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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hoo-ah!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then he ends with this:

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, Katsav had this winner of a line:

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

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

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

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

Randomness

A few random links, courtesy of The Corner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chillul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthdays

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

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

Anyway. Quoth Jonah:

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

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

There's also this:

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

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

One last thing: What sort of question is this?

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

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

What the...?

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

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

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

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

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

Sheloshim Yom Kodem HaChag...

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

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

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

Something to ponder. And now on to Pesach!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and I must quote this email in full:

Dear NAVites,

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

Peter Ansoff

President, NAVA

[...]

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

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

MiShenichnat...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auld Acquaintance

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

"Yeah, the family had lots of buffas."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an email I just got:

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

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

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

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

Finally, Yay!

Just because...

...she's adorable.

"The Other Side"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabbat Shalom!

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

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

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

Magen David Adom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving!

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

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