Leeks

Caught a bit of a cooking (cookery, for the Brits) show. Set in what seems to be a kitchen on an organic farm someplace out in the hills, raining. The host has a serious thing for leeks, at least in this episode. Makes leek chicken soup, then announces that he's going to do challot with leeks. He and the guy who runs the farm start kneading the dough.

Again, translating from the Hebrew:

Farmer: "Ah, challot. My mother is a da'atiyah [religious] and makes challot every Friday. I love challot."

Host: "Really? I didn't know you were raised religious."

Farmer: "I'm still a ma'amin [believer]. Just without a kipah."

Host and farmer then go off for a while in a discussion of religion, how religious each is despite not having the visible signs, how much they appreciate the religion and traditions...and then, after a few minutes, the host seems to suddenly remember he's on a cooking show:

Host: "Well, in any event, we're doing the leeks now..."

A nice little moment. The challot looked yummy, by the way. They should have smell-o-visions for those shows, and I see an Israeli company is developing one for cellphones, as it happens.

Ahh, cabbies

OK, here's another one to match the one below:

So I'm sitting at the bus stop, minding my own business (the eventual destination was Tel Aviv, for a very nice evening), learning from a Gemara, in fact, when a cab pulls up in front of me. At first I think the guy wants my business, but then I realize he's asking me something. Something about...Yehuda HaNasi?

Now, let me explain: Yehuda HaNasi (Judah the Prince) was a third-century rabbi. The Greek Colony, the next neighborhood over from where we were, is full of streets named for rabbis from that period, and I assumed (my headphones had been in) that he was asking me where "Yehuda HaNasi"- that is, Yehuda HaNasi Street- is. Logical, right? Translating from the Hebrew:

Me: Um, I'm not sure...somewhere down that way...

Cabbie: Sorry! You don't speak Hebrew?

Me (boldly): Yes, but I'm just not sure where it is...

Cabbie: No, no! Who was Yehuda HaNasi?

Me: Ah, who! He was a rabbi, a Tanna. Lived in the year...

Cabbie: I just told someone he arranged the Mishna! Was I right?

Me: Certainly! He was the one! Live in the year two hundred...

Cabbie: Two thousand? [The words sound vaguely similar in Hebrew.]

Me: No, two hundred.

Cabbie: Ah, of course! But he arranged the Mishna...are you sure?

Me: Definitely!

Cabbie: Thanks!

And he drives off, and the bus comes. Nice, eh?

Incidentally: My synagogue changes their various cloths- the ark curtain, the reading table cover- fairly frequently. Today (whoops, yesterday) I noticed that the cover they had on was dedicated to those people from the city of Brody who were killed in the Holocaust. And I thought- my father's family was from there; most of them were killed in the Holocaust. Good to see them remembered in Jerusalem.

"When I live in Jerusalem, I am living another's dream."

I saw that quote in a poetry book recently, and frequently have cause to think of it, even when experiencing seemingly unrelated events, like passing by a local Hasmonean-era tomb on Chanukkah, or hearing a reference to "Canaan" in Joseph Erev Shabbat Vayeshev. (A lovely minhag of my roommate.)

I was on my way to the opening panel of the Jerusalem Conference last night, riding in a taxi with a somewhat talkative cabbie. (Note, although it's becoming something of a- still lovely!- cliche in these sorts of stories, that there was no kippa on his head. This is all translated from the Hebrew, by the way.) I usually don't take cabs, but the hotel where the conference is at is a bit out of the way and I was slightly pressed for time.

So I'm sitting in the back, listening to the Daf on my Ipod, and we're heading up Straus Street, when the driver asks me if I want to go straight or turn right on Neviim and take a more roundabout route. He explains that the straight route will take much longer- lots of traffic. The Haredim are out in force, rioting and burning trash in Kikar Shabbat over some nonsense. (We smelled it on the way back. Lovely.) So we turn right as he (and, I'll admit, I) carry on about the Haredim and their crazy and destructive habits, as he blasts the police for being ineffective along the way. "Nu, it's getting warm," he says. "They need something to do." "Let them work during the day, they won't have as much energy at night," I opine. "Where do you live?" he asks.

"Katamon."

"Try adding a room to your porch in Katamon! The municipality will be on you in a second and stop you and fine you! Here in Geulah? Nothing!"

He then went on about how he thinks bottle recycling is nonsense, and would only put his bottles in the bin if he knew the money was going to tzedakah. "But the city keeps it all! See this bottle?" He holds up his soda. (Only liter bottles have redemption value in Israel, due to- believe it or not- Haredi pressure. Don't ask.) "I throw it in the regular trash- I don't need the money. Let someone who needs it collect it and get the 25 agorot." This then leads to a discussion about tzedaka. Amidst another blast at Haredim ("Rosh Chodesh Adar today- Marbim b'Simcha! They're practicing for Bi'ur Chametz already, and it's a month and a half off!"), he suddenly shifts gears. "Ahh, lots of tzedaka is given in Geulah- millions of dollars collected. I always give- you know what kimcha d'pischa is?"

A bit shocked to hear him use the phrase, it takes me a second to acknowledge that I do.

"You have to give! How can I enjoy my meal, my seder, when I know that other people don't have food? You have to give kimcha d'pischa..."

The conversation ends with talk of Gilad Shalit. "They want us to let people go- let them go! Then we can kill them right after we release them, when it's OK! Give me a gun and send me to Shechem, I'll do it myself!"

He drops me off at the hotel, telling me to send regards to the Mayor. Alas, I didn't get that chance, but the session was very nice indeed, with Mayor Nir Barkat (whoo-hoo!), Minister Benny Begin (looking more like his father all the time), journalist Nadav Shragai, Natan Sharansky (I always feel in awe when I see him), R' Aryeh Stern (two Katamonites in a row!), and Gavriel Barkai, the archaeologist, who gave an impassioned talk calling for Jewish rights on the Har HaBayit, from a mostly secular perspective. Interesting there too...my sister and brother in law were there- we sat together, which was very nice as well- and I got a ride home with a neighbor I see in shul every morning- turns out I was in ulpan with his wife. Don't think I'll make any of the rest of the conference, but Kol HaKavod to them, and most of all to my cabbie.

Cold and wet in Jerusalem, Barukh Hashem. Just down the block from me is parked a car- a BMW!-with Vanuatu plates. (Scroll down for a location map.) Aside from the obvious question of how the car got here (never mind what it's doing here), now I'm worried how they're taking the weather.

Am I the only person who sees the irony in this story?

My Strange and Charmed Life

(A physics reference; never matter.)

So I'm entering the Ben-Tzvi Institute last night for what proved to be a very enjoyable experience. The guard, as is usual, asks me if I'm carrying weapons. (I'm always amused/bemused by that question. They must be asking for some other reason, right?) My companion and I laugh, and go, "As a matter of fact..." I turn around and show him the three plastic swords sticking out of my bag. We all nearly collapse laughing.

Why am I carrying plastic swords in my bag? Come to Beit Shmuel, end of December, and you'll know.

Boy Wonder

Let me just make it clear up front that I think the whole "peace process" is a crock, and, even more, hope it fails miserably- precisely because I believe that its failure is a necessary step toward achieving true peace, the most important thing.

That said, you have to savor the irony of Obama, the man who supposedly understood the world so well he'd save not only the US' international reputation but the world itself, really putting his foot into it, on both sides, and thus perhaps (hopefully?) ruining the very process he claimed only he could save.

On the Palestinian side: I think a serious case can be made that the Arabs are ever more emboldened by the fact that it seems that the current US administration will see no wrong in them, thus leading to their attempted unilateral moves that may well (again, hopefully) lead to Israel taking some steps of its own.

On the Israeli side: Let's not be stuck on stupid: I think it's pretty obvious that when the US says it doesn't want building in a place, it means it hopes that place will one day be Judenrein. Leaving aside that there are hundreds of thousands of Jews in the West Bank and tens of thousands in the Golan Heights (and considering what a bang-up job has been done on- whoops, for- the few thousand Gaza expelees), when Obama's representative starts talking about Gilo in the same language, Israelis are gonna put two and two together and start drawing the line, and at a lot more than Gilo and Jerusalem.

So much for The One stopping the rise of the oceans.

Reasons I love being here, part...

"White Russian."

[OK, OK, but if my purchases are going to be influenced by movies, that's a good one. Besides, up on stage at the Canaan music bar, Jordan Zell is playing an original song named "Russian Girl."]

The waitress looks at me quizzically. I repeat the order, point to "Black Russian" on the menu. A light goes on.

"Ah! Ani Eshol." [I'll ask.]

She talks to the kippah-clad bartender, comes back a few seconds later.

"Zeh b'chalav- anachnu b'sari." [There's milk in that- we're a meat establishment.]

I order a Black Russian instead, as a small chorus of angels inside my head (and I, to my neighbors) sing the praises of the Land of Israel.

I've ordered White Russians in bars before. This is the first time that's happened.

Oh, did I mention the shelves behind the bar that the bottles are on are in the shape of a giant Magen David? Perfect.

Toto, I don't think we're in Queens anymore...

The following is on the front page of today's Yediot Acharanot, the largest circulation paper in Israel. I have not translated; the line appears in English. (The speaker is the unrepentant murderer of an entire family- parents, grandparents, toddler and infant.) The asterisks are mine, because this is a family blog. Apparently, however, that isn't a consideration for Israeli newstands, and the word is printed in full:

"I'm a nasty m*****f*****, I killed them all"

I'm going to have to go through some cultural adjustment, that's for sure.

I've heard this story a few times over the years. I always thought the punchline meant something else entirely (something not so funny) until I finally got it (I think) yesterday. (Might be the way he tells it here.) Hilarious and offensive, be forewarned.

So I'm walking past the flower shop at the end of Rehov HaNasi today and pass an elderly nun walking in the same direction. At that moment, one of the flower shop employees comes out holding some plants. They clearly know each other.

"Shalom! Chag sameach!" calls the nun.

"Chag sameach!" replies the flower woman with a smile. "Mah shlomeich?"

"Toda la-El, toda la-El," the nun says happily. "Chag sameach."

Chag sameach to all!

(I think getting used to the liberal use here of the word "Elohim" is one of the things that will take the most adjustment, language-wise. Oh, and as it happens, in the novel we're reading in ulpan now, we've just gotten to the point where the main character meets a Hebrew-speaking nun. Go figure. )

Is it just me, or did anyone else give a chuckle when they saw that the name of the Member of Knesset calling for a ban on drinking scenes on TV (no comment) was "Tirosh"? Hee.

Been a while since I posted, I know. Busy busy busy here- lots to do, lots of wonderful people I've been meeting. I'll have a more in-depth post on one of the latest soon. But there was this bit in Yediot Aharonot a couple of weeks back that I thought I'd share, (loose) translation mine. After telling us about the various Israeli glitterati that met Quentin Tarantino during his recent visit to Israel, it continues:

"The cheerful group went on Sunday to the Tzafra Restaurant in Tel Aviv, and in the course of the meal the well-known director [Tarantino- not Jewish, by the way] asked Ada Tomer, wife of [Kobi] Ashrat, to give him advice on what to order. When she told him that the seafood* wasn't bad, he stated, "Oh, no, I'm in the Holy Land." The [implied- uncomfortable] situation was saved by..."

Yesterday Rav Stern, in his Shabbat Shuva drasha, told us about seeing the zechuyot in every person. Let me say this: The fact that, whatever they eat, the situation was uncomfortable for them is a zechut enough for these tzfonikim (a term I use with endearment here), and gives me hope for the future as well.

*The Hebrew word for (non-kosher, it seems) seafood, as used here, is "perot hayam," literally "fruit of the sea." The euphemism remind me of Philologos' column on pig here, and its use, in my eyes, only gives shrimp and pork eating Israelis yet more zechuyot and hope. May we all be judged well in the coming year and experience nothing but blessings.

Holy Land

I have to say, there's something nice about a Gilbert & Sullivan company that breaks for Ma'ariv.

I think I saw Ted Kennedy once in my life, and that was more than enough. It was at an OU "Mission to Washington", and he (and, of course, some Republican senator) got a plaque or something at the luncheon. I remember hoping I wouldn't get close enough for him to offer me his hand. I'm kind of picky about coming into personal contact with murderers. (The more I read, the more troubled I become, by the way. I'm not one for conspiracy theories and all that, but when it comes to a Kennedy being a drunken lout and possibly doing something far worse than what people think they know about the whole thing...I become gullible, sue me.)

"Strange how the brain controls the brain!"

I once read- in "The Oxford Book of the Year"- that different people cope with obviously incorrect statements in different ways. They were discussing dates: If you were told, for example, to be someplace on Friday, August 20th, would you assume that "Friday" or "August 20th" were incorrect? Apparently, women tend to follow the feria (day of the week) while men, the date. (I think I'd follow the day, but that's another discussion.)

Anyway, this occurred to me today at the checkout line in the supermarket. I suppose the following is more true because the clerk was speaking Hebrew (Yup, I'm here in Israel! Hooray!) and I...don't, so much. But here's the problem: She tells me, "Me'ah ve-shishim agorot," which literally means, "One hundred and sixty agorot," an agorah being one-one hundreth of a shekel. I immediately began looking for one hundred and sixty shekalim. Why?

Because of the comment from Sherlock Holmes that appears as the title of this blog. Without realizing it, my brain told me two things: First, she said "one hundred and sixty" as a block of speech. Second, she said "agorot," which is impossible, as my purchases could not have totalled only 1.60 shekalim. So my mind told me to look for one hundred and sixty shekalim, which is a bit more reasonable. As it happens, we cleared it up quickly and I gave her 105 and got change, but there's material to be mined by the neurologists there.

Of course, like I said, had it been in English, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. I suppose I have received a valuable lesson that the word "shekalim" is often elided in speech, and that agorot never total more than ninety-nine. It reminds me of the German spy who entered a bar in England during World War II, having just snuck in by boat, and was told his order totalled "Eight and six." He whipped out eight pounds and six shillings, which is well over twenty times the real price, which was eight shillings and sixpence. His career for the Nazis ended shortly thereafter. :-) Fortunately, my transaction didn't have the same repercussions, and I'm enjoying some hummus right now.

Congregation Etz Chaim

Last night was our annual shul dinner. I chipped in on an ad on behalf of the daily morning minyan (one of the honorees, and his ten-year-old son, are regulars), and so attended. It was really very nice- the MC mentioned that the shul has, as its guests of honor at its dinners, not big donors (it's not that sort of shul), but people who add to the life of the shul and community. And how true that was last night- some magnificient honorees, speeches, food (you have to mention it!), and time spent with the wonderful people who make up the shul, a pillar of the community.

And then, the rabbi got up and, assuring everyone I had no idea what was coming, spoke about how great it is that I'm making Aliyah, called me up to present me a sefer (the very appropriate Em HaBanim Semecha), and spoke about what I've contributed to the shul over the years (not much, I assure you, or so I thought) and how they will miss me. Wasn't that nice of them? Ah, there are things I'll miss here, and will strive to replicate in the Holy Land.

Is it just me, or was Biden's "unplanned" attendence at this little beer-thing a good way to keep it from looking like two (prominent) black guys ganging up on one (lower class) white guy?

Of course, the very prominence of those two black men is a living example of what a joke claims of "racism" have become in this country. I tell you, I used to like a piece Gates once wrote for the Times on Amos 'n' Andy. Now I realize how full of his bitterness toward white people it was, and how I was missing the whole point.

At least Gates is of an age and a birthplace where you can get where he's coming from. (Even though such an attitude is just irrational today.) Obama doesn't have any sort of excuse for his racism- and never would for his anti-Semitism. But that's where we are now.

Anyway, today's my 34th! Those of you who know Talmudic lore will understand a reference to Bilaam here. The cards and wishes only serve to remind me how blessed I am when it comes to friends and family. And just for today, check it out!

Hillul HaShem

It seems as if the Orthodox community suffers from an ability to completely miss a text for...well, I can't say "for a subtext," because the sad fact is they seem to be missing it, period. This thought occurred to me as I listened to the haftarah yesterday, full of its warnings about thieves and bribery and injustice, and wondered just what people like these beauties arrested last week hear when that is read. (Leaving aside, of course, kiddush clubs and hassidic mumbling of haftarot.)

In fact, there's an even more obvious example: The very use of the term "Hillul Hashem." It seems that to too many Orthodox Jews, it means, "An embarrassment to the Jewish people." (To be more precise, to Orthodox Jews- you didn't hear as many people defending Madoff, or signs going up about the issur of lashon hara then, did you?) Well, yeah, to a degree. But why ignore the literal meaning? It means "a disgrace of God" (to be a bit more accurate, God's name.) Now, granted, some may not like saying that God can actually be affected by our actions, although the idea exists elsewhere as well. And far too many people, as it happens, don't really believe in God, whether they know it or not. But the simple fact of the idea of Hillul Hashem is that the (religious) Jewish people, by virtue of their closeness to God as well as their mission to spread His word, are His image on Earth, and if they mess up, well, that hurts His Image, of course.

(Looking back on this years later, I realize I missed the most important point: Namely, that too often the threat that there will be a "hillul Hashem"- however that's understood- is used to try to prevent behavior that just shouldn't be done because it's objectively wrong. But perhaps that's asking too much, Lord have mercy.)

And boy, are they messing up lately. The problem, sadly, is that while Orthodox Jews may be big on the "closeness" idea, most- at least in the Haredi end of things- have no inkling of the "spread of the word" mission. In Israel- where the "other" to whom the message is to be spread is Jewish!- it seems the main goal of Haredim is to "get theirs" and let the rest of the country go chase themselves. In America, it's not much better, which is why Gil Student can write a whole post about how Jews shouldn't concern themselves with gay marriage (mirroring not just the Haredi world as a whole but those slightly to its right, those indifferent ones across the spectrum, all organizational life, and leftists who are just fine with it, r'l) and someone can actually articulate, in a comment, that "I don't think the Torah requires us to monitor morals of wider society." That, of course, misses the whole point of the Torah.

And so that leaves a scattering of Modern Orthodox (and Dati Leumi, in Israel) and, of all people, R' Mayer Schiller and other unexpected voices. The rest, sadly, increasingly follow a religion of men, not of God.

Ah, that's all too depressing. Let me move on to a cheerier, albeit somewhat related, topic. Last Monday I attended my last meeting of the Kew Gardens Hills Civic Association, our annual meeting with the local police precinct commander. I handed over "the books" to the new treasurer, and the president made some remarks about how they'll miss me. That would have been more than enough for me- I hate being the center of things, even though I crave it. (I am large, I contain multitudes.) And then, this morning, the doorbell rings, and it's another board member: They got me a beautiful leather computer bag, complete with cards wishing me well in Israel. I tell you, it's difficult to explain to non-Jews why one is packing up and making Aliyah, but with such neighbors, it's almost required that I say that I'm not leaving them so much as moving to the place I've always wanted to be. Of course, it helps that both halves of that statement are true- and that's probably the best way to go anyway. I hope.

Just because...

...it's flippin' hilarious. Granted, it's mostly funny only if you know Jack Benny. But if you don't, you should:

Don Wilson: Oh, Miss Kirsten, I wanted to tell you that I saw you in "Madame Butterfly" Wednesday afternoon, and I thought your performance was simply magnificent.

Dorothy Kirsten: Well, thanks, awfully. It's awfully nice and kind of you, Mr. Wilson. But, uh, who could help singing Puccini? It's so expressive. And particularly in the last act, starting with the allegro vivacissimo.

Don Wilson: Well, now, that's being very modest, Miss Kirsten. But not every singer has the necessary bel canto and flexibility or range to cope with the high tessitura of the first act.

Dorothy Kirsten: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And don't you think that in the aria, "Un bel dì vedremo", that the strings played the con molto passione exceptionally fine and with great sostenuto?

Jack Benny: Well, I thought--

Mary Livingstone (to Jack): Oh, shut up!

(Thanks to Wikipedia, of course.)

Scene from the Salute to Israel Parade

Every year, Dr. Ruth rides up and down the route on Fifth Avenue a few times. Did you know she fought in War of Independence in 1948? She claims she can still field-strip a rifle blindfolded.

This year, her golf cart stopped in front of my announcers' stand on 61st for a few minutes. I told her it was great to see her, as usual, and shook her proffered hand. Then she gestured for me to lean in closer.

"When is the Heschel School marching?"

I check my list. "In about an hour."

"Thanks!"

OK, a no-brainer. But for a while at least, I'm going to be telling people I gave advice to Dr. Ruth for once. :-)

All in all, a great parade. Lovely weather, great crowd, wonderful marchers, well-organized- kudos to all, and a big Salute to Israel!

For Memorial Day

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.

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:

Traditional Jewry has always sided with Rabbi Yehonatan [NL: I appreciate the sentiment, but that's quite a stretch from "Yonasan"] and accepted his
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.

(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.)

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 his
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...

The reason he's telling us this, he assures us, is to emphasize what a brave man R' Yonasan was.

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.

"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.

Check it out!

Hot off the presses, or whatever the e-equivalent is. Our group.

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!"

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor, and gives to the rich
... Stupid b****.

Quite apropos, eh?

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.

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.

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.

Alek Hidell

A co-worker brought in a package of shower curtain rods today. Those with a knowledge of certain esoterica of American history (see the title of this post) will know why I "nervously" confirmed that neither the President nor the President-elect was in town today.

"What's the difference between Robert and Ted Kennedy?"

I was asked after Mincha yesterday. "Um, Ted Kennedy is alive? Robert Kennedy wore his own pants to JFK's funeral?" I guessed. Both correct, of course, but the answer my (quite liberal!) questioner was looking for was far funnier:

"They won't be naming a bridge after Ted!"

Leaving aside the question of whether RFK deserves the honor, what a waste of money this is. Here's one person who'll keep using "Triboro," thankyouverymuch.

Speaking of legacies, of course, the One- not even in office yet- is solidifying his. The Iraqi parliament approved of this new forces agreement, and it calls for US forces to go back to their bases this June, and to leave Iraq by 2011. How con-VEN-i-ent! The One can claim credit for the former shortly after assuming office, and can claim credit for the latter as he runs for reelection, having had nothing to do with either. Bush, of course, will get no credit at all.

Well, on to brighter reports. I still have some things to do, and yet this has been a grand Thanksgiving weekend. It began Wednesday night with a lovely dinner at Sarah B.'s- good food, company, and conversation, and a CD of the Shat leading an Exodus Oratorio from my good friend Yonatan K. (whoa, beginning to sound like Kafka here), who also alerted me to Evacuation Day ceremonies last week. Thursday was a fascinating program about birds courtesy of the OU and YU, and the rest, thus far...has been lots of sleep. Good times. Onward!

Now They Tell Us (part infinity)

Spotted today: ad for a TV special on the side of a bus: "How the media keeps you stupid."

As we used to say in elementary school, no-duh.

Steep learning curve

This move by Russia is very clever, isn't it? John J. Miller has a good point, but I have another: They know Obama doesn't like missile defense, so he's sort of trapped: If he follows his instincts, it'll look like he's bowing to Russia's demands anyway- or, at least, they can claim "victory." The only way he "wins" is by doing something he doesn't want to do in the first place.

That is, if he wants to win at all, or even believes in the concept. I don't have high hopes, but, while we may not like war, it likes us very much. Welcome to the big leagues, junior.

"...normally a very sensible constituency with a high proportion of people who aren't a bit silly, has gone completely ga-ga."

"And so it's beginning to look like a Silly landslide..."

(Let's pause a moment in appreciation of the people who actually typed all this stuff out, here and on other sites.)

Me, I'm just waiting for the oceans to start receding. :-) And no, I'm not about to jump on the gooey-syrupy "Isn't it so nice" feeling that seems to have infected many at NRO.

On a more serious (and parochial) note, one thing I'm concerned about is something the Rav said, about how secular American Jewish support for Israel early on proved that they were still part of the k'hal. Now...I'm not so sure. (Also see here.) The Jews I know were all (OK, mostly) saying the same (frightening) thing going in. The vast majority of American Jews, usually oh-so-sensitive? Not so much.

With the election upon us, it seems the media has decided to let their guard down a bit. (h/t) Why, just yesterday, the reporter on WCBS-AM who's been breathlessly pushing a bad economy for quite a while, perhaps forgetting that it was only Monday, allowed (somewhat improbably, IMHO) that the economy might be improving somewhat. Expect such stories to proliferate come tomorrow. (Ah, someone beat me to it.)

Remember when I posted this about big-L Libertarians? (Small-l myself, which is why I a) always vote Republican and b) never third party.) Anyway, this confirms it in spades, especially the disgusting last question. (Where else do my h/t's come from? Or my news, for that matter.)

Anyway, my good friend Sussman can always be depended upon to sum it up best:

‘. . . our God whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace,
and He will save us from your power, O king. But even if He does not, be it
known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of
gold that you have set up.’ – Daniel 3:17-18

Gettin' on a jet plane...

(I think that's an old song. Sounds like one.)

Well, another Cheshvan, another trip back to the Golah. The cycle will break next year, please God. Still, it was a wonderful time here. Last night with the Molchos was particularly nice, as it always is. More details to come, I hope.

This line:

However, during the court sitting, several policemen testified that Federman was
hand-cuffed at the time when he allegedly assaulted and injured their
colleagues.

reminded me of this Monty Python routine:

Usher: He can't hold the Bible m'lud.

Judge: Well screw the Bible! Let's get on with this bleeding trial,
I've got a Gay Lib meeting at 6 o'clock. Superintendent Lufthansa will you
please read the charge.

Superintendent: Is a charge strictly necessary, m'lud?

Judge: (heavy aside) The press is here.

Superintendent: Oh sorry! Right, here we go. You are hereby charged.
One, that you did, on or about 1126, conspire to publicize a London Borough in
the course of a BBC saga; two, that you were wilfully and persistently a
foreigner; three, that you conspired to do things not normally considered
illegal; four, that you were caught in possession of an offensive weapon, viz,
the big brown table down at the police station.

Judge: The big brown table down at the police station?

Superintendent: It's the best we could find, m'lud ... and five... all
together now...

The whole court shout together.

Court: Assaulting a police officer!

Prosecuting Counsel: Call Police Constable Pan-Am. (Pan-Am runs
into court and starts beating Njorl with a truncheon) Into the witness box,
constable ... there'll be plenty of time for that later on. (the policeman
gets into box hitting at anyone within range; his colleagues restrain him)
Now, you are Police Constable Pan-Am?

Constable: No, I shall deny that to the last breath in my body. (superintendent nods) Oh. Sorry, yes.

Prosecuting Counsel: Police constable, do you recognize the
defendant?

Constable: No. Never seen him before in my life. (superintendent
nods) Oh , yes, yes he's the one. He done it. I'd recognize him anywhere,
sorry, super. (the superintendent looks embarrassed)

Prosecuting Counsel: Constable, will you please tell the court in your
own words what happened?

Constable: Oh yes! (refers to his notebook) I was proceeding in a
northerly direction up Alitalia
Street when I saw the deceased (points at Njorl) standing at an
upstairs window, baring her bosom at the general public. She then took off her
... wait a tick. Wrong story. (refers to his notebook) Ho yes! There
were three nuns in a railway compartment and the ticket inspector says to one of
them. (the superintendent shakes his head) No, anyway I clearly saw the
deceased...

Clerk: Defendant.

Constable: Defendant! Sorry. Sorry, super. I clearly saw the defendant
... doing whatever he's accused of...Red-handed. When kicked... he said: 'It's a
fair ... cop, I done it all ... Right... no doubt about... that'. Then, bound as
he was to the chair, he assaulted myself and three other constables while
bouncing around the cell. The end.

Spontaneous applause from the court. Shouts of 'more! more!'.
Pan-am raises his hands and the clapping and shouting dies down.

Constable: Thank you, thank you... and for my next piece of
evidence...

Superintendent: I think you'd better leave it there, constable.

Prosecuting Counsel: Excellent evidence, constable (the constable
is removed, flailing his truncheon the while) ...

The rule is that when something is changed in tefillah, you have to say it a month before you can be sure, in a doubtful case, that you've really said it. Funny thing is, nine days into the Aseret Yemei Teshuva, I still have to consciously remember to add and change things for that period. The day after Yom Kippur, I have to consciously remember not to say or change them. Seems like ten days is the limit for me, at least here. I'll have to remember to notice where I am at the end of Chanukkah.

Well, Christopher Buckley has endorsed Mr. Obama. I have a few thoughts:

1. Uncharitable of me, I don't doubt for a second that he (or those like him) would never have done it had Obama not been in the lead. (Although I still have much hope.)

2. Like his old man, he seems well insulated from things most conservatives are knowledgable of. Internet? Blogs? Huh? Also like his old man, he seems to crave leftist acceptance, or at least not mind when it's heaped on him. Uncharitable again, but I don't feel like being charitable to his type. (Speaking of his father, I think it's just plain unseemly for a grown man to use the words "mum" and "pup" in referring to his parents. Above the age of, say, ten, "mother" and "father" should be used in the third person unless some personal point is being made, and a few years past that, second person should be restricted to something not so childish, like "mom" and "dad." But I digress.)

3. He betrays a real negative attitude toward hoi polloi. Sarah Palin, case in point.

4. I don't like his use of "Sanhedrin" to describe conservative thinkers who, well, disagree with him. I've noticed his use of such terms in the past. It's troubling, especially in light of the left's obssession with (ahem) "neo-cons."

5. Good thing I didn't buy his latest book. Or the one before that. The last one I did buy was no good anyway. (His writing tends not to be conservative at all, by the way, just cyncial.) Fortunately the NR crew seems a lot more level headed than him, or I'd chuck them too.

Mea Culpa

An appropriate title for a post about Yom Kippur, I think...

I'll be honest- I don't have much patience for long tefillot. I once read that the maximum time a human being can sit still (so to speak; I often walk about during tefilla) is about two hours; even Shakespeare's plays lasted that long (as he writes in some of them), as do most movies today. Shacharit on Shabbat should be about that long if not less; I prefer a short drasha if there's one at all, no extra Mi Sheberachs, and so on.

Of course, my patience is most sorely tested at the worst time of the year- the Yamim Noraim season. The last few years (as this year) I've been in Israel, and among the many wonderful things you can say about Israel is that its view of tefillah meshes with mine. The typical Shabbat morning starts a lot earlier than the US and takes a lot less time. I still haven't found a Simchat Torah minyan of the type we used to have in Queens ("hakafah" means once around, only five aliyot, out in less than two hours), but when you're starting at 6:30 AM, what's the rush?

That last point, of course, is important for the actual Yamim Noraim itself. Where are you going, especially on Yom Kippur? I guess that's important to bear in mind, as I daven those days with my family in the Yeshurun Synagogue, which (unlike most places in the US, as the Jerusalem Post [impossible to find articles there] reminds us) has real cantors, who like to perform. (Hey, they get paid for it- why not? It's like why Dickens wrote the way he did.) I don't like ay-yay-yays. I'd like a chazzan who reads the words.

Or so I thought. Erev Yom Kippur I heard part of a shiur on YU Torah (which seems to be down as I write this) by the Chazzan of Yeshurun, Asher Heinowitz, in which he described how the chazzan can get people into the mood of tefilla. For Kol Nidrei, after a the usual terrific meal at my cousins' place, I went to the Inbal hotel, where there was a small minyan being set up (by, it seemed, some American tourists) in a room in the basement. (The same room where my brother-in-law had his "tisch." The main room, where my sister's wedding meal was, was occupied by a service for hundreds and hundreds of French people, olim I suppose.)

The email posting for the minyan looked interesting- "serious, YU style" (nothing quicker than usual) was how it was described. And it was nice- nice people, no mucking about, and so on. But it suddenly hit me that, yes, a grand looking shul does help. And a chazzan who knows his way around the nusach does help as well. A lot. God bless the Inbal people, but the next morning I was back at Yeshurun. (It started much earlier and I was up anyway.)

Like I said, where are you going on Yom Kippur anyway? They started at seven and were done with Musaf around 1:30. I couldn't really go anywhere, so I sat (and stood) and read and talked until three, when Mincha began. I even got kohen, because things are always a little sparse at the beginning of Mincha. And, thanks to Israel's daylight time policies, the fast was over before six, and we even got in another Birkat Kohanim during Neilah. All in all, a good Yom Kippur.

Of course, the important question was, did I accomplish what Yom Kippur is intended for? Well, that's the toughie. At least I can say I tried a bit- we all try a bit. Something struck me toward the end: The bracha for Yom Kippur in the Amida ends "Maavir ashmotenu b'chol shana v'shana"- he removes our sins every single year. It's sort of saying, "Yeah, we're not going to be perfect in the coming year either, and God is going to have to forgive us again. (And thanks for doing it last year and this, too.) But we're trying- thanks for the opportunity."

So a big "thanks" goes to God himself. But let's also include the whole crew at Yeshurun, including, of course, Chazzan Heinowitz, but also Chazzan Brilliant (the Shacharit and Mincha chazzan), the gabbaim, the officers, and the Chief Rabbi, who davens there. Chazzan Heinowitz is a kohen, by the way, and as the day went on, and as I saw him (and duchaned with him, and complimented him) during, in between, and after prayers- he's a wonderful person off the bimah too- I couldn't help but be struck how the piyut "Mareh Kohen" which he sings so beautifully is quite applicable to him as well.

A good and healthy year to everyone out there.

Ramblings for Monday, Monday

I like it when bus drivers try to be funny- they often succeed. This morning, as the Q74 came to the end of its route, the driver picked up his microphone: "Union Turnpike subway station, last stop. Remember to take your belongings with you, and have a nice day." A pause. "Oh. By the way, it's Monday." The entire bus cracked up.

Speaking of buses, I've learned that my humble, heavily-Orthodox neighborhood has some reputation. For example, a few months back, I overheard a passenger on the Q44 on the phone: "Yeah, I'm in Queens now. I'll be in the Bronx in, oh, twenty minutes or so? Where am I now? Hmmm." (Looks out the windows.) "Oh, on Main Street. You know, the kosher neighborhood." Ha! Too true.

Then, a couple of Fridays ago, one woman wanted to know where the local library branch was. "Just a block past the bus stop," she was told. "But will it be open? It closes at sundown in this neighborhood." This led to a discussion, which concluded that sundown (of course) was still a ways off, so she was OK. (Needless to say, the local library does not close at sundown, although it is the only branch in the city open on Sunday instead of Saturday.)

Anything else to report? Well, a brochure going around tells us that if you give money to one of those "Gedolim in Israel" charities (there are two- I think this is the lesser one, nebach), they'll daven for you at the spot directly opposite the exact spot of the Kodesh HaKadoshim. (I guess they mean at the Kotel Katan, or maybe in the tunnels.) Of course, if you asked one of these "gedolim" if you were allowed to go up to the Har HaBayit, they'd tell you, "Oh no! We don't know the exact spot of the Kodesh HaKadoshim!" Ha.

On to politics. Does anyone remember a movie from a number of years back ("The Contender"?), about some woman nominated for- I think- vice president- and how she's smeared and attacked by- you guessed it- the evil Republicans? Remember Geena Davis's blink-and-you-missed-it series, in which a relatively inexperienced woman succeeds to the presidency and is attacked by- you guessed it- evil Republicans? Who'da thunk that when the situation would arise in real life, it would be the Andrew Sullivans of the world (including one idiot in shul this morning) who'd be doing the attacking?

Ah, it's not all bad news. Barry and his crew are running scared, it's clear, and from conversations I've had, I daresay even many of the people behind those movies and TV shows may be swayed toward Palin. (Certainly hoi polloi are. And boy, I don't even have to be swayed.) Even the Metro News this morning seemed to prefer her and McCain over the One. The media runs in a herd, I think- who knows where it will lead? (Yeah, I shouldn't like that either. But it is sweet.) MSNBC yesterday, the Times today, in its article on her baby, maybe even, tomorrow, Snopes, which, I'm sorry to say, has really been in the tank for Obama this year. (I've seen claims they were like this four years ago as well, but I don't recall it.)

Ah, and speaking of young'uns, the best piece of news of all- I have a new nephew! Whoo-hoo! Mazal tovs all around!

Turf

I saw the funniest thing today:

"This is a stunt and a distraction," she said. "It's not about reaching
voters but simply about reaching the media and promoting a story line…You and I
know that at the end of the day they're not going to run these ads…they're
simply putting them out as video press releases."

Wait a sec. This is the supposedly high-tech, Gen X/Y, YouTube candidate's campaign saying McCain's ads are illegitimate because he's only running them online? Geez, these people get upset when someone bests them on what is supposedly their own turf. Come to think, considering the tone of their campaign so far, they're probably offended the Presidency (if not Divinity) hasn't simply been handed to them. (There are actually some lines from the One himself to that effect.)

And now we have this massive blunder in the form of their responses to the Ayers thing. Groovy.

Gravitas

I still remember how it went down eight years ago: Bush announced that his running mate would be Cheney (who was, in fact, running the veep search committee), and the MSM went into their usual on-cue talking point repetition. That is, almost as if they'd all gotten the same memo (and the way this often happens, as it happened here, you'd be hard pressed to say they hadn't), they began going on and on about how Cheney added "gravitas" to the ticket. Gravitas, gravitas, gravitas, as Bush (who'd only been governor of one of the Union's largest states for six years) apparently didn't have enough experience, as opposed to the former SecDef, or as Bush was too immature and needed an older figure (all of five and a half years older) "balancing" the ticket. Gravitas, gravitas, gravitas.

Actually, I used the phrase "MSM" above when, in fact, there wasn't much else. There was Rush, of course, and he did his patented MSM Talking Points thing, stringing together clips of all the "gravitas"es that were bouncing around.

Of course, whatever the truth was back then, there's no denying that a suddenly worried Obama (cue world's smallest violin) has definitely gone with what he thinks is the "gravitas" pick here. I happen to think it isn't, and that it'll just make things worse for him, but it's certainly what he's thinking. I just wonder if the MSM will start bellowing about "gravitas" now and what an empty suit the crazed Democrats settled on.

Speaking of those crazed Democrats, I wonder how many of them are actually delegates. Very few, I'd imagine, which would mean there's going to be some disappointment when (if) the excitement level at the convention isn't what it was on the trail. That's probably why he's using the stadium. That, and reasons best left to Jonah Goldberg.

By the way, have you heard Warren Buffett's latest genius pronouncement? That he doesn't think the government should manage the economy, but should just let people earn money and only then "tax the heck" out of them? Is this man such a moron that he doesn't realize that taxes is a major way the government runs (in a somewhat passive way, at least as opposed to, say, interest rates) the economy? Is he such an economic illiterate that he doesn't realize how damaging high taxes are? Is he so insulated by his wealth and closed circle that he doesn't realize that people don't like paying taxes (the people who end up paying them, that is), and that they usually accomplish diddly squat? Is he so corrupted by his vested interests in insurance that he just doesn't care, as he comes out on top anyway? And some idiot Chinaman (I know, wrong nomenclature, dude) paid over two million bucks to be able to bask in his wisdom for one lunchtime? (Well, China...yeah, I can see it.)

Of course, the reason Buffett's line is in the news is because the One, the One who needs gravitas, thinks there's something to that idea. Unlike Buffett, though, I really don't wonder about why Obama is so ignorant.

Ah, summer's almost over. I had quite a grand one. This is a good week to recount some of it, and I hope I'll be able to. Till then!

Shut yo' mouth!

I don't know much about Isaac Hayes, RIP, but how can I not post a link to this video?

Yes, that's Jesse Jackson, with the sideburns and dashiki, screaming at the beginning. I don't judge- it was the 70's, after all. But you gotta love the bit where he whispers something, presumably really important, into Hayes' ear.

"Vus iz 'bacon?'"

Heh. Check this out, especially the link the bio at the end.

Will it hurt him? Of course not: They know who's on their side, much like a politician telling them (as in the classic story about the old Rebbe) that he loves Israel. (The title of this post is a joke, but there may be a point for him there too.)

Of course, that's part of the problem: That a politician can talk so openly about pork, and that people are so dependent (or greedy) that they eat that stuff up. I thought people (although probably not these people) were outraged- outraged!- about earmarks. I guess it's only other people's earmarks that's the issue.

"Eight year olds, Dude."

I have to say, I found the comment thread here very troubling, probably because I don't have much to do with the unhinged Left. You see, when I first read the absolutely hilarious bit it references, here, the same exact thing popped into my mind as popped into Mr. Douthat's. I mean, it's pretty logical, isn't it? Isn't it?

And yet just take a gander at the pure vitriol directed at him- and at all conservatives- for making such an innocent point in response to such a loony one. These are the supporters of one of the two candidates for president- the leading one, if only by a bit?

After mulling it over for a bit, though, the possible truth suddenly occurred to me: In the great words of Walter Sobchak, they're cracking. Oh, yeah, they're cracking. What a lovely birthday present.

Oh, and thanks to all the family and friends that made it such a pleasant day. God bless you all.

The Messiah Puts His Foot In His Mouth

I noticed something very interesting about this video: After saying "And then we go [jive word?] Europe," the crowd starts to laugh, and Barry realizes that most of his audience ain't going to Europe anytime soon. So he quickly cover with yet more phony jive, which sounds about as good from him as it does from Hillary: "All's we's can say is..."

It's amazing people don't see through this shyster. Ah well. (See these two troubling columns.)

Why is it that organizations so typically tilt left? Did these people never hear of drilling? Nuclear? Even the "industry analyst" on the radio was in favor of more regulation.

And then there's this piece (h/t): Is this guy actually so clueless that he doesn't realize why the MSM stopped reporting on the Iraq War just when it started going well, and why there's a sudden glut of economic stories unseen even in the actual recession years of 2001-2002? Please.

Deep Thoughts on a Parade

Well, yesterday was the annual Salute to Israel Parade, and it couldn't have been nicer. The weather was perfect, the crowd of spectators huge (and full up earlier than usual), and the marchers endless and enthusiastic. As I've done for the past eight years or so, I volunteered for the parade staff, and while things can always look hectic "backstage" (and boy, did they this year). I've gotten good reports from disinterested observers, and that's what counts. Even I, in the midst of directing groups and assisting announcers, enjoyed it immensely.

It was especially nice seeing my various "alma maters" on show. The New York Region of NCSY is now headed by an old talmid-chaver of mine who, draped in an Israeli flag, was enthusiastically leaping about with his kids, leading them in the old classic songs, and took a breather to inform me he had 250 kids from the region with him (in addition to everyone else from NCSY, Yachad, and the OU). Go (R') Zak!

YU had quite the impressive showing as well, heading up the last section of the parade. (It was well represented among the parade staff too.) Here it was especially nice to see Roshei Yeshiva marching with the students. After the parade was over, Richard Joel literally offered me the shirt off his back- and I do mean literally, actually pulling off his t-shirt and holding it out to me when I casually mentioned I'd been hoping for one. I couldn't accept it, of course, but he's a wonderful person. (This was also in evidence at the YU graduation two weeks back, at which my father celebrated his fiftieth anniversary. I'll have to post some photos of that.)

Ah, and much, much more- lots of big names, celebrities, new and colorful groups, familiar faces...I'll have to review my photos to see what else merits mentioning and, hopefully, post some here. And I see that the UK is planning its own parades for later this month- Kol HaKavod!


Anyway, if its not too much out of place, I have two more significant (a bit half-baked, but this is a blog, after all) thoughts about the parade:

On the way home, I got on the bus to Kew Gardens Hills with a bunch of people who'd been to the parade as well. One man said to another, "Why this type of unity only once a year?" Indeed, the display of achdut is extremely impressive. (As I like to joke, even the Neturei Karta come out, in their own way, much as they'd deny it.) You've got a huge spectrum, even the occasional black hat and chassid (and not just as spectators). Later last night, a friend asked me, "Did the gays march?" I thought for a moment before answering- I guess they may march as part of the "Downtown Alliance"- but told him that shortly after the original brouhaha over their inclusion (or exclusion), I recall that there was some serious problem in Israel- the outbreak of the second intifada or something- and people quickly wised up to what's important, at least in this context. There've been no issues since then. Everyone comes, everyone supports Israel, another generation feels for it and supports it (and in today's age, that's a big deal, considering the growing popularity of the alternative among young Jews, but a brief conversation today has given me hope there as well), and not-insignificant numbers even move there.

So that's one lovely aspect of the parade. I've long said that after seeing it in action, it becomes very hard to maintain the old "Forbidden to cooperate with non-Orthodox Jews!" trope one hears from the right. Well, maybe that's just the softie in me speaking, but we all need that feeling at least once a year.

The second thought is, I'm afraid, somewhat more parochial than the previous grander one, but it has to be said: All of the fears and griping about Orthodoxy's "turn to the right" or the growing dominance of the Haredi world is at least somewhat dissipated after observing this parade. From the New York area alone, there are quite a few day schools and high schools that I've never even heard of whose students turn out for the parade in the hundreds. And there are many more I know of whose sheer size is overwhelming. I can't play numbers games or anything like that, but one thing I see here (as a subset of the parade as a whole, of course) is a vibrant, growing Modern Orthodoxy. Ken Yirbu.

Anyway, this Jew is, in fact, off to Israel later this week. I should have a great time- lots of things coming up in only a short period- and will report as possible. Till then!

Psalm 104

Today is the first day of the Hebrew month of Iyyar (Happy Birthday, Nechama!), and thus the second day of Rosh Chodesh, the New Moon. Every Rosh Chodesh, Psalm 104 (verse 19a: "He made the moon for the appointed times") is recited at the end of morning services, and whenever it is, I remember this story:

November 30, 2000 was the one-hundredth yahrtzeit of Oscar Wilde, an event marked as the day approached by a number of events around New York. I recall attending an exhibit at the (then unrenovated) Morgan Library, and I also attended the culminating event, a series of readings on the day itself at the Jefferson Market Library. (I seem to recall it being mentioned at the event that the building had some connection to Wilde's famous visit to America.) Presenting were such luminaries as the renowned playwrights Peter Shaffer and Edward Albee, the actresses Cherry Jones and the late Kim Hunter, and others, including the not-yet-Speaker Christine Quinn.

Shaffer preceded his readings with a personal story: When he first came to America, he worked at the New York Public Library on 42nd Street in a low-level position. (I was just there yesterday to see their exhibits, thus further provoking the memory.) Then, he heard of an opening in the Library at the Arents Tobacco Collection. "One of those rooms off to the side of the main reading room, open only to those with special permission, soft chairs, quiet surroundings- you've passed those rooms, you know what I mean," as he put it. The audience, mostly literary types, nodded in agreement. The job was easier, more prestigious, and paid better than his current position, so he applied for it, and was told to be there at 1:00 of an afternoon to be interviewed by George Arents himself.

Arents, who had made his money in tobacco, had then turned his attention to collecting every single work he could find that mentioned the plant- certainly including books, pictures and the like about tobacco, but even works notable for other reasons that mentioned it only in passing. Shaffer figured that he might never have a chance to enter the room again, and so took his lunch break at twelve and came to the appointment an hour early.

The librarian let him in, and allowed him to look over the collection. Shaffer began flipping through the card catalog and came to one entry: "The Importance of Being Earnest, a Play in Four Acts". Wanting to impress the librarian with his knowledge, he said, "But The Importance of Being Earnest has three acts!"

"Ah, no," said the librarian, and he opened a special drawer and removed four plain-looking school-type notebooks. It was the original manuscript of the play, in Wilde's handwriting, one act per notebook. Wilde had been asked to shorten it to three acts by the play's producer before it was first put on. The play had earned its place in the Arents Collection because of the following lines:

Lady Bracknell: Do you smoke?

Jack: Well, yes, I must admit I smoke.

Lady Bracknell: I am glad to hear it. A man should always have an occupation of some kind. There are far too many idle men in London as it is.

The four act version was not then widely available (it's now published in some versions of the complete works), and Shaffer spent the next hour reading the treasure. "And," he concluded, "It's nowhere nearly as good as the three-act version. Wilde was wise to revise it." (I've seen this sentiment in a number of places.)

Just as he was finishing the play and putting it back in its drawer, the door opened, and George Arents himself was there, a somewhat...crotchety elderly man in a wheelchair. "Wheel me," he said simply. And so Shaffer began wheeling him down the long corridor leading to the main reading room. (Another knowing nod from the audience.)

The trip was quiet, and Shaffer could tell that things weren't going well. Trying to make a good impression, he leaned over and asked, "Mr. Arents, would you happen to have a copy of the Guttenberg Bible in your collection?" (The Library does, indeed, have a copy, which I saw yesterday, exhibited next to the original Winnie-the-Pooh and his friends, of all things.)

Arents favored Shaffer with a sidelong glance and then replied curtly, "The tobacco weed is not mentioned in the Holy Writ."

Shaffer then sheepishly told us, "I knew I shouldn't have said anything, but I...just...couldn't...help it. And so I leaned over again and said, 'But surely it is written in the Book of Psalms [104:32b- today's Psalm- NL], "He toucheth the mountains, and maketh them smoke"?'"

Arents turned and gave him a good, hard look, then simply said, "Wheel me back."

Ruefully, Shaffer finished, before starting his readings for us, "I didn't get the job."

R.I.P.

Mildred Loving, the plaintiff (one of two, of course) in Loving v. Virginia, has passed away. R.I.P.

I always thought that case was about as perfectly named as you could hope.

Labels

I like labels, and have always championed them. They're helpful and (almost?) always correct.

And yet frum dating sites have turned me off of them more and more. Trying to sign up to YUConnects, I have hit a brick wall trying to figure out if I am "Modern Orthodox (Machmir)" or "Modern Orthodox (Liberal)". In fact, I have no idea what those terms mean, and here I'm supposed to decide my future based on them.

OK, I suppose I have features of both. So let me rephrase: I still like labels, so long as they don't get too minute. Why is there no simple "Modern Orthodox" option?

As long as I'm linking to YU's page, this story really makes me shake my head.

The Sistine Secrets posits that the paintings covering the Sistine Chapel, the
largest fresco painting on earth in the holiest of Christianity’s chapels, does
not contain a single Christian image.

Whaaa? First, there are two frescoes on the walls (of four total) entitled "Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter" and "The Temptation of Christ".

OK, so maybe they mean (based on context) "frescoes by Michelangelo." Well, OK, except, um, an entire wall is covered by "The Last Judgment", by Michelangelo, which has a huge depiction of Jesus front and center.

OK, so maybe they mean (again based on context) the ceiling. Well, OK, except for the depiction of the ancestors of Jesus lining the sides...like I said, it's a bit of a head-shaker. Michelangelo did lots of Christian works: The Doni Holy Family, the Pieta...I give up. R' Blech is a great guy and a great author, but books like these don't do much for Judaism.

Can you have ga'avah for doing a mitzvah?

Today I had the zekhut of tearing down two posters featuring gedolim. One was just offensive because of what it said, and the other just came off with it. (Although I've got issues with the actual person on the second.)

Actually, I think all posters tacked on walls in my neighborhood need to be torn down, regardless of content. This ain't Geulah. In addition, I was worrying about chillul Hashem, seeing someone reading it this morning. So I'm just sure if my motives were 100% pure, that is, fighting for kavod haTorah in the face of attacks from the Right, or whether neighborhood beautification and defense of God's name played a part as well. But the latter two are nice things as well, so we all win.

Ugly Comedy

A bunch of political points today, mostly courtesy of National Review:

A bunch of Hawaiian secessionists take over a palace and allow entry only to natives (in the racial sense) and some others. I don't mean to be unkind (ah, who'm I kidding? Of course I do), but I wonder how many ordinary people would have been able to enter the palace back in the "glory days" of the monarchy. (h/t)

The CIA reports that to make up for its population decline, Russian will have to import massive amounts of people, including "Russians from the former Soviet states." (h/t) My first thought on reading that was, "Well, maybe Russia has problems ("Maybe?"), but that'll certainly improve matters in the Baltics, Ukraine, etc." I can certainly see Russia, in the not-too-distant-future, bounded by the Urals and the Don-Volga. Let's hope it goes well.

Hillary, alas, is getting charming. Holding out hope for an Obama convention victory now. One upside I heard for a Hillary victory is that black turnout will be depressed and the Congressional picture will look better for Republicans. Unfortunately for that scenario, congressional districts are so racially gerrymandered that it wouldn't make much of a difference. Of course, such a scenario would affect the presidential race, but if Obama would lose more decisively than Hillary anyway, why bother?

One thought did pop into my head this morning: Doesn't the whole Democratic primary setup- proportionally divided states side-by-side with superdelegates- perfectly symbolize the Democrats faux-populism combined with condescending elitism?

Anyway, speaking of Hillary, I came across this: Asked who she'd go out with, she says Lincoln. (h/t) Now, I can't really blame her (see what I mean?)- when faced with those who say that he's achieved mythical status, I respond, "Because he deserves it." Problem is, it looks like the too-easy answer. Ah well, the tradeoffs we make.

When conservatives get pet projects, it's time to look out. See this, for example. It reminds me of something Jonah Goldberg pointed out about reaction to his book: "Sure, those people were all fascists- all except the one guy (philosopher, usually) that I like!" (I've seen it regarding philosophers in general, when people get their hobbyhorses. And causes in general- see the sad case of D. Klinghoffer, for example.) Rod Dreher basically left conservatism (I don't care what he says) over the issue of asthma or something. And now we have ethanol. (Also, I'm not saying it applies here, but often there are big-business funding fingerprints over these things.) And evolution. And more. It's time to put the foot down: "Small government means small government. No exceptions."

Finally, a bit of ugliness. I have to disagree with Ramesh Ponnuru here. When I see Sullivan use a line like that, I don't think theology (I imagine those who think of theology more themselves would, and it's a logical conclusion); rather, I read it as "Evil [Jewish] neo-cons manipulated us into a war in Iraq." No, I wouldn't put it past Sullivan- he's amply demonstrated that he is driven to madness by his hobbyhorses. As to "little" and "boy", well, the former is clearly along the lines of "You've got a nice Army base here, Colonel...we wouldn't want anything to happen to it." The latter is perfectly appropriate for a fawning fanboy like Sullivan- who, in any event, is a poofter. An anti-Semitic poofter. So there.

Anyway, that's what I thought of when I saw this, linked from here. Sorry, but I really can't see the (double) use of "neoconservative" (you remember Brooks' line- "con" short for "conservative", "neo" short for "Jew"- and its frenzied reaction, and Rush stresses this as well) and the reference to the American Enterprise Institute as being accidental, even more so in light of this church's actions towards Israel. Like I said, ugly. And which side of the spectrum is it coming from?

Oh, and speaking of the Religious Left, how funny is it that every Tom, Dick, and Harry on that end thinks they're qualified to say what's "grounded in Biblical tradition"? From a theologian, maybe, but who is this guy? (h/t)

Enough for today. Peace out, all!