avoiding convention coverage outside of NR and Rush and links from them, like Jonah Goldberg on USA Today and Drudge- and bets she'll be a conservative in ten years. Her post above that one makes a good point too.

"Chicken Abortion"

That's a condemnation of eggs from someone who, I bet, has no problem with the real thing.

The rest of the exchange is priceless, though.

The husband and wife team in the office had a granchild, and, not neglecting us, brought pastries from the bris. Always nice.

My father was unable to finish all the kinot this year. I suggested to him that there were likely hundreds of kinot, and the fifty-odd that are in our editions are just a choice of a printer from earlier this century- so we're free to select even further (as my minyan did). I know there are other "modern" knot- for the Holocaust, for the York massacres, etc.- not included, but are there many other "classical" ones?

The Yeshiva College Alumni Association wants me to be Secretary! And the Republican National Convention wants me to be right in the middle of things! To paraphrase Dr. Evil, "I haven't been this excited since I was a little girl!"

At least they're entertaining. Not that I'm watching.

First Halle Berry, now Barack Obama? This sort of stuff makes me sick.

Heh (7/28). Follow the link listed there. More breaking today, of course- see Drudge, for example.

Also, via The Corner: Captions and more (and more).

Edited to add one more.

Am I the only person who finds the fact that Connecticut's official tourism ads push a place called the Griswold Museum funny? [Dead silence.] Come on, folks- Griswold? Connecticut?

A New Title

 

Someone this morning informed me that I'm a "feminist." As Jack Benny would say, "Well!"

In any event, feminist or not, I'm still uncomfortable with this piece of PC-pap. Under discussion is a new TV show about a firehouse, and the Times (yes, again) just has to put this in:

"The firemen (there are no women in this company)..."

Oh, yes. Do apologize for not using "firefighters" by stating the bloody obvious.

Ah, a new layout, the end of a week...how can you go wrong? (Sorry I lost all the old comments.) Be well, everyone.

Interesting. Most interesting to me is this line:

"But evidence to support this has been sketchy, and many marine scientists have clung to statistical models that say monstrous deviations from the normal sea state only occur once every thousand years. "

The scientists were wrong here. And all the "global warming" hysteria is based on...computer models.

Beautiful

 
 
The Sandy Berger story isn't even a day old, and already the news media have changed the story from "What did he do?" to "Why was the news released now?" The answer, as always, is "Blame Bush."

They've done this before. It's always disgusting.

Or LaGoyim

 
 
If having a bad reaction to this makes me a prude, then sign me up for more of it. If having an especially bad reaction to the third sentence of the fourth paragraph from the bottom makes me a religious chauvinist, then sign me up for more of that.

Huh?

From the Jerusalem Report (via Protocols):

After a recent Broadway matinee performance of "Fiddler on the Roof," a small group of Orthodox matrons clustered outside the Minskoff Theater on 46th Street. I asked them what they thought of the show. "That was our world until it was destroyed," lamented one, a survivor from Hungary. "I wept," added another quickly, rolling up a sleeve to reveal an Auschwitz tattoo.

To the first person: Huh? And to the second's actions: Huh?

Well, I know what's up, but I still wonder.

"Life Goes On, Man." - The Dude

And so it does, late-night troubling phone conversations and subsequent inability to sleep aside. Speaking of the Dude, I really want to go to the NY Lebowski Fest.
 
I don't expect extensive American Jewish histories to mention Kahane and the JDL, and don't blame them if they don't, but the official 350th anniversary timeline does! Whoo-hoo!

The Jewish Defense League is established in New York City in response to what its founder Rabbi Meir Kahane sees as a rise in anti-Semitism. Two years later, the JDL is condemned for sitting in at the New York Federation and demanding $6,000,000 for Jewish education.

Did they really have to throw in the editorial comment about "condemned?" Why just say what they did? Besides, who, exactly, "condemned?" I'm sure some people approved. The Federation- which partially runs the official site- might have, but still.

Perfect

I'm making my way through The Great Gatsby now, courtesy of the Times' summer serials.  I never read it before, but since I won't get the paper tomorrow or Sunday, I'll have to think of some way to finish it.
 
Anyway, I found a great line in it today:  

"I read somewhere that the sun's getting hotter every year," said Tom genially. "It seems that pretty soon the Earth's going to fall into the sun- or wait a minute- it's just the opposite- the sun's getting colder every year."

Remind you of something?

Mmm, pretty new Blogger format.
 
A fellow Blogger just referred to me as a "Bhudda with a sword." I like that.

Shabbat Shalom, all!

"Got his head knocked off by a golf ball. Tragic! Tragic!"

As Sherlock Holmes might say, I am wondering....just wondering!

I've complained about Buckley before, but his retirement is making me wonder what, when you come down to it, is the big deal about him. Oh, sure, he may have gotten the conservative movement started way back when, done a lot, had an influence, etc. But "What have you done for me lately?" as the fella says. His columns, for example: The vast majority posit no solid point of view at all, merely present facts. (Notable exceptions involve religion. More below.) A rather annoying point about them is that he loooooves to number his points and paragraphs. It makes them look like unfinished outlines, not essays. And the big words and convoluted grammar just distract from the point he is (or isn't) trying to make.

But the recent pieces written about him reveal a few much more troubling points. Take this, for example- but the same things have appeared elsewhere as well.

First, it's quite clear that the Left likes Buckley because he allows them to posit that there is one- just one- intellectual on the Right; ergo, all other Rightists are boors. Buckley is rich, upper class, educated- all the things they like. The point is often made explicitly. And Buckley seems to encourage it, and National Review links to such pieces.

A few months back, Rush Limbaugh (disparaged by name as the "other type of conservative" in some of the pieces just mentioned) was given a similar treatment in Time Magazine. They asked him similar things- where he disagreed with Bush, ideas on the war, etc. He refused to answer, stating that he knew that if he did, that would be the headline. Buckley seems oblivious to this. Since his announcement, he's allowed all interviewers to lead him into condemning Bush. And they've highlighted it.

At least, I hope he's oblivious. He has seemed to be going out of his way to stress this, even praising the American Conservative magazine, a "paleo-con" publication. So he's either turning his back on his followers or dumber than a bag of hammers. And I don't particularly hope for the latter.

But he walks into other things too. "Do you have gay friends," they ask, and he answers, as if it were a normal question. He doesn't attack the foundation of their points. And he feels that job number one for Bush and the G.O.P. should be gay marriage. There's the Catholic, stressing religion above all. (He was educated in an English Catholic school. I wonder if there's a persecution complex imparted there- Cromwell and Henry VIII and all that.)

Anyway. Let's see how the magazine changes, if at all, without him. The drugs thing, for example, always seemed to me to be a personal crusade of his. Oddly, the articles on him now have the flavor of obituaries. Me, I hope he lives many more happy years. However, he should either (borrowing his style):

1) Get a solid conservative education, for example by reading some current stuff that's out there;

2) Learn from Rush when and how to talk to the press; or,

3) Keep his mouth shut.

On a more local level: I heard State Senator Malcolm Smith speak at a little get together in my neighborhood yesterday (his district only touches us slightly, but you get support where you can). And you know what? Sure, he's a Democrat, and all that- but a more solid point of view I've never heard. I think things are different in the black neighborhoods of southeast Queens (he's a Floyd Flake man). And a nice guy, too.

Later, people!

It occurs to me that Bush really doesn't care about the politics of it all. I was just asked to say something negative about Edwards. Well, sure, there's lots I could say, but one important thing that's been noted is how political the pick was, there not to add anything that Kerry lacks, but simply to add more political appeal. Bush, of course, picked Cheney specifically to add heft to his administration, and was pilloried for it, as if there was something wrong with that. And he's holding on to Cheney, despite all these irrational attacks and hatred. And furthermore, that means the Republicans won't have an automatic "heir" to run four years from now. But Bush, bless his innocent soul, seems to simply be in this to do a good job, not score political points. It's a disadvantage, sure, and I wish he might be just a wee bit otherwise, but it's one big reason to like him.

Have a Shabbat Shalom and a good weekend, all.

Y'know, sometimes I really wonder how Jews- Jews committed to Judaism, that is- and who are all gaga over Democrats and their ilk (and yes, here I'm thinking of Mr. Moore) can seriously- well, I won't say "live with themselves," but perhaps "intellectually justify themselves." When I first started voting, I decided to look at things this way: Who else is pulling that lever? Who else is voting for Bill Clinton? Al Sharpton? Well, my finger will not touch the same lever as him. Let's just say that in over ten years of voting, I've never voted for a Democrat.

So: Who's voting for John Kerry? Read this, and ask yourself how you can. Honestly? I've read plenty of disgusting things, but this, in light of how Mr. Moore has been lionized, is truly sickening. A full page ad in the Times today for this very book says, "Think the movie is controversial? Wait 'til you read the book." They mean the book here.

Yes, I feel there's much more to an election than Israel, and too many Jews have blinkered views on who to vote for. But statements like these betray a mindset that goes far beyond one issue. And they can't be ignored.

Im Tirtzu, Ein Zeh Agada

Tonight marks the hundredth yahrzeit of Theodore Herzl, zichrono livracha.

(Thanks to PZil for the Hebrew-Aramaic.)

The Four Chaplains

Last night, I stopped by the bookstore to look up a new book about the Four Chaplains. (Amazon also lists a novel based on the story, and a related book.) I knew the story and most of the details already, but it never fails to get to me, even reading it online. This book is quite good- the author seems to specialize in books about ship sinkings where there weren't rescues for tactical reasons, and so focuses on that as well, but he presents a good overall picture. Here are a couple of other sites on the Chaplains. More people should know their story.

-The story.

-The "official" site (for want of a better term).

-On the special medal.

New comments format, and some other tweaks. Let's see what happens...

The House of Hock takes on an attack on Ephraim Zuroff by Jonathan Rosenblum. I'd like to make a few observations about other parts of Rosenblum's column:

"That leads Modern Orthodox parents, like their chareidi counterparts, to a greater recognition of the necessity to shield their children from much of contemporary society."

This is wrong on a number of counts. First, chareidim never meant to shield their children from "contemporary society." After all, they existed before contemporary times. Rather, they meant to cut themselves off from everything outside Torah. Ergo, shielding one's children from a corrupt modern culture does not make one a chareidi. One can still, say, read Shakespeare and listen to Mozart (or watch a good modern TV show), something an honest chareidi would not.

"For instance, it is now possible for chareidim to earn their B.A. degrees without ever setting foot into a secular college."

Um, it's been possible to do that for over 75 years, through the good offices of Yeshiva University. I earned my B.A. without "setting foot" in a secular college, and I'm no chareidi.

"The Schottenstein Talmud, for example, has led to an exponential increase in Talmud learning..." [Here he is listing chareidi accomplishments.]

And the Schottensteins are anything but chareidi. And exactly what their Talmud accomplishes is another question.

"The huge resources, both human and monetary, invested by the chareidi world in kiruv work completely refute Efraim Zuroff’s claim that the chareidi world shows no concern for secular Jews, and seeks to live in total isolation from them."

Putting money into kiruv doesn't neccesarily demonstrate being open to the outside world- quite the opposite. It arguably shows you only care about others to the extent they'll become more like you.

"What these chains are doing is a horrible precedent for the movie business, and it shows exactly how fragile the First Amendment is," said Tom Ortenberg, the president of Lions Gate Entertainment, which is distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

No, Tom. Repeat after me: These theaters are not government. The First Amendment applies only to government. Ergo, the First Amendment is not in danger.

This, on the other hand, shows how fragile the First Amendment is, especially as it applies to Moore. But don't expect liberals to criticize the government, especially when something they pushed for turns around and bites 'em on the ass.

The House of Hock points out that Brando's accusations weren't far off: Jews do run Hollywood, and outside the whining nebbish, there aren't many Jewish stereotypes (especially the classic ones). Of course, Brando was nuts, obsessed with the Indians and feeling Hollywood was out to get them and racial minorities in general (maybe in the fifties, but not for many years). And then you read this (no mention of Star Trek, alas), and you start to wonder if Brando had a point:

Mr. MacFarlane describes himself as "an equal opportunity offender," and the series seems to take special pleasure in ridiculing Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, blacks, gays, feminists, Arabs, Europeans - just about everyone. Everything is also grist for the show: minority quotas, disability claims, Aunt Jemima, sexual harassment.

But then,

Although Fox programming practices executives are constantly negotiating with Mr. MacFarlane and his staff over the show's language, taste and subjects, only one episode, "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," was killed by the network. In it Peter, a beer-swilling, porno-loving loser, decides that to make money, he has to kidnap a Jewish man and force him to act as his adviser because Jews are so smart.

By the way, today is July 2nd, the actual date of American independence. (They declared on the 2nd, and approved of the Declaration- the document- on the 4th.) So a happy and meaningful Independence Day and weekend to all.

"To have a Happy Fourth, get a fifth on the third!"

This is hi-larious.

This man has real psychological issues.

Also check out this, along with the only pieces from last night and today there. A very good piece.

Enjoy!

Marlon Brando has passed away. Sure, he had all those great roles. But to me, there'll always be The Freshman. I should buy it.

Well, as I expected, the kikes have come out of the woodwork with the inevitable catcalls. I was going to post this link anyway, but this makes it more important. Brando put up for the Jews when it was important, and that needs to be remembered.

Whew. It seem I've landed myself in a bit of a contretemps. Ah well. Makes life interesting.

Yesterday was the yahrtzeit of my maternal grandfather and namesake. T'hei nishmato tzruya b'tzror hachaim.

Getting busy around my house. Preparations for wedding, other big changes, etc. etc. Looks like an interesting summer coming up.

The Friends of the Israel Defense Forces is certainly a worthy group (in all seriousness). Every year, they send out a calendar. This year's has a blurb about the IDF ensemble:

Mao Zedong [double emphasis theirs], founder of the People's Republic, said, "An army without culture is a dull-witted army, and a dull-witted army cannot defeat the enemy."

Ummmm...Excuse me? MAO?!? "People's Republic"? Yeah- a "People's Republic" that had about sixty million less people when he was done with it! They lend credence to the communists' little conceit that they ran "people's republics?" They even quote Mao? Would they quote Stalin? Hitler?

"How are you doing?" one fellow Cardozo grad asked another before our alumni meeting last night. "Oh, fine," he answered sarcastically. "The President is lying to the people..." and then he, and she, and the woman next to me, all took off on an anti-Bush rant. (Since we're all educated and New Yorkers, we must be Democrats, right?) My God, these people are hateful. (I love how all the online Kerry ads I see show Bush, not Kerry.) But that's not my point.

Leaving aside that he had all his "facts" wrong, leaving aside all political arguments- and leave aside for a moment that I like Bush very much myself- is this how people respond to a simple "How are you doing?" Are their lives so bound up by who's running a government? I didn't like Clinton at all, but if someone asked me how I was back in his years, I wouldn't have answered "Clinton is an awful president."

The meeting was very nice, by the way.

Where else but the "We're so Catholic we can't stand it" National Review would you find an article praising the Inquisition? Search for the word "Jew" in the article; you won't find it. I somehow doubt you will in this author's upcoming book on the Crusades.

I'm not sure if I've posted this here, but I once remarked to a friend that maybe it's wrong that all I think about when the Roman Empire is discussed is how they treated the Jews. Weren't they more glorious than that? Of course not, he answered- because you're Jewish you have a better view on what history was really like, warts and all. That's how I feel about this piece. He can argue all he wants about burning heretics to save them, but I know better. (Yeah, I know that technically, Jews weren't killed- Marranos [oh, give it a rest, people] were. That really helps improve the Inquisition's image in my eyes.) Of course, these people weren't really heretics, but practitioners of older faiths, whether European paganism or older forms of Christianity. My God, these people are delusional when it comes to protecting their Church.

Of course, he assures us, the Inquisition didn't really kill anyone, the state did. Oh, that's nice. Of course, the church didn't want blood on its hands, so they handed people over to the state. That's why William the Conqueror's illegitimate brother-in-law, Odo, used a club to kill people at Hastings- he was a bishop, and didn't want to "spill blood." Come to think, that's why the heretics were burned, not beheaded or the like. To repeat, my God, these people are delusional when it comes to protecting their Church.

"When I think of Martin, I can't help but see the dogs and the sticks and the little girls in the church," said Paul Herring, who has organized Juneteenth celebrations in Flint, Mich., for 10 years. "But when I think of Juneteenth, I see an old codger kicking up his heels and running down the road to tell everyone the happy news."

That quote choked me up on the train this morning. Happy Juneteenth, everyone.

Leonard Fein sez: "I stand with Mao".

Disgusting. Even more disgusting- if that's possible- is that he apparently takes Mao at his word that he's a free-minded guy.

OK, maybe he's being ironic. Maybe. But the Left has forfeited its right to be judged favorably when it comes to how they treat their murderous brethren.

I'm afraid I'm going to make one particular person, with whom I had a lovely time yesterday, (and, come to think, maybe my mother too) upset with this, but I don't like Maureen Dowd. I really don't. She's long been criticized for citing pop culture in her columns, but today's really takes the cake. Look, citing pop culture is good- Lord knows I do it quite a bit. But then again, I'm not asked to write a thougthful column for the all-mighty Times. She is. Instead, we get a blatant distortion of a 9/11 Commission (leaving aside questions of whether that body should have any relevance at all) finding (the Times itself does this in a headline, but I'd expect Mo to have her own research), dressed up in latest-movie speak. The Stepford Wives. My God. Oh, there's another source- fashionable DC parties she goes to. Fashionable parties without any of those nasty Republicans, that is. People at those parties (and Mo) are amazed that Bush is a nice guy, as if he never gave any signs of that before.

Speaking of Times columns, another wonders why pro-abortion Catholic Republicans aren't being hit by the bishops the way Democrats are. Of course, they are: National Review, for example, says the same exact situation applies to members of both parties. Search long and hard in the article, but you won't find anyone saying that.

One more Times point: This article contains this beaut of a line:

Otto J. Reich, President Bush's special envoy to Latin America, resigned on Wednesday, taking with him a lifetime of experience fighting Fidel Castro and other opponents of American foreign policy.

Oh, so that's what Fidel Castro is. An "opponent of American foreign policy." Not a bloody dictator or anything like that. Oh no.

Off to check Houseofhock. Java should be banned.

Summer in New York
Asphalt is getting sticky
Has Strand got AC?

Maybe I'll swing by tomorrow to find out.

"Classical Carlebach." I think they mean "Classic," which it isn't, anyway.

I think the Dome of the Rock is a test. As time goes on, it becomes clear that even if the power to redeem ourselves is in our hands, we still have a ways (in degree, and likely in time) to go psychologically before we do so- and before we should do so. If there was nothing on the Har Habayit, it's possible we would've rebuilt the Mikdash already- but are we really ready to have one? I'd hope so- and, halakhically, it may not matter- but the Dome sits there, proving that we still have issues. So by its presence, it keeps us from doing something we shouldn't, and if it is removed, that would be a sign that we've grown past certain mindsets. Some may argue that it's a political growth, but that's important too. And it may go hand-in-hand- or follow- a spiritual growth and increased belief.

Today is the hundredth anniversary of the General Slocum disaster.

Of course, that means that tomorrow is the hundredth anniversary of Bloomsday.

For a while, the picture on my desktop was of Bush and Schwarzenegger. I thought it was cute (and, of course, in sync with my political beliefs). With a new computer, I lost the picture. Now my background is this beaut of a shot.

By the way, I'm shocked- shocked!- that I let yesterday pass without mentioning that it was Flag Day. Sure, I was busy, but me not mention flags? Unheard of. Check out this site, to which I contribute via their Yahoo group.

Recent events have led me to reconsider ba'alei teshuva. Oh, sure, we're supposed to be all rah-rah about them, and talk about how great it is that people are finding Judaism, etc. But I think we avoid a crucial point, and that is how many of the reasons people become ba'alei teshuva (especially as adults, although some people I've sounded off on this to have extended it to teenagers as well) are not so positive, and the effects of disruption can be disastrous. (Literally. This is why I bring this up.) On the former point, to put it simply, well-adjusted, stable people do not often decide to change their entire lives. (OK, if you're reading this and are offended, there are obviously exceptions.) My father once spoke with an older man (a shrink, I believe), traditional but non-religious, about the adult ba'alei teshuva he saw. He asked if this man's children had ever considered becoming frum, and the response was, "No. They had a solid upbringing and are comfortable with that."

So I'm conflicted. Obviously (?), religion is good. And cheers and support are due to those who take it on. But I think we delude ourselves if we don't concern ourselves with possible ramifications- not only for the state of mind of the ba'al teshuva, but more importantly, for children of those adults changing.

When I brought this up to the Seminarian, he added a point which, to me, is even more troubling. He said that Orthodox support ba'alei teshuva because, in effect, they are being validated. When I thought about this for a bit, I was troubled, because that would mean that Orthodox Jews feel as if they need validation. I brought it up to the Seminarian, a wiser man than I, and he confirmed my fear. It's not easy being frum (in the world at large? on one's own?), and many- most?- need something telling them that they're doing the right thing. It makes you wonder exactly who kiruv is supposed to benefit. (Of course, this is no fault of the ba'alei teshuva themselves.)

On another topic: The Jewish Week informs us that The Passion (the Gibson movie) "sparked a crisis in Jewish-Christian relations." What crisis? I must've missed that. But hey, Abe Foxman has to stay in the news somehow, and justify his obscene salary somehow, and so he brings it up again. Of course, any spark was from him.

I wonder how much of Foxman's Christian-bashing is residual guilt over his own Catholic upbringing. Hmmm.

A day late, a happy Brooklyn-Queens Day to all! It's one of my favorite holidays. Of course, Abe Foxman wouldn't be happy with that. Ask for details if you want.

Carlebach tonight again! It seems like every other week now.

A Reagan and me story: When I was about ten or so, I read an article (in Reader's Digest, I think) about the homeless. Reagan was being blamed for their sudden and unexplained appearance then. (The Forward used this language this week. If it was such a mystery, they could've asked where they came from, but whatever. Of course, they disappeared in 1993 only to reappear, as Rush predicted, in 2001.) The point of the article was that much of the "problem" (if it really existed, or was new) was due to the ACLU and courts forcibly deinstitutionalizing mentally ill people at that point. But once it blew up, well, blame Reagan.

Anyway, some time after, I heard a news story on the radio about how the courts and ACLU had overruled laws forcing tuberculosis patients to take their medication. "Just wait," I thought. "TB will break out, and they'll blame Reagan." Sure enough, a few years later (late 80's or so), I was listening to the same station report about TB outbreaks, drug-resistant strains, and so on. Whose fault was it? Reagan's (nonexistent) "budget cuts," of course. Another thing that turned me onto the man- when attacks are lies, I naturally side with the person being attacked.

A joke Reagan, it is said, told Gorbachev:

A Russian man goes to buy bread, and has to wait on line for quite a while. Finally, he gets fed up and starts yelling about how bad the system is, etc. etc. A man in a coat steps out of the line and says, "We're watching you, and warning you: You'd better stop that. This is your last warning." The man, fed up, says he doesn't care, and keeps yelling about everything, but nothing happens to him.

Eventually, he gets home and is met by his wife. "You were out two hours and didn't get bread!" she says. "That's not the worst of it," he answers. "They've run out of bullets, too!"

Shabbat Shalom, y'all.

Last night's dinner did not go well.

Moving right along...

I'm really missing Elvis Mitchell. I do every Friday, almost. Here're some excerpts from A.O. Scott's review of the new Garfield movie today, my comments interspersed:

"If this is the only newspaper you read, then a bit of explanation might be in order."

[NL: i.e., he has to explain what that strange thing called "comics" is. Can you get any more condescending/snooty?]

"You've spent 50 cents, and you still have the Jumble and the box scores to see you through your morning coffee."

[NL: First, in New York, Garfield appears in the Post, which is 25 cents. Second, Scott is such an intellectual snob that he doesn't even realize that Seinfeld has already exposed the fact that snobs use the Jumble as a way of denigrating the lower classes. Throw in the sheer snobbery of talking about the box scores and he's got three or more strikes. You're out, Scott. Good riddance.]

"Jon (Breckin Meyer), the hapless, dateless owner, now has a love interest, a kindly veterinarian named Liz..."

[Of course, he does in the comics too.]

Grrr. Scott even tries to argue that the behavior of Garfield in the movie (learning a lesson, which he does on the TV shows) is not true to actual cat behavior. Uh, A.O.? He's a cartoon. Ah well. Look, I'm not saying it's a good movie- who knows? But this is stupid and mean.

There's also an op-ed piece by some liberal who, as has been happening recently, tries to repaint Reagan in his image. He tries to show how Reagan beat the "neoconservatives," misusing that word, as those of his ilk do, as a synonym for "ultraconservative," or, better, "conservative I really don't like." His main point? We didn't "beat" the Soviet Union (as the "neocons" supposedly wanted), but, rather, Reagan and Gorbachev worked together to bring peace.

This claim is being made a lot now. It has one basic, and huge, flaw, though: The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, and Gorbachev lost his job as soon as it ceased to exist. So somebody won, and somebody lost. And Reagan was quite happy with what happened.

The funeral removed this from my mind. It was quite good- I heard it on Rush's show, with video by Yahoo. The ceremony, the speeches, everything. I should point out that I now know why Jews aren't supposed to attend these things- I would've felt really uncomfortable at the end. But Thatcher put the nonsense above to rest once and for all, the Bushes and Mulroney spoke very well, and it was very dignified, meaningful, and appropriate.

Rest in peace, President Reagan, and God bless you.

I'll have a bit more on other topics later, I hope.

This is a funny story. I especially liked this line:
“There’s, like, a huge disturbance on the other side of town! We need all the police!”

Speaking of lifestyles of the rich and famous: Yesterday, on the train heading in, two young women got on at 63rd and Lex. This is the Upper East Side, home of New York's upper class WASPs, and these were representative samples of such. Dressed just so, for June 8th, inflections just so (think of how J.D. Salinger's characters speak). Eventually, the (loud) discussion gets to whether they'll have off from work on Friday because the stock markets will be closed (because of Reagan's funeral). "Oh, I so hope we are!" says one. I'm expecting to be disgusted any moment, but she goes on: "My cousin is getting married in the Berkshires this weekend." And then come the kicker: "Oh, Mazel Tov!" says the other, and they go on talking about camps and so on. I love this city. Never what you expect.

If I can get a more regular sleeping schedule, I think I'll start showering in the mornings for the summer. Much better.

I went to hear Ari Fleischer at the Park East Synagogue last night, courtesy of the Republican Jewish Coalition. It wasn't bad- he spoke well, and the place was packed. I still have the same issues from the last time I was there. First, they talk as if the only factors that should go into American Jews' decisions on how to vote are Jewish ones (especially Israel), as if American Jews are written off as doctrinaire liberals who'll never be convinced by anything else (well, maybe they're right). Also, he got the same frickin' question opposing withdrawal from Gaza. COME ON already. Do you want America to tell Israel what to do- only when you disagree with Israel, of course? (Leave aside the fact that Fleischer is not currently in government and had no power when he was.) I wish people would realize that they're Americans, and voting for an American president. Ah well.

Still, like I said, a good time. He's a funny, well-spoken guy. I didn't stick around for the collation. (Edited to add: Some people seemed so down about Bush's chances. Again, come on!)

I had an interesting mental jog this morning: The E train, across the platform from the F in which I was sitting, started moving first- but I looked up only after it started, and my brain told me- and I got the definite sensation- that it was still, and the F was moving backwards. It took a second or two for my addled brain to figure that out. It was too early.

Then again, it's "too early" for me even late into the day. I actually said "got to get printer for the paper" to myself today. And forget about having gantze kavanos during Shacharit, like a friend wants me to, so I can join "the spiritual elite." I can't even piece out what I should do. In discussions now.

Am I mixing Ashkenaz and Sephard pronunciation? You betcha. For a while at my morning minyan, the chazzan (who must've been told- corrected?- that Hebrew stresses the last syllable in general) pronounced every word mi'lera. It got to me after a while, and I found myself doing it. Now, the current chazzan mixes accents. I hope I don't pick that up.

More later, folks.

OK, this is just funny. The UN General Assembly has finally decided to discuss Israel's bombing of the Iraqi reactor. This brings to mind Reagan's comment on the matter, amid all the condemnation: "But what a terrific piece of bombing!"

Saddam is gone, Iraq has changed, Begin and Reagan are dead, Ilan Ramon became famous for quite other matters and then tragically passed on himself- but bureaucracy moves along at its own pace.

Moving right along, I was watching the original Fantasia this Sunday. Apart from the thought that this movie was made for DVD- who wants to hear introductions?- the thought occurred to me that it's a bit, well, risque. Certainly modern Disney movies wouldn't feature topless female centaurs being chased (OK, once they cover up a bit) by a leering Bacchus (for that matter, I doubt they'd be as mythology-heavy at all these days), or prominent buttocks on animals and pan-figures, or, for that matter, a cupid peeking at a centaur couple between curtains, his bare buttocks, facing the camera head-on, turned into a heart shape. And that's just on the surface- my filthy mind could find much more, I'm sure, if I so desired (which I most emphatically do not).

Maybe I'll check out Fantasia 2000 again to see what goes on there. It does have my favorite sequence of both films- Donald Duck herding animals onto Noah's Ark to the tune of Pomp and Circumstance, losing and then finding Daisy. I guess I'm a mushy romantic way down, fixation on naked mythological creatures notwithstanding. Then again, the Rhapsody in Blue "Hirschfeld" sequence is another favorite. And seeing Roy Disney on the commentary always brings a bit of a laugh, considering his recent history with Eisner.

P.S.: Pausing to consider, it makes me wonder about our standards. I think Wendy Shalit points out the distinction between nudity and immodesty (being sexy when fully dressed, boring or, conversely, modest when nude), and that seems to be at work here. Our tour guide at the V&A pointed out that, contrary to popular belief, Queen Victoria didn't add figleaves to, say, Michelangelo's David (the copy at the museum, of course)- some princess did. Perhaps it's our standards- seeing prurience in actually innocent classical images- that have grown perverse. I'm not saying that people should run around in the nude, but perhaps we should consider art- and even Fantasia- in a different light. Of course, I don't trust modern artists to have that much tact.

A friend has made a similar point about the publicization of homosexuality- it's ruined male friendships. Now that we've been conditioned into seeing such things as "normal," we can no longer look at, say, Holmes and Watson- and the real love they shared- without sex coming to mind. Nor can we establish such relationships today. And we are the less for that.

Ronald Reagan has died. R.I.P. Do drop a note to the family of this great man and great president.

Well, among all the classy messages (leaving aside Kerry's subtle dig against Bush's stem-call policy), someone's got to be a jerk, right? So here's part of Danny Glover's statement: (I know, who cares? Who is he, anyway?) "We all know Reagan's legacy, from the Iran-Contra affair to the funding of the Nicaraguan military..."

Of course, Reagan didn't fund the Nicaraguan military. That was the whole point. But Hollywood? Brains? Did we expect better?

Someone at TWoP (a sophisticated European, I think) just criticized Reagan's worldview for being simplistic. Well, of course. That was the beauty of it. When you're dealing with a regime that's killed tens of millions, it helps to break things down simply.

What a great man. One story: When he was running for office, someone came up to him at a campaign stop and told him a group of kids from a school for the blind were there. So after the speeches were done, he escaped from the cameras (when any other politician would have killed for this coverage), went over to the kids, kneeled in front of them, and let them run their hands over his face so they could "see" him. That says something. As does eveything else he did.

Hmm. In other news, I made another call today, and will have to be patient for at least a few more days. I can manage, not that I have a choice. Fortunately, I have many other (very nice) things to occupy my time.

And in yet other news, it seems I should have held off on my post of Friday. Well, too late. Act surprised, y'all.

Later!

My brother's engaged! Mazel Tov to all!

Ah, too many possibilities last night, so I stuck to the most enjoyable and missed the rest. Good time, but I'm afraid I was really out of it. Ah well. One day we're gonna have to have a good relaxing one. And then another and another...

And, regarding my issue below, I made the call today and got through. A few words, but I think we'll talk more. Thus far I am satisfied there.

Sometimes life is good.

Hmmm. That post may have violated skbw's advice below. I'll have to learn to walk a fine line, I guess.

I guess it's a good thing (from a selfish POV) that I didn't get that email until I got back. I would have worried more there (not that I could do much here anyway).

So. (Copied from TWoP, mostly.) London rocked! Almost immediately after I checked in to the hotel, I dashed off to the pub and we had a TWoPCon. It was great! Well, maybe a bit much to drink; not sure of the protocol, I'm afraid I got drinks bought for me without doing the same for others. But people kept coming, and talking, and...good times. And a tape featuring our Fearless Leader and her consort was duly delivered.

Weather held up, so the wedding was outside and lovely. And there was a massive post-wedding reception (come to think, there was a pre-wedding reception too). And then came the meal...as my cousin Scott put it, "This isn't the type of wedding where they blow all the money on the shmorg and don't have anything left for a meal." Duck, people. Duck. (Among much else.) I don't know about y'all, but this is a big deal for kosher-observers. And a string octet. And champagn-ya, as Christopher Walken would say. And there was a sheva brachot the night after.

The aforementioned Scott talked about his "trifectas"- attending the brit, bar mitzvah, and wedding of each (male, of course) cousin. I promised him he'd get one from me, too.

It was great seeing the relations again. I'm finally starting to relate to cousins who are all "Oh, I remember when you were yea old" to me. I remember when lots of the younger ones were born. Hell, I remember attending the wedding of the parents of the groom (oldest of seven, second to marry). I'm getting old, kids.

All that and sightseeing! I even got my old Jack the Ripper guide on a Inns of Court walk. Again, good times. And now back to the grindstone. Maybe I'll have some more later. Photos are back, too!

I'm baaaaaack!

London rocked. It just did. Let me dig up my TWoP post on the subject and copy it here. (Because I'm lazy. And jetlagged. I'm finally on London time, ironically.)

I was online a bit there, so I got to see the rather strange comment below. I also corresponded with someone who, I am advised by someone more conversant with Orthodox dating mores than I, I may soon have a "relationship" with (I hope). Upon getting back, I checked my mail to see if she wrote (affirmative- yay!), but among my other messages, I got quite the shock. Good thing I was dead tired or I'd have lain awake all night worrying. As it is, I dreamt about it, and spent a bit of time this morning making calls.

Consensus opinion among my buddies and on the aforementioned TWoP is that as frustrating as it may be to know little or nothing (I still am not sure I know the truth), in a situation like this, it's best to hang back. So a card it will be. I hate to sound mean, but I have to finally admit to myself that I...can't. I just can't. And through no choice of my own- it's not that I'm tired of it, but I literally cannot.

Damn. I just realized that that post made no sense unless I explain it offline. It's just of a nature that (especially if my [unfounded, please God] deep seated worries about the "real story" prove true) it's nothing I can publish online for the world to see. And I can't even get close enough to find out if those fears are true...grrrr. Deal with it, Nach, deal with it. Sorry, folks- I guess I just have to get it out of my system somehow.

Life offers more, thank God- much more. I hope I have a good excuse not to go to the Civic Association tonight, much as I'd regret missing it. It depends on whether I get a call. I hope so.

So: Why is it not OK for an inflight shopping magazine to show photos of the tobacco it's selling when they show photos of everything else? PC gone mad, I tell ya. But then again, PC always was.