When editors take a nap

Did the Jerusalem Post just decide it doesn't need editors? You'd think after that ridiculous front-page typo a few years ago they'd realize someone should probably look at their stories before they post them all willy-nilly. Who do they think they are, me?

Anyway, here's the latest head scratcher from the Post:

If you don't know, the man in the picture is Yoel Kraus, a longtime activist from Neturei Karta in Jerusalem, a guy so anti-Zionist he has his own cow so as not to taint his holy stomach with "Zionist milk." No, really.

So here's the million dollar question: what's the relevance of showing a picture of a well-known Israeli activist who as far as I know has never left his zip code with a story happening in Poland? Were they trying to go with a random "background shot" of a Haredi guy and just wound up picking Kraus? How did no one spot this?

Nobody's Perfect- but some folks try harder

A recent comment on Dovbear from SJ perked my interest. SJ was trying to fight the perception that the GOP is anti-women or anti-gay. Rather than point to the increased visibility of minorities and women in GOP leadership roles, though, SJ decided instead to go on the attack by posting a couple of links to op-eds bashing Democrats for not being as inclusive as they claim to be. Compare this to an op-ed from some Montana paper taking liberal pundits to task for demeaning the presence of black, Latino and female speakers at the Republican convention:

The parade of accomplished minority and women speakers at the Republican National Convention truly stood out, particularly because of the  alleged Republican “war on women” theme and relentless accusations of Republican racism. 

But sure enough, there was no shortage of critics showing dismissive regard toward GOP speakers...

...Proof is in what people do, and it was Republicans who put these people in office and at the convention podium. People should believe what they see, yet they continue to hear things like this from Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I think we believe that women can see through that nice shiny packaging that the Republicans have been putting out there, through to what’s inside, which is really a disaster for women’s future, extreme policies.” 

OK. Republican policies are fair game. But diminishing the women who were featured at the convention as “shiny packaging”? With language like that, just who is waging the “war on women”? 

... The prize for insulting, obnoxious temerity goes to Los Angeles Times columnist David Horsey, who essentially accused Republicans of resorting to tokenism — and worse — at the convention. 

“It would be easy to dismiss this as tokenism and window dressing — which, of course, it is — but there is something bigger behind it,” he writes. “Republicans truly believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that the best thing a poor Latino or an unemployed African American can do to better his or her condition is to vote for a party that intends to let rich people keep more of their money. Showing off all those non-Caucasian officeholders is a way of saying to skeptical minority voters, “These guys have chosen the Republican path and just look where it has gotten them!”

Tokenism, it seems, suggests unworthy people who were plucked off the street and put at the podium as props. But that simply wasn’t the case. Many of the minority and women speakers named above are accomplished leaders, and in some cases, rock stars in the Republican Party. They deserve to be featured, rather than dismissed as being somehow illegitimate or unworthy.

Here's my take: The difference between the parties on sexism and homophobia is that the Democrats rhetoric/ideology aspires towards an ideal (gender and orientation equality) that their actions fall short of. The GOP's actions, by contrast, seem to be more or less aligned with their general philosophies on those issues: some Republicans accept gays on pragmatic/libertarian grounds (though many don't), and women, while valued, seem to be seen by many in the party as supporters, not leaders.

This is borne out by statistics: In this Congress, female Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. In the last Congress, it was closer to 3 to 1. Of course, numbers aren't everything, but they seem to show that in the GOP, women are either not encouraged to seek political leadership roles, or not seen as having the same abilities/qualifications as men (Remember that Pat Boone article that said any time women were elected to office it was because there were no competent men around to do the job?)

This doesn't mean Republicans necessarily "hate" women, minorities or gays or that Democrats are incapable of being sexist, homophobic or prejudiced. However, the disparity does suggest that there are some real limiting factors keeping women from being as successful in party leadership-- and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is true by, let's say a hundred-fold, for gays.

That doesn't mean that the speakers at the convention are deficient or unqualified-- but you'd have to be living under a rock to claim that tokenism-- or window dressing, or pandering, take your pick-- isn't at work here. It's at work with the Democrats, too, of course-- I'd say it's become a ubiquitous element of American politics these days. At conventions, on political ads, at debates, you always hear about these random people whose stories and faces are meant to exemplify an entire class of constituents to convince women, minorities, hunters, military supporters, teachers, small business owners, whoever, that this candidate, this party, really understand and care about you, YES, YOU! It's unabashed showmanship, and the fact that minorities were being paraded around to be seen and counted at the convention exemplifies the exact issue the GOP is trying to fight: the perception that it's the party of old white men. The existence of minorities within the party is a good thing, but until they become unremarkable, until their race or gender clearly isn't a major factor in picking them to speak at conventions, the GOP still has a lot of work to do. That's not the speakers' fault-- it's the party's.

Give Kids More Credit, Please

Since we no longer have TV, I often forget how mind-numbing news coverage can be. The power of news aggregators and The Daily Show mean that I never have to see or read "mainstream" news unless I seek it out. And when I do, I'm often reminded why I don't do it often.

Case in point: the lesbian den mother who got kicked out of her troop by the Boy Scouts. Nasty situation, have total sympathy for the mother and the family, no issue there. But the sheer smarm in this article from CNN made me want to scream.

The cubs of Pack 109 are upset.
But none more than Cruz, who is being forced to be away from his friends and is too young to fully understand why.
He's only 7.
He wasn't brought up to dislike people because they are different.
He's too young to understand bigotry.

Who are you, LZ Granderson, Ronald Reagan's Bizarro World speechwriter? Oh yes, children know nothing about being mean or cruel to others. Children never encounter situations that aren't fair or in which peers negatively judge each other based on dumb-ass criteria.

Quick question, LZ: Have you met kids? Like, real ones? Because the ones I hang out with spend the day excluding the hell out of each other, often for reasons so inane they forget them within a few hours (unless, of course, they opt for the other extreme and decide to hold a grudge against each other for the next ten years). My job is to make sure they knock that crap out and don't give each other complexes, and when things get serious, we get serious. But when you pretend kids can't understand hatred or bigotry or even basic hostility, what you're really saying is that you think kids are stupid and live in a fantasy-land of magical butterflies that crap jellybeans.

There are so many good reasons to be pissed off about this case and to encourage people to support the family. You even have a germ of an excellent angle by focusing on the ripple-effect that GLBT exclusion can have on the kids involved in the programs that GBLT adults participate in. So it's entirely unnecessary to pad your article by fake-empathizing with the woman's son. I would have much preferred some quotes from him, or even some random description of him poking something with a stick. At least that would be something reflective of things kids actually do, not BS projections of how adults think they should think or feel. Quit it.

Someone flunked Math

Interesting journalism question: when you interview a source and he says something strange, is it the editor's job to clarify the statement?

Joseph Farah doesn't seem to think so. He ran an election update a day ago quoting Fritz Wenzel, the head of a polling group about why a sizable minority of Republicans are leaning towards voting for Obama in the upcoming election, even after sitting through four years of Farah screaming about how illegitimate, Communisty and Muslimy he is.

The only problem is... Wenzel can't count.

“The improvement in Obama’s prospects compared to the four remaining Republican challengers stems largely from two factors,” suggests pollster Fritz Wenzel. “First, Obama has largely avoided the political limelight while the GOP candidates savage each other with increasing intensity. Second, a smattering of evidence indicates that the economy is getting a little better, which helps the White House in the eyes of the voters. Secondly, the bloody fight for the Republican presidential nomination – by most estimations the nastiest GOP fight in memory – has really hurt the images of the challengers in the eyes of both Republicans and, especially, independent voters. For Republicans, each candidate carries with them now some taint that cannot be ignored.”

If nothing else, it seems like Wenzel needs a crash-course in Numbers 101. Or, you know, a better editor.

Celebrating Superficiality

As a liberal Jew in his late twenties who grew up in California, I am contractually and culturally obligated to be non-judgmental when it comes to anyone else, particularly anyone else's religious practices, and particularly anyone else who is a Jew, and particularly anyone else who is Jewish and more liberal than me.

That said... there are a couple of stories, both from the Forward, that have come across my e-desk that strike me as just plain 'off'.

The first one was back in July when a female artist wrote an ode to her new creative business enterprise, which combined her love of gluing random bits of broken pottery with her talent for making people uncomfortable. Presenting the Mosaic Urn.

Yup.

For years, I’ve been designing mosaic art objects in the French style known as pique assiette, nipping dishes into tiny shards and combining them to create one-of-a-kind tables, vases, picture frames and candlestick holders. Some months ago, I turned this into an online business. While working, I watch cable news, so my background noise is a parade of political scandals, financial frauds, and national health care and unemployment crises. 

In the early 1970s, I became a comedy writer. I was now inspired to use mosaic to express political satire, finding red, white and blue plates with flag images for what I called my Breaking News Series. I assembled pictures of my bêtes noires — Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, John Edwards and John Ensign, Kenneth Lay and Bernie Madoff, the National Debt Clock and corporate logos. To add bite, I’d set the mosaics on cremation urns. 

I submitted one such urn to an edgy Brooklyn art show. At the opening party, I watched guests studying the piece, identifying the right-wingers to one another as if it were a party game. Photos and text inserted into the mosaic made a cutting political statement, but I began to consider whether the aesthetic might have a wider — and more functional — application. With this process, I could animate an urn for actual usage that would visually tell the story of a life. It would be highly personal and have a celebratory quality. 

A few months ago, as I was setting the table for dinner, I surprised myself by blurting out: “You’ll be most affected by this, Nick. Would you prefer that we be buried or cremated?” 

He shot me a puzzled look. “Uh, any reason you’re asking?” 

“How about I make urns for Dad and me? I can cover them with fun photos — family vacations, birthday parties, graduations,” I said. 

He didn’t answer immediately. 

“They’ll be pretty and about life!” I urged. “I’ll use our dishes. It’ll remind you of the dinner table.” 

It felt like forever before Nick said, “Sounds good.” Martin remained silent, which I interpreted as enthusiasm.

And now she's selling them online and somehow convinced someone at the Forward to let her write one big advertisement for her kooky home business based on the premise of being Jewishly edgy, or something. Also I like how this started as personal art, morphed into sneering political "satire" (Get it? It's Sarah Palin on an urn!) and now has transcended its humble beginnings into being creepy, inappropriate burial accoutrements. Bra-va, I guess?

Here's the thing: I respect that this lady has made a choice in a way that feels meaningful to her. At the same time, her attitude about the whole thing, "Check out this cool thing I came up with to hold your ashes! Ain't it cool!" to be quite off-putting. My father has mentioned he will probably want to be cremated, and while it isn't my cup of tea, I know that I'm much happier with the idea of scattering someone's ashes than keeping them in an urn that looks like a kindergartener's collage project. Maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy, but to me it feels really inappropriate to try to make someone's urn "pretty" or "remind you of the dinner table."

Some who believe that death requires a somber approach question my upbeat spin. I explain I hope a beautiful urn that honors memories of a loved one can take some of the sting out of death.

Here we have a critical point: for me the idea of trying to "spin" death does not remove the sting. Death is supposed to have a sting. That's part of it. It doesn't mean you need to go into full on ashes and sackcloth, but I don't think "upbeat" is the way to go, either. It's not about being "somber" specifically, but it's about taking the moment seriously.

So that was July. Now this week we have this woman, who wrote an article high-fiving herself for only going to shul to get free food.

I’m one of those synagogue goers who arrive pretty much just in time for the “Amen!” as we raise our mini plastic cups of wine before elbowing our way — er, gently sauntering over — to the food. My timing is never quite exact, of course, so there are days when I get there and my fellow congregants are still singing “Adon Olam,” the last song of the service. I’m happy to sing along — in fact, I like it if I’m in time for Kaddish and the announcements; makes me feel very much a part of things. But for shallow, antsy and kind-of-cheap me, going to synagogue means going to lunch with friends, there, in the social hall. 

And how important is the quality of that lunch? Let’s just say that a tray of hummus and carrot sticks makes my spiritual aura shrink to the size of a store-bought gefilte fish ball. You could pierce my soul with a toothpick. But a glistening mound of bar mitzvah lox — the Holy Grail, as it were, of Kiddushes — maketh me skip through the Valley of Death and cartwheel over to the scallion cream cheese. It restoreth my soul and maketh my kids a lot happier about my bringing them along, too. In fact, it getteth them psyched to come again, the way a random shower of slot machine nickels getteth bubbe back to Atlantic City. And I know that I am not the only congregant who peruses the synagogue calendar to see who has a great big spread — er, great big simcha — coming up, and precisely which Saturday we are talking about. 

My worry, of course, is that the Divine One is probably not thrilled with the attendee who arrives when the audience is filing out of the theater. Come to think of it, the rabbi probably isn’t, either. But I do believe there is something more than just lip service (and Tam Tams) being offered when a congregant arrives in time only to eat and shmooze. And, I am glad to say, some folks agree with me.

The writer then goes on to quote various people who have written various things about kiddush. No introspection, no thoughts on other ways she expresses her Jewish identity, other approaches she could use to get something out of the service, nothing. She's a Bagel and Lox Jew by self-definition, and she's proud of it, thanks very much.

I understand that this is this lady's reality and I... suppose I admire her willingness to be honest about it? And while I don't think she necessarily should be embarrassed about this, I really don't understand the mentality which says this is something to celebrate, rather than wrestles with. I don't understand the thinking that says, "Yeah, I fully admit I just show up to get free food, and these are the values I'm passing on to my kids. That food is awesome." To say nothing of the fact that the writer's behavior-- both barging in late, as well as adopting a "schnorer" attitude to her fellow congregants-- strikes me as just plain rude.

It's one thing to acknowledge one's imperfections in a public forum as a way of calling attention to things you have to work on and areas where you can grow. It's another to use them as a platform for advertising how awesome, enlightened, or creative you are and suggesting that people should follow your example.

Sometimes I just don't get people.

Limited Retrospection

The 20-year-anniversary for the Crown Heights riots/pogroms (depending on who you talk to) is coming up and it's led to a fair bit of discussion among Jewish media outlets, particularly in New York.

Unfortunately, while the myths that Crown Heights was somehow a riot "between" blacks and Jews (implying that the Jews were out attacking blacks instead of hunkering down in their homes) or that the Jewish political establishment used all its resources to stop violent attacks happening in real-time are finally being exposed and challenged, one central myth not only remains unexamined, but continually perpetuated by people who should know better.

That is, the identity of Yankel Rosenbaum. Even this week, the inaccurate statements about Rosenbaum being a "rabbinical student" or a "rabbinical scholar" are being repeated by major Jewish news outlets. Only problem is, those are lies. Intended as compliments, perhaps, but fictional.

The son of Jews who survived the Holocaust in Poland, Mr. Rosenbaum was a lecturer at the University of Melbourne in Australia. He had done his undergraduate work there and, later, had earned a master's degree. His adviser on his doctoral dissertation, Dr. John Foster, said he was studying small Jewish towns in Poland.

The information is out there. This article was written in 1991, as was this one in 1996. Academics have verified who Rosenbaum was, and wasn't. Friends of Rosenbaum have popped up sporadically on the internet trying to clarify who he was: frum, Jewishly literate, and, while not Hasidic (nor Lubavitch, though his family were), certainly on friendly terms with Chabad.

But that is not the same as rewriting the man's life and identity and turning him into just another yeshiva bochur! Rosenbaum was a passionate young man who had created his own business and was pursuing high-level academic studies in the secular world. He spoke five languages, he had a master's, he was working on his doctorate, and he was a lecturer at the University! These details don't detract from his life or his Jewishness, they add color and texture to them. In a small way, Rosenbaum was a living model of how to successfully, and proudly, live as an Orthodox Jew in an open environment, without needing to cloister oneself in a cultural ghetto. The Orthodox world (heck, even the larger Jewish world) needs more role models like him. If nothing else, that is what is insulting about him being turned into a faceless symbol of the Haredi everyman struck down by antisemitism. It deprives us all of a wonderful learning opportunity.

Yankel Rosenbaum was an Orthodox Jew who chose to live in the non-Jewish world and had been successful at it. But for an accident of random chance (which ironically happened when he was visiting a major Jewish enclave, as opposed to all the times in Australia when he was in part of a small minority), he would likely still be here.

There are lots of lessons we can take from his life, but to do that we first have to be willing to learn about the truth of who he was. Not the myth he was turned into.

Edit-after-the-fact: Every time I write about this, I manage to find more people who knew Rosenbaum personally. (One of the blessings of the Internet!) One of them had this to say: 

I actually knew Yankel, A"H. He was a person, not a symbol, and I don't think he would have been upset at the descriptions you're complaining about.

Melbourne even today is a much more diverse community than most places in the US, and lots of people have complicated religious and intellectual backgrounds. Yankel's family wasn't Lubavitch and he wasn't the sort of person you could easily classify, but he certainly associated with Chabad. Yankel went to a Lubavitch school and yeshiva, was a counsellor at Chabad camps, and socialised with people both within and without Melbourne's Lubavitch community. None of this is especially important, but I hope it fleshes him out a bit more.

Here was my response:

I appreciate you sharing the background about your friend more.

As I've gotten interested in Yankel's life just been frustrated by what I see as attempts to put this interesting person into a certain box, when it seems like a lot of what he was about was, as you said, being involved with and interacting with various different communities. I would like to see that spirit honored and remembered when people think of him, as opposed to immediately putting him in a neat category of "martyred Lubavitcher Hasid" and going on their way.

Talking around a subject

I came across an interesting news article at Ynet this morning:

The Romanian Academy will alter its definition of an anti-Semitic slur in a dictionary to make it clear the word is pejorative. 

The academy wrote to the Center for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism on Wednesday, saying it should have described the word as pejorative. The DEX dictionary says the term is used in a "familiar" sense but omits that it is an anti-Semitic slur. 

The academy said in a letter "we will do all we can to make an immediate and permanent correction of its definition".

The center had protested the usage of the word, saying it was "heard by Jews when they were put on the trains of death," referring to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Romanian Jews in World War II.

Slurs are bad. Makes sense. But, I was curious, what exactly was the slur?

There was a link to another Ynet article, so I tried that. It had more details, but still no slur.

A prominent Jewish group on Monday called on the Romanian Academy to change its dictionary definition of an anti-Semitic slur to make it clear that it is a pejorative. 

Maximilian Katz, director of the Center for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism, told the Associated Press in an interview Monday that the commonly used Romanian word is offensive, but that is not explained in the official DEX dictionary. 

He says the word was "heard by the Jews when they were put on the trains of death," referring to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Romanian Jews in WWII.

"The Romanian Academy have taken a deeply anti-Semitic expression and transformed it into a legitimate word," he told the AP. The dictionary explains it is used in a "familiar" sense but omits that it is anti-Semitic.

The two-page letter said that the slur "is racist, it shows hatred toward the Jewish race, hatred toward the Jewish religion, it defames Jews on ethnic grounds and incites violence against them."

It says that usage of the word is illegal in Romania because it falls under a law banning symbols with a fascist, racist or xenophobic character. Breaking the law is punishable by fines and prison. 

...The word is the most offensive that exists in the Romanian language for a Jew, but it is also used colloquially by mainly elderly Romanians who would not consider themselves anti-Semitic. 

...Csaba Ferenc Asztalos, the director of Parliament's National Council for Combating Discrimination who also received a copy of the letter said he agreed with the Jewish group. "Their request is justified," he said in a phone interview. "The word must show the real sense, that it is pejorative, that it is racist for both Jews and Gypsies."

Man, this word is one terrible bastard. But what is it?

Seriously, media. I get that the word is offensive. I really do. But since most people reading this story aren't octogenarian Romanians, you may want to actually tell us what the word is. Now you're just forcing us to use our terrible and inappropriate imaginations.  At least give us a hint! Beardies? Goldpinchers? Hemosexuals? Help me out here, my racist Romanian slur knowledge is quite poor. Not to mention that repeating "the word"and "the slur" fifteen times makes your reporting sounds downright silly.

To Google!

...Lame, Google, very lame.

Ok, what about... this?

Fine, you don't want to help. I get it. Everyone just keeps ripping off the two AP articles. Be that way. Maybe there's some original reporting somewhere.

... After ten minutes of clicking links, I finally found it, courtesy of JTA:

JTA- Romania's highest cultural forum, following a request by a watchdog group, agreed to make clear in the definition of an anti-Semitic slur that the word is a pejorative. 

The Center for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism on Tuesday had urged the The Romanian Academy to change its definition in the official DEX dictionary, or The Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, of the word "jidan."

Thank you. Was that so hard?

(I wonder if this is what it's like trying to read frum newspapers...)

Neither the sky nor the izmels are falling

Attention professional Jewish alarmists: I know you think San Francisco really hates Jews because it has things like anti-Israel protests and left-wing professors, but please believe me when I tell you that you're all off base on this one.

Just because a group of anti-circumcision doofi (backed by one particularly unhinged anti-Semite) managed to get their proposal to ban infant circumcision on the ballot does not mean:

A- That most of San Franciscans support them; or
B- That the measure will pass.

But no, as soon as conservative Jews hear "San Francisco" and "ban circumcision" together, all of a sudden we're in 1939 Germany. Get some perspective, guys. Less than 8,000 people (or 12,000 depending on your source) signed this petition, out of a city of 465,000 registered voters. Drop in the bucket much?

Never one to let facts get in the way of talking about how America hates Jews and that everyone needs to make aliyah immediately, Lazer was announcing as far back as March that not only was God totally pissed about this ballot measure, but also that it had already passed. That must be some impressive time-machine you've got, Lazer. Does it run on emunah?

Let's make a deal, crazies: if the ballot passes, I will make sure to talk about it on my blog and hang my head in shame at my much-beloved birthplace. On the other hand, if it doesn't pass, which of course will validate the fact that most residents of SF don't hate either Jews or circumcision, you will write a public apology to me and the other 400+ thousand people you slandered as dirty anti-semites.

Deal?

Facial Hair is not an Accomplishment

Those who know me will be surprised at the title of this post, as I am fairly hirsute. In fact, of the eight men who work at my school (eight out of fifty, yay diversity!), only two of us have beards. So it's not that I'm anti-beard by any means.

However: I don't get this.

Ephrata Middle School teacher Gary Weddle vowed on September 11, 2001 to stop shaving until Osama bin Laden was caught. 

On Monday, after almost ten years, he finally shaved off his lengthy beard.

Hooray for, uh, local news?

The school’s principal, Jill Palmquist, honored him on Monday and gave the following speech to the students: 

Ephrata Middle School would like to take a few moments today to honor and recognize a very unique individual who is among us on a daily basis.

On September 11th 2001, Gary Weddle came to school and told his science students that in support of the United States Military and for the freedoms that America stands for, he would not shave until Osama Bin Laden was captured or killed.

...For 3,454 days Mr. Weddle kept his word, faithful and true.  He endured ridicule, jokes and no doubt people telling him that his was a lost cause.  On top of that he watched daily news reports that cast doubt whether Osama Bin Laden was even still alive, or if dead his body would never be recovered.  In which case, to be true to his word Mr. Weddle would have to never shave again for the rest of his life.   

Mr. Weddle has taught us all an important lesson in faith, patriotism and endurance.  Would any of us have put ourselves on the line in such a way?  It is likely no one else in the entire world had taken such a vow. 

Yesterday, May 1st, it was announced that Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan.

Mr. Weddle, we are truly honored and humbled by your example and extremely privileged to know you.  The life lasting impact the commitment to your vow has had on over 2,000 students in the last ten years is more than a teacher could even begin imagine.  As of yesterday Facebook has come alive as your former students excitedly rejoice in the fact that you can now shave!  It might be added that our current population of students was aged two and three when you made your vow.   They are the ones to see what so many of them wanted to witness.

Thank you for your dedication, steadfastness and determination to follow through.  You are among the most dedicated, faithful and patriotic Americans we will ever have the privilege of saying that we knew.

Although you did not do this for personal glory, you can not escape the fact that we admire your dedication to our country and greatly respect you.

You are our HERO and we salute you!

Wait, wait, how could he have come to school on September 11 and said he wasn't going to shave until they caught Osama? The guy lives in Washington. School doesn't start until around 8 am Pacific time. Only a few news correspondents had even started speculating bin Laden was behind it at that point. Oh wait, that's apparently not what actually happened.

Weddle was a substitute teacher in Wenatchee when the infamous al-Qaeda terrorist attack occurred on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans. Weddle was so caught up in the news that he neglected to shave. A week or so later, he vowed not to shave until bin Laden was captured or proven dead. He figured it would just be a month or two.

So not only did he not make the vow until a week later, he made it assuming that it would be a minimal commitment. Oh well, no one ever accused principals of paying too much attention to their teachers. Or letting details get in the way of making a good speech. Keep on educating those kids, ma'am.

I'm sorry, but not shaving is not "putting yourself on the line." Ask any Sikh, Amish or Haredi man. Actually, come to think of it, if Weddle had decided to grow his beard AND put on a turban, that might have been a much better example of "putting himself on the line."At the very least it would have been a more interesting story.

Is this story an interesting example of ways the body can serve as a constant reminder of awareness of a particular event? Sure. Is it an "inspiring" demonstration of keeping your word? I guess. But I don't see how you go from "huh, that's a little weird" to calling this a case that's particularly patriotic or heroic. The guy just sort of fell into it. If anything this incident just shows how many people feel the need to look for "heroes" or create supposedly meaningful or inspirational narratives from cases that honestly just aren't that impressive. When did growing a beard become so noteworthy? Is it only important if you do it for ideological reasons? If so, why is patriotism or "keeping a promise" the only ideology worth paying attention to? People have been growing hair for religious and cultural reasons for thousands of years, from Jews to Rastafarians to hippies. What makes Weddle's beard so amazing?

Here's the irony: if Mr. Weddle had spent the last ten years doing something, that could have been heroic. He could have started a charity, incorporated 9/11 into his curriculum, joined the military, etc. Even working to raise awareness for victims of terror or support for the troops, etc, would have been something. I'm not saying this man isn't a good guy. He probably is. But growing a beard, even a long beard, isn't something you should get a standing ovation for. As far as an example of sacrifice or dedication, it's actually pretty uninteresting (unless you hang out with alopecia sufferers). Another irony is that in many parts of the country, having facial hair is actually a big cultural no-no and something people get flak for, especially teachers (not always without cause-- sorry, man, but between the beard and the glasses you've got a pretty loud creepy factor going on). Yet this guy did it "because of terrorism" and people are calling him a patriot and a fantastic role model. While I agree that beards are totally awesome the reality is that growing one is simply not that big a deal. And I don't get the desire of the media and Weddle's local community to turn a random promise into a heroic act.

Hat-tip to Rafi G at Life in Israel.

Best Thing Ever? Don't be so modest.

World Net Daily prides itself on its awesomeness, and with such high praise from its peers, who can blame it? Peers like, well, World Net Daily:

From abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage to multicultural madness to banning God in school to "gays" in the military, millions of Americans today accept ideas and behaviors that horrified all previous generations. Why? 

There is just one book that completely and clearly explains how all this is accomplished – how lies are packaged as truth, corruption disguised as freedom, godlessness sold as liberation – and how we can free ourselves from the deception that surrounds us.

That book, of course, would be the hack-job penned by WND's managing editor, David Kupelian.

As proof of how great Kupelian's book is, WND offers something those of us experienced in writing and publishing refer to as "quotes"-- not from his book, of course (you need to shell out your hard-earned 4.95 for that), but from people that read it. You see, some people liked it, and, surprise surprise, some didn't. And WND, out of the goodness of its heart (and desire to get you to spend 5 bucks) has graciously included some of those brilliant quotes on its website for your reading pleasure. Observe such brilliant insights as:

"Worst book ever – he is a liar." 

'If you're a hateful, narrow-minded loon, then this book is for you!"

And also:

"Opening this book is like turning on the Sun. – Mr. David Kupelian has written a remarkable book that reveals how the American public has been taken down the slippery slope of moral relativism." 

"David Kupelian has authored a masterpiece that belongs in every home in America next to the Family Bible." 

"This book really pulls back the veil on evil. A must read for anyone that cares about the future of our nation."

But wait, there's more. WND doesn't just want you to buy overstocked copies of their editor's five year old hardcover book (incidentally, guys, Amazon can do better), they also want you to know that their magazine is freaking awesome. This time it's not just them who thinks so:

Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best newsmagazine.

Yes, according to some statistics I just made up, a whopping 50% of readers said they consider Whistleblower more important than the sun, while 22% said they thought the sun was more important in terms of life-sustaining abilities, but less useful in terms of spare bathroom reading. 15% said they would marry the magazine if it were legal and if such an option were given official sanction in the Bible but that since it's not they would have to spend a life sublimating their true desires so they could be living examples of Christian morality. And 2% went into crazy fan-girl seizures at the mere mention of Whistleblower magazine and had to be hospitalized overnight.

Ah, WorldNetDaily. You'll always be my sun. Especially in the "giant ball of hot air" kind of way.

Burdens of Proof

To hear Joseph Farah tell it, he's the world's most diligent detective/investigative journalist since John Stossel fused his soul with Sam Spade through an arcane voodoo ritual (what, you don't read the news?)

Yes, when it comes to Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the Presidency, no documentation is too questionable, no proof too inscrutable, no witnesses too incorruptible for our brave Mr. Farah. It doesn't matter how many conservatives have decided to give up on the birth certificate strategy, or that the national news media has declared the story dead. For Farah, it's (supposedly) about the truth and serving the public good.

And in some ways, he's actually right. It is good to have transparency. It is bad when the leader appears-- for whatever reason-- to be hiding things.

But here's the rub: If Joe Farah wants to be taken seriously as a "make your case, show your work, let's follow the paper trail" journalist on Friday, he really can't be putting this crap out on Thursday:

A remark that Jesus' cousin, whose name he couldn't remember, "was really nice," helped convince Todd Burpo that his son's experience during a near-fatal illness was something beyond extraordinary. 

In the new book "Heaven is for Real," Todd and Sonja Burpo, along with Lynn Vincent, recount the amazing story told by their son, Colton Burpo. 

"Did you know that Jesus has a cousin? Jesus told me his cousin baptized him," Colton tells his father one evening, as related in chapter 12 of the book. 

Todd, a pastor, agrees. 

"The Bible says Jesus' cousin's name is John." 

But he then scolds himself, reminding himself not to offer information. 

"I don't remember his name," Colton said happily, "but he was really nice." 

"John the Baptist is 'nice'?!" Todd writes. "Just as I was processing the implications of my son's statement – that he had met John the Baptist – Colton spied a plastic horse among his toys and held it up for me to look at. 'Hey, Dad, did you know Jesus has a horse?"

Yes, while Farah is all too-willing to assume that every person vouching for Obama's citizenship is lying out their ears, apparently if your 4-year-old has a near-death experience and describes seeing Jesus and his rainbow horse, that's somehow irrefutable proof.

Convenient?

Why no one will win over Park51

Reading about the pro- and counter-tests happening over the Park51 site, it's becoming clear to me that there is no upside to this battle. There are fair arguments and fair-minded people on both sides. Yes, it is about sensitivity-- but that cuts both ways.

There is no question that there are Islamists in the world-- including America-- who will see the mosque as a victory. At the same time, there is a very disturbing drumbeat coming out of the anti-mosque rhetoric which seems to tar all Muslims with the same brush-- and it's not terrorism, specifically, but rather of "extremism" and hatred or contempt of so-called "mainstream" Americans. There is a scary rhetorical sleight of hand happening here, rewriting people who support the mosque into becoming supporters of terrorism or Islamic supremacy over America.

Rather than addressing the facts about who Imam Rauf is, he is instead cast as the all-purpose Muslim bogeyman. He is not a person, he is a Muslim, and therefore "one of them"-- whoever "they" are. If there are issues with the Imam, his ideology, or his organization, then people should deal with those realities. But conflating a mosque with the worst elements of Islam because of where they are building it (or making your case for Rauf's extremism through an alleged lack of action  as opposed to evaluating what he actually has said or done) is simply not a fair or honest way of pursuing an argument.

And that's unfortunate, because I think that the emotions behind the mosque protesters are valid. I understand that the WTC site still contains a lot of real pain for New Yorkers and those who lost loved ones that day (not sure about other Americans around the country, though, many of whom seem to have just remembered that they're still mad about 9/11). I think their argument about showing sensitivity has a point, though I disagree with it. And I think it's only fair to acknowledge that they, too, have been unfairly demonized as hysterical hicks on the fringe (which, if nothing else, is ironic given the polls showing that the fringe is the majority). However, I do think that there's a categorical difference between being portrayed as intolerant and being accused of being anti-American or supporters of terrorism or Sharia. I personally think the first is far easier to shrug off, but maybe that's just me.

Honest people can disagree about whether the center should be built. But there's a way to do it respectfully, and there's the way of the mob. Right now, both groups are whipping themselves up, to no particular purpose. (If I seem overly alarmed by what I'm hearing from mosque opponents, maybe it's just because they seem a lot angrier.) The sad thing is that what's happening right now is just entrenching both sides, making them feel like their backs are against the wall and that they have no other options but to go for the jugular. People calling for compromise, such as David Patterson and Howard Dean, are getting nowhere. Why? Because now people seem to want a fight. A showdown.

Those against the mosque are comforted by their knowledge that they are a majority (and it's interesting that this issue has become nationalized, as if it were something that should have a referendum). By playing up the populism argument, they are trying to force Rauf & co to back down. Mosque supporters, on the other hand, know that the law is on their side and that no one has the power or authority to keep them from building. At this point no one will back down because now it's about principles. If the mosque gets built, opponents will claim it as a slap in the face against America and the will of the people, while supporters will cheer the accomplishments of tolerance and the rule of law. If the mosque doesn't get built, or gets moved, supporters will say it is a victory for fear, xenophobia and jingoism, while opponents will congratulate themselves on "standing up" to Islam.

Here's what I do know: far too many people are capitalizing off of this situation by appealing to people's anger, emotions, prejudices, and sense of entitlement (for the record, there is plenty of "PC" exploitation happening on both side of this issue). On even such basic issues as what the building should properly be called (who's biased? who's accurate?) or what Rauf was referring to by his use of Cordoba, there has been an adamant refusal to give "the other" any benefit of the doubt or to rise above the attack politics of the day. It's not quite Red State vs. Blue State, but it's about as nasty. And upsetting.

Whatever happens with the mosque, the real lessons here are about how a local issue has been manipulated by media, politicians and bloggers into a national shouting match pitting people against each other.

Which, honestly, is damned pathetic given Rauf's expressed intent: a community center.

No Bias Here

Dennis is mad about people cheapening the Holocaust. The Holocaust, you say? Yes, the Holocaust.

Well gee, what is he mad about?

He's mad that left-wing Jews exploit the Holocaust for political purposes.

Really? Well, ok...

Of course, non-Jews on the left also compare conservatives to Nazis, and some non-Jews on the right will sometimes compare the left to Nazis, but there are three important differences.

Oh good, some even-handedness.

First, however many or few tea-party banners compare President Obama to Hitler (and such comparisons are as reprehensible as they are self-defeating), conservative public figures – such as politicians and prominent columnists – almost never compare liberals to Nazis, while public figures on the left often compare conservatives to Nazis.

Really? Which conservatives do you want to count, Dennis? I know, how about Rush Limbaugh? Kevin McCullough? Jonah Goldberg? Ann Coulter? Michael Steele? Ben Stein? Bill O'Moron? Glenn Beck? How many examples would you like?

Second, among liberal Jews, the percentage that believes that Americans on the right are just a step or two away from being Nazis seems to be greater than the proportion of liberal non-Jews who believe that.

Much as I hate to break out my usual Dennis refrain: "Based on what evidence (besides your imagination?)"

Seriously, Dennis, since when are you an expert on what left-wing "Shoah Cheapeners" really think? Have you been taking up mind-reading or something? How would you even have the ability to break down left-wing "Nazi paranoiacs" into Jews and non-Jews? Are you taking polls?

Third, when Jews on the left call conservative Americans Nazis, they mean it in its literal sense – they really do regard the conservatives they compare to Nazis as racists comparable to Nazi anti-Semites. On the other hand, when conservatives use the term, it is meant to signify non-democratic or dictatorial policies, regimes or individuals – e.g., Seinfeld's "soup Nazi" or Rush Limbaugh's "feminazis" – not as potential or likely mass murderers.

Uh huh... and who told you this, exactly?

Dennis says the left sees the right as "Nazi-like" because the left is extreme.

Leftist rhetoric routinely depicts opponents of the left in extreme terms. Opponents of race-based affirmative action are racists. Opponents of same-sex marriage are homophobes. Opponents of illegal immigration are xenophobes, racists and engaged in Nazism (that is the word that Cardinal Roger Mahony used to describe Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law.) And so on.

Ah yes, not at all like the paragons of centrism we get from conservative talk radio, protesters, or public figures media-whoring so people still remember them in three years. Please, do tell me more about those exciting death panels, Madam Palin.

This is where Dennis really goes off the deep end. He returns to his central idea that the reason left-wing exploitation of the Holocaust is so much worse than the right's is because the left really, really mean it:

When liberal Jewish columnist Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote recently that tea partiers had engaged a "small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht," he meant it...

Why would a New York Times columnist use the term when talking about American tea partiers?

Because when Rich and most other Jews on the left see right-wing non-Jews, they see swastikas.

Let's back up and re-think Dennis' premise: that Rich REALLY meant that the Tea Parties were Kristallnacht. So what, Rich thought that the Tea Partiers were literally about to start burning down synagogues? No? Then he didn't really mean it, did he?

And this past September, Grayson, referring to Congress not having passed health-care legislation, said on the floor of the House, "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America." In Grayson's view, 12 percent of Americans not having health insurance constitutes a "Holocaust."

Again, let's apply the "really really?" test. Does Grayson, crazy nutbag that he is, really think that people suffering from chronic conditions without medical coverage is comparable to being gassed? No? Then again, I guess he didn't really mean it! By the way, you know who invokes the Holocaust in connection with a pet healthcare issues ALL THE TIME? I'll give you three guesses.

Over and over again... rather than concede the fairly obvious point that liberals, like conservatives, can be thoughtless jackasses who engage in really inappropriate hyperbole to further their political agenda, Dennis would rather pretend that conservative rhetoric is meaningless because it's "just hyperbole," while liberal rhetoric is apparently beyond hyperbole, it's actually a sign of... what, exactly? Mental illness? Skewed values? Anyway, it's quite the argument considering all the things people have called Obama over the past three years. I guess left-wingers actually thought Bush was the physical reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, while right-wingers just say Obama is Hitler-esque, Nazi-like, Communist, etc. because they think it's cute.

...Because that's much better, right?

Funny thing, I'd think that the best way to guard the memory of the Holocaust would be to monitor-- and complain-- whenever anyone uses it as a cheap political trick, not give your side a pass so you can beat up on the left and then pat yourself on the back for being the World's Best Jew. But I guess that's why I'm not WBJ.

Sigh. I've written about this crap before. Here's my take on mis-using the Holocaust. Personally, I'd be happy if all these idiots would fall into a lake. Of course, I'd also request that they take Dennis' sanctimonious, intellectually-dishonest butt with them.

Get some copy-editors

Did the Jewish Week editors forget how to read? I'm not sure what else could explain these bizarre typos.

This first one was not so bad:

Blossom Schecker, who attended the program said, “It really got me thinking. They call it a democratic country, but how democratic is it? The Orthodox community is so strong and in such control that if you are Reform or Conservative, you are not recognized by the state. As an independent person, it would be impossible for me to ever live in Israel. It is discouraging because I don’t things are going to change and this is a problem without a solution.”

This next one was really, really bad:

A senior Hamas leader has condemned the cartoon video released by the terrorist organization’s armed wing showing Gilad Shalit returning in a coffin.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas on Monday condemned the video showing the captive Israeli soldier’s father wandering deserted streets looking at billboard after billboard of Israeli leaders promising to work for his son’s release.

As Noam Shalit shouts “No!” at the sight of the flag-draped coffin, he jerks awake inside a protest tent and realizes it is a dream. “There is still hope,” reads the closing caption of the video, followed by the symbol for Hamas.

The cartoon was captured in a cross-border raid nearly four years ago and is being held in Gaza.

Um, no.

...Incidentally, Jewish Week? Referring to a gay person as "a gay" is kind of passe.

Obama may again try to make a historic appointment, when he did last year by choosing Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic from the Bronx, Sarna says. This time: maybe an Asian or gay. “Race and gender are much more important. We are clearly beyond a ‘Jewish seat.’”

Just FYI.

---

Edit: Apparently illiteracy is contagious.

The Value of Roots

Apparently as genealogy has become a more popular pastime, assorted bitter cranks have played up their bitterness about it.

Don't get me wrong. I understand this. As you may have noticed, I bitch about many, many things. And when it comes to making fun of others' hobbies, I realize that one's person's interest is another person's cult (see Smart Phones, Twitter, or anything teenagers are doing these days).

However this is a little different. This time, it's my ox getting gored.

Yes, it seems that some people are mad because they've decided that tracing your family tree is stupid. My biggest problem with this isn't that we disagree (plenty of people in my family-- and Shiksa Girlfriend's family, actually), don't get my interest in the stuff, either. (Habakkuk once commented rather peevishly, "He seems more interested in learning about dead people than spending time with living ones.") No, what irritates me is that the people bagging on family history don't even seem to have a good idea why they don't like it.

Take Neil Genzlinger, TV critic for the NY Times bitching about NBC's "Who Do You Think You Are":

I also ended up wondering if there should be a warning screen that you have to click past to enter, as on a pornography site. “You are not a celebrity, and no one is going to pay for you to go to Tuscany, Poland, Benin and other far-off places as they do on those genealogy shows,” it would say. “Also, you may find that everyone you’re related to was nothing but a drone in the vast hive of humanity, living unremarkably and dying unexceptionally, just as you probably will.”

...After a few hours of this it was apparent to me that what we need is a companion site to this one, for the more mundane among us: fakeancestry.com. Because the hazard of genealogical research isn’t that you’ll find scallywags, rapscallions and miscreants in your family tree; it’s that you’ll find a bunch of ordinary folks, which as the mania for genealogy spreads will make you death at parties.

“My great-great-grandpa witnessed the eruption of Krakatoa. How about yours?”

“Well, I hear he made a pretty good mat.”

This bozo argument has been repeated recently by Sathnam Sanghera, a memoirist and writer for the UK Times. Sanghera slams genealogy for, being boring, inconsequential, and self-absorbed.

The Sex and the City star Sarah Jessica Parker may have learnt on the US version of Who Do You Think You Are? that a grandmother a half-dozen generations back was the victim of the subject of a Salem witch trial, but most genealogists struggle to produce something even that uninteresting.

Indeed, I had to do a bit of family investigation for a book, and all I discovered was that my father’s father was a farmer, that his father’s father was a farmer, and that his father’s father was a farmer too.

And before anyone points out the hypocrisy of a memoirist slagging off genealogy, life writing and genealogy are completely different. One being the equivalent of an interest in music, the other the equivalent of an interest in hi-fi equipment.

Though perhaps a better way of putting it is that genealogy is the academic equivalent of endlessly googling yourself. Aficionados like to say their pastime is a good way of learning about history, but it strikes me as a highly solipsistic and narcissistic way of doing so.

Show me a genealogist and I’ll show you someone who is basically obsessed with proving that they come from royal, aristocratic or celebrity lineage. Creepy and boring.

Here's the problem with both of these arguments. They assume that the only thing genealogists care about is impressing other people, AND that are all people are impressed by the same stuff-- namely, scandal or royalty. Sure, this may be what some people are interested in, but it's like saying the only reason stamp collectors do what they do is because they like sniffing old glue.

Take me: I started tracing my tree when I was still in middle school after my grandfather died and I realized I didn't know a thing about him, not because I was looking for cocktail party fodder. I've never specifically sought out black sheep, but I also haven't run away from them when they've come up. I've known since day one that my ancestors weren't particularly remarkable, and certainly neither rich nor famous. In short, there was no major reason anyone other than me might be interested in them. But I didn't care, because I was interested in learning about their lives, in discovering their stories and adding more dimensions to their characters.

Honestly, the concept that you would ever need to "dress up" your family history in order to make it interesting strikes me as being the height of narcissism or superficiality. Sanghera complains that he came from three generations of farmers, as if one's job is the only thing that defines you in the course of a lifetime. Personally, I love my family's stories; they're rich, they're interesting, and none of them have a thing to do with being famous. Rather, they have to do with being real, three-dimensional people, relatively normal people, with pockets of entertaining, tragic, or instructional experiences. Part of the joy of tracing the tree is that I've actually wound up being able to share new facts with older relatives that shed new light on stories or ancestors that they knew growing up.

People like Genzlinger and Sanghera want to have it both ways. On the one hand genealogists only care about finding famous or hyper-interesting relatives. On the other hand most of their trees aren't that interesting so they're really just gigantic bores. What these guys are really saying is that their view of self, family, and history is extremely superficial, and that they're trying to extrapolate their interests and, frankly, snobbery, onto everybody else. Needless to say, they're wrong.

Interestingly enough, I understand this tendency. Mother Superior Yid's sister, Bozette, is a certified megalomaniac and many years ago, decided that she was going to glom onto me, the family historian, as a way to help her ego by justifying her delusions of grandeur. She was very irritated when I wrote to her, excited, by saying that I had gotten translations of town records in Poland dating back to the late 1700s (about as far back as non-famous Jewish lineages can go in Eastern Europe). The reason? First, being Polish wasn't as sexy as being Hungarian (one of her grandparents had been Hungarian and she had been holding out for the rest of them having been, too). Second, she started getting very threatened when I pointed out that, no, we weren't rich, we weren't educated, we were actually a bunch of fairly dirt-poor merchants, including, in many cases, illiterates. She couldn't stand this and has actually manufactured false family details that she has told to her children.

Aunt Bozette, clearly, can't see past the externals, just like our two critics. The only thing that matters is social station or scandal (which provides a social class of its own). Yes, scandal is interesting, and a bit fun. And when I've found scandals here and there, it has been nice to do more digging. A few of my great-great-uncles were probably involved in organized crime. One put his kids in an orphanage after his wife died. One of my great-grandfathers was sued by the government in the 20s for price gouging during WWI. I recently found out that his father was probably a bigamist. I've even found quite a few cases of "kissing cousin" marriages (mostly in Europe). Of course, there are also various family intrigues about relatives screwing each other over, financially and otherwise.

BUT- the fact that this naughty stuff is interesting doesn't diminish my interest in my other ancestors who weren't thieves, philanderers or all-around crappy parents. I also don't mind that our closest link to any famous people is the fact that my g.grandfather's second-cousin married the first-cousin-once removed of Judah Magnes. I don't NEED famous people, sinners, or rabbis in order to be interested-- or proud-- in my family. Yes, my mother's family was from nowhere-ville, Poland. They were poor and uneducated. There were five of them. And they were also orphans. My g.g.grandfather, who became responsible for a household of eight when he was all of twenty years old, worked his ass off to bring himself to America, then all of his siblings, then all of his kids. I don't care what Sanghera says, that's an accomplishment. And the fact that his case was more common than not doesn't make it less interesting. If anything, it makes me want to find out more about people like him.

Life is hard work. It's always been hard work. But knowing the stories of my family is sustaining-- and also inoculating against all the cultural "hell in a handbasket" hysteria so common in the media these days. I've spent enough time with my ancestors to know that most people were far from perfect. Not in the 50s, not in the 30s, hell, not in the 1880s. Poor and vulnerable people have always needed to struggle to survive-- and what's remarkable, and inspiring, is that so many have found ways to do it. Screw royalty. I wouldn't trade my g.g.grandfather's story for anything.

History is made by little people, one life at a time. And there's no shame in being descended from-- or wanting to find out more about-- normal, everyday people.

----------------------------

Assuming this post defending genealogy from being boring hasn't bored you, here are some other treatments of this topic.

Um, no.

DYS had a decent post over on DovBear about how there is no reliable way in this day and age to determine which rabbis are "qualified" to be known as those uber of the uber, "gedolim" (sages). Of his various good points, one was that many of the gedolim don't keep up with the news of the world, using CNN as an example.

Daganev jumped all over this, first saying that CNN was biased, and then that all news sources are second-hand (at best) information that has been filtered through someone else's POV, suggesting that a major news network is no less accurate than rumored word of mouth news passed on through a rabbinic aide or mucky-muck.

At this point I interjected, saying that the basic point was solid-- there is something wrong when your average schmoe who reads the newspaper or watches the news knows more about what is going on on an international, national, and potentially even local level than leaders who purposefully avoid interacting with the outside world, or (potentially) even with other Jews from communities/background different from their own.

Think about it. The Gerrer rebbe reportedly refuses to meet with anyone that does not keep Shabbos to his satisfaction. Rabbi Elyashiv is 99 years old and spends almost all his time studying Talmud. Rabbi Shteinman did not know how a credit card works. These leaders are incredibly cloistered, partially by choices resulting from their personal beliefs about the corrupting nature of the outside world, and I suspect partially by the movers and shakers in their communities who use their influence over these old men for personal power and gain (see the Slifkin and Kamenetsky cases).

Now, potentially being hyper-focused on your own community can be beneficial, insofar as you have a very personal relationship with them, know their needs and problems, etc. However, to be considered a great leader in this day and age, IMO, it helps to at least have some sense of what's going on outside your zip code.

Daganev kept going:

Why would Yated Ne'eman or HaModia be any different from CNN or FOX or MSNBC? They are all news agencies are they not?

I would expect that gedolim get information first hand from the relevant sources for the relevant situations. If they are gedolim, they should have access to people and information that most people do not.

Here's the problem, Dag. First of all, that's like saying there's no difference between the Tanakh and the Satanic Bible because they're both Bibles.

Off the top of my head, I can think of four main differences: size, access, outlook, and internal vetting.

As a major news corporation with a national and international focus, CNN has hundreds if not thousands of correspondents whose job it is to monitor the airwaves, internet, and maintain private sources to know what is going on in the world under their "beat." Haredi media are comparatively tiny compared to major news corporations. I do not know the particulars of Yated's organizational structure but my impression is their resources are rather limited.

For the access issue, let's look at two examples: the White House and Iran. For the White House, CNN has several correspondents out there almost daily, who attend Press Corps briefings, have regular access to White House staff, have years of journalistic experience, and who are in a position, however personally biased, to more accurately interpret information as they directly receive it. How many resources do you think Yated devotes to White House coverage? To the Knesset?

Ditto for Iran. CNN employs Iranian-American commentators, has Farsi-speaking journalists who monitor Iranian media, etc. When necessary they can speak with experts in Iranian culture, Shia theologians, etc. Going out on a limb, I doubt you'll see any of this in the pages of Yated.

This also goes to outlook. My impression is that Yated, et al, are frankly not that interested in events that occur outside of their circumscribed field of interest. Add to this the issue of outright censoring (proudly) or ignoring events that they feel either show bad lessons, or potentially corrupt their readership, and you basically wind up with media whose primary job is upbeat navel-gazing. Observe:

Meanwhile, a senior editor at the haredi daily Hamodia said that his paper would totally ignore the incident.

"We do not want our children asking questions about that community," said the editor, who was interviewed on condition of anonymity.

"Our philosophy is to stay away from that entire issue," added the editor. "Someone who walks into a perfumer's store comes out smelling good. But someone who walks into a tanner's comes out smelling bad."

Believe me, I'm not a fan of the Crossfire-style "Left/Right screamfest" so endemic to American news these days, but there is at least a token understanding that there are multiple points of view on a subject. Look at most Israeli media and you'll see a similar pattern: Ha'aretz, for all its left-leaning tilt, runs op-eds by right-wingers. Ditto for the Jerusalem Post. Is the debate stilted? Maybe. Manufactured? Perhaps. But at least it's acknowledged and given expression. Where is the debate in the pages of the Yated?

The last point is that as a huge corporation whose interest is in making money, CNN has a vested interest in not alienating its viewers, and therefore has at least some motivation to tell a story honestly, or at least not outrageously skewed. It, like all major news organizations, has a number of internal structures, such as ombudsmen, who monitor the output and (hopefully) take steps to rectify mistakes or issues of bias. In theory at least, CNN can be reproached by the public if it screws something up, and has an interest in fixing it.

Papers like the Yated and Hamodia, TBMK, are pet projects of their patrons, Elyashiv and Alter, respectively, and therefore their primary interests is in spreading their leaders' message to the flock and in selling news consistent with their leaders' opinions and POVs.

Bias exists everywhere. But call a spade a spade. The New York Times, or BBC, or even Fox News, for all their individual failings, are professional organizations whose mission is to cover information occuring all over the world. They are in fact, a little different than a mimeographed fact sheet produced by a lone kook in Montana.

Edit: And he's still going... apparently only "rank and file" people need to have credentials. The "best of the best" don't need to bother with such pesky matters. Oy.