Cordoba: For the Record...

Some conservative Christians are trying to read a lot into the name of the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero.

For instance:

The project has long been referred to (by its promoters) as The Cordoba Initiative. Many Americans, who find history boring, have hardly noticed the designation. Possibly it makes them think of dad’s old car, that Chrysler with the “rich Corinthian leather” touted by the late Ricardo Monteban. But really, there is something else going on.

And it’s hiding in plain sight.

You see, Cordoba is an important name to Islamist supremacists because it refers to the caliphate established more than 1,200 years ago in Spain. The Muslims triumphed there over the “infidel” Christians and built a great mosque on the foundation of a Christian cathedral. They were all about symbolism even back then. The proximity of the proposed mosque to Ground Zero has nothing to do with co-existence or bridge building.

Cordoba is code for conquest.

And also this twit, who has a knack for "borrowing" both from the above writer as well as Newt Gingrich:

You say Cordoba, I say Muslim conquest. The storm surrounding the Cordoba mosque in New York City is growing larger. It has many Americans fearful of what our future holds if a Muslim mosque is built two blocks from Ground Zero. Before I really dug deep to research this controversy I was conflicted. On one hand I felt disrespected, as most Americans feel; on the other I felt everyone has the religious right to build where they want to build. However, we aren't talking about a peace-loving religion like Buddhism. We're talking about the very religion that caused our country enormous heartache. It's like putting a Nazi support group next to Auschwitz.

...Don't be fooled into thinking this is a peaceful mosque. If the people pushing for this cause were so peaceful and loving, they would respect our country and respect the Americans who lost their lives on Sept. 11. Why are they pushing so hard to build this mosque when it is clearly causing turmoil? This is a big country, plenty of space to build anywhere you like. But they chose two blocks from Ground Zero? On top of that, they want to call it Cordoba.

Let us wander into history for a moment. The first Cordoba mosque in Spain was built after the Moors, a Muslim people, conquered the Spanish city of Cordoba, which was under the Roman Empire at the time. Now, it seems suspicious that Muslims would like to build a mosque near Ground Zero and call it Cordoba, which symbolizes conquest. It's not a coincidence. This appears to be a well-calculated show put on by those who support this mosque, and it is destructive to the core.

There's only one problem with this argument: when Jews think of Cordoba, as Tablet's Marc Tracy points out, they think of the Golden Age of Spain.

Though it is now to be called Park51—a reference to its address, 45-51 Park Place—its initial name was Cordoba House, and the nonprofit behind it remains the Cordoba Initiative. It’s a reference to the city of Córdoba. But what does southern Spain have to do with southern Manhattan?

Córdoba was the capital of the Islamic caliphate that controlled the Iberian peninsula during the Middle Ages. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who runs the Cordoba Initiative with his wife, named his project “after the period between roughly 800 and 1200 CE, when the Cordoba Caliphate ruled much of today’s Spain, and its name reminds us that Muslims created what was, in its era, the most enlightened, pluralistic, and tolerant society on earth,” he wrote in his 2004 book What’s Right With Islam. Rauf is seeking to align himself with those who see the period as the “Golden Age of Spain,” or what’s called the convivencia—“the coexistence”—when members of the three Abrahamic faiths lived side-by-side in peace, prosperity, and astonishing cultural and intellectual creativity.

Tracy goes on to illustrate how Jewish conceptions of Spain have, not surprisingly, usually distorted the actual history to fit their ideology. However there's no question that the popular Jewish vision of the Golden Age, while not perfect, is usually positive.

I don't know much about Imam Rauf. I honestly don't know what his agenda is. (Though I do think it's interesting that people are accusing a Sufi imam of being a jihadist ideologue given that Sufis are about as well-liked by Sunni fundamentalists as Jews.) But to act like the mere use of "Cordoba" is a smoking gun for jihadism just illustrates who really doesn't know their history.

Rotem and Identity

There are lots of things I don't like about the recent Rotem bill brou-ha-ha in Israel. And yes, there's plenty of blame to go around.

First, as always, the elephant in the room, is Israel's lack of a civil marriage option. Supposedly, this is the very issue that bothers Rotem's party, Yisrael Beiteinu, so much, given that much of their Russian constituency are not halakhic Jews as per the Chief Rabbinate. Some folks with allegedly insider information have said that Rotem is actually trying to pass two bills, one trying to make conversion easier (at least in this instance), and one pushing for a civil marriage law. Unfortunately, in order to get the Haredi parties on board (particularly Shas), Rotem had to amend his bill to reinforce the present status quo, i.e., that the Chief Rabbinate gets final say over all conversions. Cue American Jewish outrage, angry letters, and likely a fair amount of high mucky-muck conversations with Israeli politicians. Next step was Bibi Netanyahu stepping in and tabling the whole matter for a good six months.

This brings us to the second dilemma: what is the appropriate level of American Jewish involvement in Israeli affairs? Some Israelis would say very little-- who are Americans to tell Israelis how to be Jewish? The problem here is that Israel is not just a sovereign nation, but also "the Jewish state," i.e., the state of the Jews. With Diaspora demographics declining, Israel is becoming (somewhat) more justified in viewing itself as the center of Jewishness. So the question then becomes, is Israeli Judaism the new standard? Whatever your opinion on this, it's unquestionable that Israel views itself as the center of the Jewish world. Which means, among other things, that decisions of its Rabbinate have (or at least have the potential to have) global consequences. The sovereign nation argument is ultimately a strawman, because Israel's identity or consciousness is not exclusively localized within the boundaries of land. I don't care what Nepal thinks about me. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. Israel, on the other hand, has constructed its national identity on the twin pillars of Israeli-ness and Jewish-ness, and the later is something I lay claim to. If Israel's rabbis and government declare heterodox rabbis, or their converts, illegitimate, this becomes a very personal thing. As the Jewish state, Israel claims a connection with Jews around the world, and has consciously cultivated this relationship since before the founding of the state. Sometimes Israel uses that connection to ask the Diaspora for help. Part of the question here seems to center around what the acceptable boundaries are when it comes to the Diaspora flipping the script and asking for something from Israel, namely, recognition of heterodox movements and either liberalizing the rabbinate or decreasing its influence.

Last point: I understand the argument that if heterodox movements want equal rights in Israel, they should put their money where their mouths are and move there. Here are some responses:

First, part of an western democracy's job is to protect the rights of minorities. There shouldn't be a minimum threshold you need to pass in order to be counted. There is only one Jew left in Afghanistan, does that mean he's forfeited any rights as a citizen?

Second, Israel's privileging of Orthodoxy (and simultaneous disenfranchisement of heterodoxy) means that heterodox Jews are caught in a catch-22. On the one hand defenders of the status-quo say the onus is on them to immigrate, build up their communities, and thereby "earn" (maybe) the right to be treated as equals. The problem here is that you are basically demanding that, before they're even allowed to be part of the conversation, these folks must relocate to a country that on the civic and government level, has shown itself to be hostile to them. What's the motivation here, exactly? A Reform rabbi may spend time in Israel and fall in love with it. They may want to move there to strengthen the heterodox community and support the country. But I imagine that knowing that every time they want to practice their Judaism it is going to be an uphill battle can't make it a very easy choice.

Third, last I checked there were still plenty of Orthodox Jews in America as well. They seem to feel no qualms interjecting their opinions on Israeli matters. Nor do I see many of them calling on their community members to stop because, as non-Israelis, they don't really have the right to have an opinion, much less work to make it happen. The only time I see American Jews getting up in arms about "interference" with Israeli policy is when they happen to agree with the status-quo! The accusations that American Jews are selfish or backstabbing Israel over hurt feelings is a way of side-stepping the fact that Israel (and the Orthodox) appeal to Jewish unity and identity when it serves their purpose, but get "outraged" when heterodox Jews point out that it's awfully hard to feel affectionate towards a country that claims to be your "home" while not recognizing your rabbis, converts or marriages. This isn't about "feelings" as much as it is respect and consistency. Israel can't tell the Diaspora that all Jews are family, etc when they want something and then act outraged when the Diaspora asks back. If Israel wants to claim to be the universal Jewish home, then it should act like it. If not, don't be surprised or self-righteous when heterodox Jews start getting alienated.

One blogger cited this article from the Jerusalem Post, in which the author says,

The way America’s Reform and Conservative movements see it, the battle over conversion in Israel is between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy. Well it isn’t. Rather, it’s between ultra-Orthodoxy and modern Orthodoxy, and to join this battle, American Jewry must set aside its longer-term agendas and help Israel’s modern-Orthodoxy win this battle. 

The problem with this call to arms is that you are asking American Jews to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves and their counterparts, under the hope that the lesser of two evils will eventually grant them equality. If the heads of the Modern Orthodox community were all like Seth Farber, that would be one thing. But when one of the Chief Rabbis, a supposed "moderate" among the MO known for trying to liberalize the rabbinate goes to the press and repeatedly bashes heterodox Jews, let's just say it makes the prospect of an alliance a whole lot less palatable.

This is what Rabbi Amar said at the beginning of August:

Israeli laws should be determined by residents of Israel who defend its security and bear its burdens. If our Jewish brethren immigrate to Israel, we will welcome them with great joy, and then they would be entitled, as citizens, to struggle for the adoption of their perspective.

Ok, Israelis should determine Israeli policy. I can understand the argument. Except then there was this a mere week later:

And it’s no secret that our spiritual state is low and demeaned, be it in the relations between people or in the increasing violence and cruelty, even murder, which has reached the lowliest state, God save us. And also in the other commandments that bind us, the levels of modesty and morality have decreased exponentially, and the most difficult plague is that of hitbolleloot [abandoning the Jewish law and adopting a western way of life] that everywhere plagues our holy and pure people, as is the case in other countries in which the dilution has reached terrible ends, so is it now in our holy land, this ill is everywhere and nobody pays attention.

And those who call themselves liberals and Reform, and their friends and supporters, they are responsible for this terrible crime, they support it openly and without shame.

And now they dig their claws into the people who live in Zion, and they try to dictate to us a lifestyle, that Israel should be like all other nations, God forbid, and they terrorize us in various ways, and they formed legions of warriors inside the land of Israel whose sole purpose is to rip the Torah out of Israel and defile the religious courts and everything that’s holy, and they’ll use whatever ways and means they can, by threatening and exerting influence on ministers and members of Knesset and by appealing to the courts. Things are getting worse and worse.

Presumably, this rant includes Israeli heterodox Jews. So much for them being entitled to "struggle for their perspective."

If this is from a so-called moderate, then what's the point? When the Chief Rabbi accuses other movements of being criminals and terrorists, that seems to suggest a major disconnect. Who are the heterodox supposed to talk to? What is there left to talk about?

The bottom-line seems to be that Israel doesn't want to give heterodox movements equal status basically because it doesn't feel like it. And ditto for civil marriage. At the end of the day the answer to American Jews is that the Orthodox refuse to deviate from their worldview, and the seculars seem not to give a damn. Claims that by separating Rotem's bill from the Law of Return "avoid the issue" are missing the point. Most American Jews aren't upset because they personally will be shafted if their children or converts make aliyah. They're angry because by maintaining the status quo, Rotem and his supporters indicate that they don't care about heterodox Jews-- especially the vast majority of American Jews. The problem is the slap to the face, not whether they'll actually be turned away at the door.

Are the Orthodox entitled to have their "perspective?" Of course. But asking that American Jews not care is a pipe dream. Damn right we care. We should care. (And actually, it's good for Israel that we care, because it shows that we still care about-- and identify with-- Israel.) And if supposed liberalizers like Rotem were smart, they would reach out to us rather than leave us to their political opponents (Kadima) to rile up.

Ditto for the Americans. While both sides are talking past each other, American Jews are being used as a boogey-man for Israelis bemoaning the loss of the Rotem bill. The American community would have a much better leg to stand on if they showed some damn consistency. If you're going to exert pressure for a cause, then actually do it and communicate-- to the rank and file-- why it's important, don't just call the Prime Minister in a hissy fit every few years when you remember that, oh yeah, the Rabbinate still has an Orthodox monopoly on the state. Israelis aren't going to care about this issue just because American Jews care. We have to get the Israelis to care. Going above their heads by using our Bibi hotline gets us nowhere.

If the Modern Orthodox want help liberalizing the rabbinate, I don't see the harm in allying with them-- BUT the heterodox community actually has to stand on its principles and stay true to its ultimate goals of making Israel a more open society that heterodox Jews can feel just as comfortable and proud of as their Orthodox counterparts. Otherwise it really does just come off as petty.

Some Closure

I've written about my great-uncle Bill before. Last time I said this:

He was younger than I am now and, by all accounts, never really gave a shit about much. He could have stayed out of WWII (at least for another year or so) if he had stayed in school, but he simply didn't care. He dropped out and the army got him. He got sent out to the South Pacific and on his first mission, the ship got torpedoed. Supposedly he made it to shore with some of his unit, where he was promptly shot by a Japanese sniper and buried on the beach by his buddies.

For a long time Bill was listed as MIA, and so they kept hoping he was alive somewhere. My grandfather tried to enlist, thinking he'd go "find" his brother. Turns out flat footed, only surviving sons with dependents, Messiah complexes and who have trouble following orders and getting along with others aren't in much demand, even in war time. Zayde built Liberty Ships during the war instead, pretending like he was helping somehow.

Finally word came in that Bill was dead. His immigrant parents were crushed. They were Yiddish Communists, for crying out loud! I can't imagine what their thoughts about the whole mess were. My g.grandfather insisted on the body being sent back, even though his daughters begged him to let him stay in peace. Zaideh always got his way.

Bill's body came back- the day before his sister got married. Great-grandfather figured out a solution: no one told her. She got married and they held the body. The next morning, she went on her honeymoon and the rest of the family went to Staten Island for the funeral and 21-gun salute.

My great-grandmother never saw the body, so she always claimed that he wasn't really dead. Forty years later, she would still do this. It must have just killed them.

And even though they were Communists, they must have felt some attachment to America, otherwise they wouldn't have stayed. And I know they kept all of Bill's war stuff (I have his Purple Heart). So there's some feeling there.

But was Bill a patriot? Was the fact that his Mom became a Gold Star Mom, that she sacrificed a son, did that change her American-ness? (It doesn't seem to have changed her ideology- she was a raving Pinko all through the 50s and 60s, and apparently her kids were scared shitless in the McCarthy days that she was going to get them all deported.) I'm really not sure. What does seem clear is that Bill didn't die for a damn thing- he had no cause. It doesn't sound like he really had any ambitions at all, and that was part of why he didn't care when he got drafted. He was just a kid, and a nonentity at that. Which is what makes it all the more egregious when men like him are retconned to fit someone's idea of what a warrior, or a war hero, should be.

Bill got an American flag, but I don't think he died for it. He probably wasn't even fighting for it. He had just happened to wind up in a shitty situation and was dealing with it. And even though that might not be particularly romantic, I think it's a lot more honest than a lot of the language we get about war in this country.

It has been one of my long-term goals to find out more about this man. For a long time all I knew was his name, rank, branch of service, and where he died. It took five years to even get his service number. After that I wrote to the Military Branch of the National Archives. Good old family luck; his record had been incinerated in a fire.

And then I came across a web page discussing something called Individual Deceased Personnel Files. These are files for soldiers who have died overseas. I sent Bill's info in, and, surprise, surprise, got something back.

I had been dreaming of getting a little closer to him. Finding out something more that would make him live again. It gave me his birthday. It told me his unit. And it described his death, albeit briefly.

Bill died on Bougainville Island in the Solomon Islands (now part of New Guinea), somewhere few people have ever heard of, on the third day of a three week battle. While the battle has gone down in history as the romantic-sounding "Battle for Hill 260," the soldiers who fought it called it "The Battle of the Million-Dollar Tree." Yes, a single tree. A 150-foot banyan tree with an observation post on top that would give whoever controlled it a significant tactical advantage. The Americans established a base on the island and were slowly pushing in, the Japanese counter-attacked for the observation post. 98 Americans died during those three weeks in March. And at the end, this is what was left:

He was 19 years old. He was a brother, a son, a friend. And he died for a tree. Not for freedom, not to defend America or anything else. The commanders made a decision to hold the ridge, to fight for the observation post rather than risk the Japanese taking it or chopping it down, and 98 men died. And at the end of all that, the damn thing burned down anyway, thanks to American flamethrowers trying to repel the Japanese. How fitting. Other battles were fought on the island, but even after the Americans (and later, Australians) had virtual total control, the Japanese still held out, all the way until Japan's surrender.

It's hard to read about this and think that his death made much difference in the big picture. They didn't even hold the tree. All that comes across is a massive waste.

The records help clear up some matters, help clarify the stories. There was no bombed transport, though there may have been a sniper. He wasn't drafted, he volunteered. And the time period between him being listed as MIA and KIA was less than a month. It did, apparently, take five years to get his body repatriated, though. He was buried and re-buried five times between Bougainville and Staten Island. And he did show up, unannounced, the day before his sister's wedding. Just an extra twist of the knife for good measure.

I wonder whether Bill surviving the war would have changed things. What it might have done for my grandfather. What did losing his brother, his only brother, do to him as a young man of 24? Was that part of what helped push him over the edge? It's probably wishful thinking to imagine that having one more sibling around could have helped anchor him to reality and kept the demons of bipolar disorder away.

But I also have a brother. And though we're very different, and not necessarily close, I can't imagine what losing him would do to me.

It's hard to feel this way about someone important to your family. Part of me wonders if my inability to view Bill as a hero isn't disrespectful to him. But then I think about who he actually was, and how he actually died, and I can't admire him for that, only pity him.

There's a primal need, to memorialize people. To make the ordinary into heroes, and to craft stories that make sense of terrible things, particular war. And I won't deny that there is heroism in everyday acts. But to claim heroism where there is only dumb fortune, or even worse, misfortune, seems wrong. It seems false, dishonest. Raising Bill up as a hero when he was really just terribly, tragically, unlucky, seems to make his death all the more bitter, as if his life needs to be re-cast because it's not good enough. I'm not ashamed that he wasn't a hero-- he was a young man in a war zone. The point is that being in an extraordinary situation does not make one extraordinary. We focus on the extraordinary folks and ignore, minimize, or whitewash the ordinary ones.

Bill was not a hero. But he was probably trying to do his best. No more, no less. And, while more would be nice, I don't need more to give his death dignity. Maybe purpose is too far to go, but dignity, I can comprehend. If the conversation about soldiers, wounded, the dead, could shift from automatically claiming everyone involved in a war as a hero (which frames war exclusively in a simplistic good vs. evil, heroes vs. villains viewpoint), and trying to look at individuals from a perspective of respect and honesty, I think we might be able to get a little further in understanding what war is, and in bridging the gap between those who have been to war and those who haven't. I've read enough war memoirs, ranging from World War I to Vietnam to present-day, to understand that for lots of veterans, the only thing they hate more than being dismissed as heartless villains is to be idolized as glorious heroes. For many soldiers, war is not heroic, war is messy, random, and at times, painfully stupid. Calling the whole thing "heroic" is an easy way to avoid having to face the real tragedies and horrors that come with actually sending your sons and daughters to go kill other people's.

I don't want to speak for anyone else's family. But when we try to elevate, sanctify, or downright re-write something that has no inherent meaning, no purpose... I don't think that makes it any better. If anything, it just highlights how much of life and war doesn't match what we wish it did. All we're left with is the loss. Loss of the loved one, and loss of the meaning we wish we had.

Rest In Peace.

I'm a little confused

So apparently it's ok for (mostly Christian) Americans to complain about Islamic insensitivity in building a mosque near the WTC (or, apparently, anywhere). Ok, I get the cultural sensitivity tack.

But then what about this?

Christians Gather in D.C. to 'Submit' America to God

WASHINGTON – A small but energetic crowd gathered at Lafayette Park across from the White House Friday to pray for America to return to God.

The passionate prayers, which many times appeared more like preaching, drew “Hallelujah's,” “Yes, Lord's,” and hand waving from the crowd. Participants of the D.C. pray-for-America gathering, organized by www.praylive.com, came from as far away as California and as close as Maryland.

“We are doing this because America is in desperate need of prayer,” said Wenda Royster, co-founder of www.praylive.com. “We have such disrespect for God in this nation today. We are praying 2 Chronicles 7:14. We are coming back to God. A place where we know we can get results. We can’t get results anywhere else but looking to God. That is why we are here.”

More than a dozen pastors and intercessors led prayers at the gathering. A theme that ran across several different prayers was bringing prayer back to school. Several of the prayer leaders called on God to bless America’s children and raise up an “excellent” new generation.

They also prayed for God to give wisdom to Members of Congress and the president.

“In your mighty name, release your strategies to our president and our Congress men and women so they would lead this country faithfully,” prayed the Rev. Jacqueline Reeves of Spoken Word Ministry in New Jersey. “Give our leaders wisdom to lead this nation for the glory of God, hallelujah.”

“I submit this country into your hands,” she declared. “We give America to you, Lord. And I pray that your people will seek your face 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

So, Islamic submission to Allah, bad. Christian submission to "the Big Guy," cool? Why, exactly?

Ok, but that was just one protest (granted, one led by people who don't mind a little cultural appropriation). Surely there are plenty of folks with better taste out there. I mean, this whole thing has been over taste, right?

Christians to Utilize Prayers, TV to Reach Muslims During Ramadan

Open Doors USA, a ministry that supports persecuted believers, is launching a campaign in which Christians will pray for Muslims throughout Ramadan, from Aug. 11 to Sept. 9.

David, whose real name was withheld for security reasons, shared with the ministry how he heard the voice of Jesus during Ramadan through the prayers of an elderly Christian woman. According to experts on Muslim-to-Christian conversions, it is not uncommon for Muslims in the countries hostile to Christianity to report being led to Jesus Christ through dreams and visions.

“She (the elderly woman) said, ‘I have been praying for you every time you walked into that mosque. It’s just amazing to see that God has answered my prayer,’” recalled David. “She was very surprised because she never thought that I could actually become a believer in Christ. In her eyes, I looked very hard to convince. That will always stay on my heart; to know that my prayers can make a difference to somebody.”

Open Doors USA is offering a Ramadan Prayer Calendar on its website to help Christians pray for Muslims during the 30-day period. The calendar also contains prayer requests for Christians who face persecution in Muslim countries.

Oh yeah, nothing disrespectful here. And I like how it's only indirectly stated that the Christian groups are "praying for Muslims" to convert. This more recent version on the same site isn't even that specific, just saying that Christians are "going to pray" during Ramadan (for what, cheese?)

But wait, there's more. What other fun can we look forward to during Ramadan?

While Open Doors is focusing on reaching Muslims through prayers, SAT-7 – a Christian satellite television service to the Middle East and North Africa – plans to do the same through programs that explain who Christ is.

“It’s a religious time, but it’s also a family time. And it’s also a time when many people in the Arab world are truly seeking God,” said David Harder, SAT-7’s communications manager, to Mission Network News. “We have many stories of people who, during Ramadan, have been crying out for God to reveal Himself and they have dreams of Jesus.”

So we're agreed then: the next person that complains about Muslims' bad taste gets their tongue dipped in liquid nitrogen.

This is painful

I know I'm a snarky bastard. But when I read some of these religion and culture columnists and see just how earnest they are about their silliness, it's really hard to not want to smack them.

Take Mark Oppenheimer, who's previously bemoaned the over-saturation of the Haggadah market and bitched about how Reform Jews should pray Tachanun because it would give them a sense of what it's like to feel vulnerable before God, "like the Catholic confession." Oh-Kay.

What's Mark sad about now? Kindles. Yeah. But not for the reason you think.

the Kindle is yet another step away from from old media like vinyl and paper. This matters to collectors and nostalgic types (of which I am one), but the really important issues raised by the new technology, the ones all of us face, are social and romantic. Simply put, our gadgets give us too much privacy.

Fine, Mark, I'll bite. Why is privacy bad?

One by one, the meaningful artifacts that we used to scatter about our apartments and cars, disclosing our habits to any visitor, are vanishing from sight.

What?

Nowhere is this problem more apparent, and more serious, than in the imperilment of the Public Book—the book that people identify us by because they can glimpse it on our bookshelves, or on a coffee table, or in our hands. As the Kindle and Nook march on, people's reading choices will increasingly be hidden from view. We'll go into people's houses or squeeze next to them on the subway, and we'll no longer be able to know them, or judge them, or love them, or reject them, based on the books they carry.

This is a delicate matter. I can already hear some readers turning the page (perhaps a Kindle "page"), muttering that only an elitist jerk picks friends or lovers based on what they can be seen reading. 

It's not elitist, it's just dumb. Among other things, it assumes that there's no filter between people's public and private reading. There are plenty of books I read about religion, sex, or war that I would never bring to my work, because I don't need any of that baggage. Hell, I've bought Bill O'Reilly books on occasion (granted, ten years after they went to print, and from a thrift store). When I go on interviews I spend a fair amount of time thinking about what books are acceptable so I don't come off too weird. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who's figured this out. On the "gathering intelligence" scale, you're better off asking the friends of the object of your affection what their interests are, not deciding you totally know them based on the fact that you saw them reading something that one time.

Well, maybe. This essay is for the rest of you, the ones who freely admit to having been seduced by a serendipitous volume of Jamaica Kincaid's Annie John glimpsed on a potential girlfriend's living-room shelf or by a spine-broken copy of Robert Lowell sitting atop that boy's nightstand. Maybe that was your first time in the apartment, you had been reluctant to go, and now you wanted to linger a while …

Mark, I'm really trying to be nice here, but you are coming off like the lamest guy ever (and I went to a "nerdy" college). All I can say is it's a good thing you're already married.

Not convinced? Fear not! Mark has some TMI stories about his early dating escapades to share. No privacy issues here!

When I was 22 there was the dazzling brunette who, weeks into the relationship, when I asked why she had agreed to a date, said, "I liked your books." In that first studio apartment, I had deposited a box of college reading I had never gotten to: my Oxford Study Bible, a book about Second Temple Judaism, and Awash in a Sea of Faith, a history of American religion. At a small party I threw, to which I had invited the few people I knew in town, she—dragged there by a friend—had been intrigued by these books sitting on that bookshelf. (Ikea, of course.)

Excuse me? So she decided she liked you based on books she saw in your apartment, books you had never even bothered to read. Yeah, I don't know how young people are going to be able to muddle through this crazy love thing without physical books on the shelves. How else are we going to impress the opposite sex into thinking we're smarter or deeper than we are?

When I was 26 there was the English teacher at the summer school where I was teaching who noticed my copy of Best American Essays 1996. Her face broke wide open, into a big, eager smile, and she said, "The page from Anna Karenina!" I knew exactly what she was talking about: a passage in Ian Frazier's essay "Take the F," one of the included essays, where he spots a torn page while walking along Carroll Street in Brooklyn, bends over, and discovers that it's page 191 of Anna Karenina. The next day, she slipped a copy of a different Ian Frazier essay into my faculty mailbox, and then books were exchanged, and so forth …

Books were exchanged, then fluids were exchanged. Got it.

And then came my bride. Early gifts from her: a paperback of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which she couldn't believe I hadn't read, and Love That Dog, by Sharon Creech. Oddly, I gave her Our Guys, by Bernard Lefkowitz, about the high-school gang rape in Glen Ridge, N.J. I'm not sure what I was thinking.

Fair enough, I'm not sure what you're thinking now.

So what will you do, Kindle generation, when you cannot tell which of the quiet boys holding the e-reader on the subway is engrossed by the latest, predictable legal thriller, and which one by a cheery, long-forgotten Laurie Colwin novel? If by some chance you do end up with the right one, what do you buy him a month later, when it is time for that first, tentative, not-too-expensive present—a gift certificate for a free download?

How about a free punch in the nose?

Look, Mark, I also like giving books as gifts, and I also enjoy reading physical books, but of all the things to take a cultural stand on, this is really a silly one. Yes, common connections help you get the first date, but to single out books people read on the subway as the cornerstone of successful relationships is, I think, taking your Andy Rooney Jr. act a little too far. You're only 40, for God's sake! Besides, in a day of total media overload and over-sharing mania, I honestly don't mind people keeping a little something to themselves.

As a sign of civilizational decline, this is a minor matter. After all, love will always find its way. Even books, like romance, will live on. They will continue to be exchanged, and in fact their quaintness will only increase their value. When they are truly rare, to give one as a gift will imply the batted eyelashes. Books will, in short, suffer the fate that has already befallen letters sent by mail: preciousness.

You know what's not precious? This column. It's not entertaining, it's not clever, it's just odd.

Worse, they will no longer be that perfect lending object: inexpensive, plentiful, deeply felt. We'll look back fondly on a time when we had hundreds of these things, any one of which could, if she admired it, be stuffed in her backpack as she left. Or, if you weren't so generous, she could surreptitiously "borrow" it, then have an excuse to return it. Maybe she would give it back, maybe she wouldn't. Maybe she would find it a year later and have to hide it from another, newer arrival in her life. Maybe it would find its way back to you, left on your doorstep under cover of night, standing in for all the conversations that you and she were too cowardly to have.

Wow, it's like the literary equivalent of Lifetime plus saccharine plus a hammer to the temple. Sweet New York Review of Books.

Here's a tip, Mark: if you want to ensure that at least one book will never be made into a downloadable version, write one based on this terrible essay. It's bullet-proof.

Come on, focus!

I don't know if WND has a bad case of ADD or what, but their latest columns are really all over the place.

Take this dreck by Les Kinsolving, which is so inflammatory you'd think it was made of rayon.

A 'gay' private with blood on this hands?

Oh, this should be good.

The Telegraph also featured photographs of Bradley Manning: "who could face more than 50 years in prison for treasonous conduct, holding up a sign with rainbow colors, demanding 'equality on the battlefield' and participating in a gay pride parade."

Ok... and the significance of this is?

The Telegraph also reported that Pfc. Manning is "not only a homosexual, but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and is being detained by U.S. authorities."

Wait, what does any of this have to do with the story? You know, the one where he leaked thousands of documents?

Why, if "don't ask, don't tell" is still authoritative in our armed forces, was Pfc. Manning engaging in such public behavior?

Uh, maybe it has something to do with the same motivations that caused him to steal documents? Maybe he was mentally or emotionally unbalanced, maybe he was upset at a variety of army policies. I don't know. Are you really claiming this as a gay protest against the army?

If all of this very serious trouble can be caused by just one promiscuous homosexual private first class, what on earth would be the effect on the U.S. Army of sergeants and captains and colonels who, after the repeal of "dont ask, don't tell," could announce their homosexual orientation in the barracks?

Wait, wait, you lost. Me. Are you pretending like the part you're mad about is him holding up a rainbow sign, not the accusations of treason? Or are you trying to link being "a promiscuous homosexual" (evidence?) with being a national security threat?

This was only one private first class, who was a multiple-partnered homosexual activist who was able and willing to leak 90,000 secret U.S. military documents. If one private first class can cause such an enormously horrendous security violation, who can estimate the full potential of the Obama hope to open our armed forces to the sodomy lobby?

Wow. Just, wow. This is your go-to scare scenario? Not hot "troop movements" in the shower, not singing "YMCA" on parade, but anti-military spies? Don't you think you might moving the goalposts just a little? I mean, it's one thing to go after this one guy, but it's ballsy to claim that it's slippery slope from going to a Pride rally to stealing classified documents.

Question: why would gays volunteer for the military just to spy on it? Furthermore, why would being allowed to come out make a difference on whether they decided to spy or not? Wouldn't giving gays more rights make them less frustrated, less disgruntled, and less likely to act against the military? (You know, assuming that Manning constitutes any sort of trend, which of course you haven't demonstrated at all.)

It gets better. Resident Jew-hawk Aaron Klein manages to hijack his own story, ostensibly about a wacko Pentecostal church in Brazil building a life-sized model of the First Temple, and turns it into a rant about Muslim Palestinians. No, really.

It starts out predictably enough: super right-wing Jews are presented as mainstream and their loopier activities go unmentioned; and anything they dislike not only happens to be bad, but also part of a global evil entirely directed at bugging them.

"This planned church is a mockery which stands in diametric opposition to everything that the Holy Temple of Jerusalem represents," Rabbi Chaim Richman, director of the international department of the Temple Institute, stated in a press release.

"The Bible, bequeathed to the world by the Jewish people, emphasizes the preeminence of Jerusalem and its spiritual and prophetic role in the future of both Israel and all mankind," Richman said.

"We are witness today to the phenomenon of nations that seek to de-legitimize Israel's connection to Jerusalem. This planned megachurch represents the next logical step, the de-legitimization of the significance of Jerusalem altogether," he said.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what this church was thinking. It couldn't be that they're just oblivious or self-centered, they've got to be doing it deliberately to undermine Israel!

Richman slammed the reported plans by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God as a "cynical and manipulative attempt to morph the Bible's universal message into its own self-serving agenda."

According to the U.K. Guardian, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God will construct a church in Sao Paulo based on King Solomon's Temple, including a replica of the Ark of the Covenant at its center.

"We are preparing ourselves to build the temple, in the same mold as Solomon's," Bishop Edir Macedo, the church's leader and founder, was quoted as saying in the report.

"[Solomon's] Temple … used tons of gold, pure gold. ... We are not going to build a temple of gold, but we will spend tons of money, without a shadow of doubt," said Macedo.

Macedo told the British newspaper his church had signed an $8 million contract to import stones from Israel.

"We have signed the contract and commissioned the stones that will come from Jerusalem, just like the ones that were used to build the temple in Israel; stones that were witnesses to the powers of God, 2,000 years ago," he said. "It is going to be a knockout, it is going to be beautiful, beautiful, beautiful – the most beautiful of all. The outside will be exactly the same as that which was built in Jerusalem."

Ok, so the Jews are mad and the Christians are nuts. So far so... good? Here's where things take a turn for the confusing. Klein pretends like he's giving background information about the Temple and the Temple Institute.

While the Temple Institute criticized Macedo's plans, Richman's group, based in Jerusalem, focuses on preparation for the rebuilding of the Third Temple in its biblical location - the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Institute has been preparing ritual objects suitable for Temple use. Many of the more than 90 ritual items to be used in the Temple have been remade to the highest standards the Temple Institute.

Yeah, compared with the "crazy" Pentecostals who want to build a Temple in Brazil, building one in Jerusalem (complete with all the stuff we need to re-start animal sacrifices once the Messiah shows up) sounds positively logical!

Now watch the birdie:

The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

The Temple was the center of religious worship for ancient Israelites. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God's presence dwelt. All biblical holidays centered on worship at the Temple. The Temples served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and were the main gathering place for Israelites.

According to the Talmud, the world was created from the foundation stone of the Temple Mount. It's believed to be the biblical Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham fulfilled God's test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition.

OK, fine.

Al-Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about A.D. 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al-Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe was the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 656 times.

...According to research by Israeli author Shmuel Berkovits, Islam historically disregarded Jerusalem as being holy. Berkovits points out in his new book, "How Dreadful Is This Place!" that Muhammad was said to loathe Jerusalem and what it stood for. He wrote Muhammad made a point of eliminating pagan sites of worship and sanctifying only one place – the Kaaba in Mecca – to signify the unity of God.

As late as the 14th century, Islamic scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings influenced the Wahhabi movement in Arabia, ruled that sacred Islamic sites are to be found only in the Arabian Peninsula and that "in Jerusalem, there is not a place one calls sacred, and the same holds true for the tombs of Hebron."

A guide to the Temple Mount by the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem published in 1925 listed the Mount as Jewish and as the site of Solomon's Temple. The Temple Instituteacquired a copy of the official 1925 "Guide Book to Al-Haram Al-Sharif," which states on page 4, "Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which 'David built there an altar unto the Lord.'"

Uh, what? Hang on, I thought we were talking about silly Pentecostals. Why are we talking about Al-Aqsa?

The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.

The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It still is open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf.

During "open" days, Jews and Christians are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

Those... totally non-sequiteur bastards!

I've got to give Klein credit. Either he's really dedicated to giving people super-detailed background information on his news pieces (in this case more than half of the article) or he's got a real knack for tying everything back together to the root issue of the day, which is of course that the Waqf is a bunch of jerks. I can't wait until WND moves him to sports.

I could go on, believe me I could, but I'm starting to feel a dull pain in my brain. So I'll just leave you with the title of a recent brainfart from Joe Farah:

Have Dems re-enslaved blacks?

Yea, gentle readers, I have set you on the path, now go forth and... cry.

A Reader Writes In

As my few readers know, this blog rarely gets many comments. And I get even fewer emails. So I was very pleased to get this friendly missive from some guy named Mark M.

Mark writes,

Subject: picture

I am trying to do my genealogy when what do I see a freekin fairy picture with a snake in his pants do you seriously thank that is funny!!!!!!!!! then change the freakin name I don't want it associated with my surname!

Mark was apparently referring to one of my all-time most popular posts here, with the controversial image being here:

I was so touched I decided to write back.

Dearest Mark,

Thanks so much for writing! I'm glad you enjoyed reading the post as much as I enjoyed writing it-- over two and a half years ago. As a fellow genealogist, I know how valuable a resource the Internet can be. Isn't it fun to make new family discoveries?

I agree it's unfortunate you share your last name with a balding conservative blow-hard whose internet shtick entirely revolves around ripping off A Scanner Darkly (no, really) and whose idea of edgy humor consists of making offensive cookies (no, really!). And I must admit that I'm not entirely sure how you expected Google Image Search to help you all that much with your family tree. But look on the bright side: now your clan has achieved true immortality! I'm so glad I could help.

Also, just as a quick fact check. If you look at the link in full context, you can clearly see that the costume in question is not a "freekin fairy," but rather the ever-popular zoophile snake charmer. Anyway, I never wrote anything suggesting that the snake charmer with the unfortunate constrictor problem was specifically linked with your illustrious family. If you're really annoyed about the post, it seems to me that you should direct your complaints to the Pied Baker of Dopeland himself. He already changed his first name to show how much he loves Communism, I'm sure he won't mind changing his last name to suit you. May I suggest, "Molotov Mixing Machine?"

Cheers!

Friar Yid

A self-absorbed faux-interview? Two can play at this game

I guess it's been a slow summer. All my usual Internet foes are spending their time talking to themselves. First Dennis Prager re-imagined himself as the most anal-retentive and longwinded high school principal since "Breakfast Club", and now Tzvi Fishman has posted a fake interview with himself. Sigh.

I could fisk Tzvi's latest exercise in masturbation (can you say irony?), but maybe I'll just try to do what the best columnists seem to be doing these days: manipulate it so it's all about me instead.

Today we have the distinctive pleasure of interviewing INN's always fun and controversial, all-star blogger, Tzvi Fishman Friar Yid.

Hi, nice to be here. You know, self, I'm so honored you chose to interview me. I'm a huge fan of your work. Sorry, I don't mean to gush.

No problem, we're pretty pro-Gush around here as it is. Anyway, Q: Can you please tell us why you are so gung-ho on living in Israel? You write about it all the time.

Well, honestly, I think that Israel is a perfectly fine place to live, if that's what you want to do. Certainly there's something very inspiring about the Israeli national mythos about re-creating the historic Jewish homeland, connecting the Judaism of the Torah to its Biblical roots in the land, and fostering a collective pride at Israel's various accomplishments. On the other hand, it's kind of hard to be 100% behind a country that still doesn't have a constitution, hasn't figured out its border issues (granted, not exclusively its fault) and which has a bad habit of disenfranchising significant swaths of its people and neighbors when it's politically expedient-- be they Israeli Arabs, Settlers, Haredim, or the non-Orthodox.

Q: There are many Jews in the world, and they don’t all live in Israel.

Duh?

Q: There are those who say you harp on the subject too much.

I suppose, but it's only because it's frustrating to see Israel have so much potential and see it piss it away. Not unlike my feelings about the United States, actually-- though I'm clearly voting with my feet as to which society I prefer.

Q: How did you become so in love with Israel?

Actually I considered myself an anti-Zionist for a number of years in high school (which happened to coincide with the second Intifada). I had one history teacher who taught us about the Middle East whose bias was pretty significantly pro-Palestinian, and it was easy to peruse some Neturei Karta stuff online and start getting on my high horse about how Jews were supposed to be better than their oppressors and so on.

But the reality is that as I started reading more, I began to realize that Zionism wasn't monolithic and most Israelis-- including various cousins I had connected with over email-- didn't hate Palestinians and were really just regular people who wanted to be able to live a decent life. Realizing that Israelis-- and Palestinians-- were flesh and blood folks, not stereotypes, was what really allowed me to flip my view on Israel and Zionism and finally come to admire the good things about the country and its history, as well as the really impressive personalities who contributed to its founding.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Actually from what little I've read about Jewish end-times-scenarios, it sounds like the in-gathering of the exiles will just "happen" when Messiah comes, suggesting it's not really going to be something people choose but something that the Messiah does, like magically making the Temple reappear, or getting 14 million professional arguers to accept him as their Supreme Leader.

Q: A Jew can keep the commandments anywhere. Why should he come to Israel?

Given that plenty of pious rabbis throughout the centuries could have and didn't? I don't see any particular reason why. Unless you're a big fan of oversize rocks or ridiculously salty water.

Q: [Being a light unto the nations] sounds very grandiose. How does that come to expression in your day-to-day life?

The biggest mitzvah my parents taught me was to be kind, or at least conscientious, to others. In everyday practice, I try to implement this by not actively being an asshole. I find the greatest expression of my values (which can be summed up in the Yiddishism of menschlikeit) is in teaching and helping young people.

Q: You paint a rosy picture, but what about all of the real problems in Israel...Where do they fit in with your great love for the Land?

This is one area where Tzvi and I actually agree. Every country has problems. As with America, I believe that Israel's problems are not a reason to give up on it. Rather, they're a reason to give it continued support and encourage it to improve itself.

I understand why some Israelis think American Jews forfeit their right to stay involved with it given that they don't live there. And there's no question that I am American, not Israeli, and that being Israeli comes with its own rights and responsibilities that I do not share as a non-citizen. But when Israel claims the mantle of "the Jewish state," when it appeals to a shared Jewish history or invokes the Jewish homeland, it necessarily is speaking to, and for, all Jews. And that means it is representing me, too. Israel wants financial and moral support from Jews abroad, and I understand that. These are not totally unreasonable requests to ask from "family." But a family relationship has to come from a place of mutual benefit, and sometimes it's hard to tell whether Israel still cares what its Diaspora counterparts think-- or if Israelis understand how hard and painful that rejection, that negation of connection, can be.

It seems to me that the real way towards getting some much-needed Jewish unity is by helping American and Israeli Jews remember that they're all real people instead of just the sum of each other's stereotypes.

Working Hard to be a Jerk

Dear Uncle Milt,

I don't get you. You know that I still have lots of unresolved feelings for my grandfather. You know that I'm among the most Jewishly-engaged in our extended family (probably tied with you and Grandma). You know I'm a fanatic about our family history.

So how come, when I texted you letting you know that yes, I would like to have Zeyde's teffilin that his random Hasidic friend recovered a few weeks ago after loaning them out for the last sixteen years, you got all high and mighty?

I know you wanted to give the tefillin away to "someone who will really use them," and it was nice that you conferred with (read: coerced) your siblings into going along with your plan, since, as you wrote in your email, "teffilin can be really expensive!". And I'm sorry I said yes initially and then changed my mind. But why on earth would you then get on your high horse and start lecturing me about how you'll only "give them" to me if you can be sure I'll "use them properly"? And who the hell are you to ask if I'm "now practicing?" (I can't promise I'd practice more if dill-holes like you wouldn't hide tallesim from me at family functions, but it sure wouldn't hurt.)

I especially loved the follow-up email you sent to Zeyde's friend in which you were practically falling over yourself to emphasize how none of us "truly keep the faith," as if that was any of his business or concern. And here I thought the guy was just a dermatologist in Brooklyn. I didn't realize we were talking to Moses.

I just don't get you, Uncle Milt. You married a non-Jew. You're involved in a Reform temple. You don't keep kosher. Yet as soon as someone does something that you don't personally like, you become the Chief Rabbi of Douchebag-istan. If you want to defer to stricter views of Jewish practice or something for yourself, go nuts. But it makes no sense for you to try to enforce stricter standards on other people when you don't even follow them yourself.

No, I don't daven every day, or even most days. And I get that for you, that therefore translates as "not needing teffilin." And if it was a random pair of free teffilin, I certainly wouldn't ask you for them. But they're not, are they? They're a freaking family heirloom. There are plenty of stories of famous rabbis' teffilin being passed down in their families. You don't think they knew random people that could use a pair of teffilin? Some things have sentimental value. You can disagree with the sentiment, but it's a really low move to make me have to pass your personal observance scale in order to qualify for Zeyde's teffilin. Also, then insisting that I find someone to teach me how to use it? Not appreciated. (You mean I'm not supposed to wrap it like a bondage harness? Now I'm all confused...)

Wait, maybe I'm being too harsh on you. I mean, I know you. You probably just wanted to make sure that I knew what I was doing, and were trying to emphasize how important it was I learn how to pray properly. Yeah, between books, the internet and every damn Jew I know who was ever Bar or Bat Mitzvahed, I can see how you'd need to recommend I find a bona fide Teffilin Tutor to ensure that my davening is properly heschered.

Oh wait, I do know you. So much for benefit of the doubt.

You know what I think, Uncle Milt? I think you're threatened by me. I think that, not unlike Abbot Yid, you don't like that I'm not easily categorized along the Jewish spectrum. I light candles but don't keep kosher. I go to services on Friday nights but never on Saturday mornings. I read endless books on Hasidic history but can't read Torah. I'm dating a non-Jew but am planning on Jewish children. And that, unlike you, I don't feel guilty for it. Or conflicted. I think you don't like the idea of someone staying perfectly unaffiliated because they don't particularly need to join with a synagogue. And the idea that Jewishness has nothing to do with your social circle would certainly be at odds with your life.

I'm not trying to judge you, or your family, or your spirituality. Too bad you can't say the same.

Don't worry, Uncle Milt. When it's your time to go, I'll make sure your kids donate all your stuff. We have to make sure people "use it properly," after all. So, which charity do you want to get your organs?

Putz.

Don't Quit Your Day Job, Dennis-- Whatever that is

As a teacher, there are some things that scare me more than the average person. School shootings, various super-contagious child-borne illnesses, and idiotic meddling from well-meaning boneheads who don't understand how education works come to mind.

But none of these are quite as painful or terrifying as the idea that Dennis Prager could, in an alternate universe, be my principal.

As we know, Dennis is a fan of both thought experiments and imaginary worlds where he actually has power and influence. Typically his "What-If" scenarios have at least some modicum of introduction. Not this time. This time, he just goes for it:

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.

What an opening. I give you an F for effort.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

So... why do you bitch about things and shill for Goldline for a living?

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

Ok, first of all, I'm not sure you're using "honor" the way most people think about it. It's not like race or ethnicity are airline miles you can cancel out or something. Second, I've encountered this argument a lot from conservatives-- the idea that since they personally "don't care" about people's background, that somehow this annuls any issues of society as a whole privileging or discriminating against groups of people. Because that's totally how things work.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

Hang on, can't we all agree, as a general baseline, that the purpose of schools is to educate people? I mean, you can bring the "make better X" argument in, too, but then aren't you justifying the same kind of ideologically-driven education you rant against when it's done on the left? And who decides what's "better?" Now we're just back to subjective definitions again.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere.

How are we defining "affirmations?" What about clothes or speech? What if a student wears a yarmulke to school? Or if some Latino kids call each other "esse?" How could you possibly enforce this, O Clueless Leader?

We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." 

So... we can celebrate people coming together to be "one" (however that's defined), but we can't acknowledge or recognize the origins of the different groups that have created the "one" in the first place? You might want to re-seat those two sentences away from each other before they start fighting. Incidentally, what standard are we using to decide when a "non-American-nationality-based celebration" becomes American? Because I'm pretty sure Ron Karenga came up with Kwanzaa in Los Angeles. Just saying.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Wait, isn't the whole point of clubs to encourage group identities, which would necessarily be separate from non-club members? How is this any different from the football team dividing students who play football from those who don't?

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. 

So, again, the football team is exempt from this definition... why? Also, I didn't realize that you, Dennis Prager, had defined "the purpose of education" while I was out. Good to know.

So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more.

Wait, you just said we couldn't have clubs based around languages! Are you even paying attention to your own speech? (Also, carpentry club? Really?)

 If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

This coming from a guy whose job is talking to himself and coming up with bizarre pronouncements and moral codes that everyone should listen to. Such as, for instance, this "speech."

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible... We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

So I guess we're just not going to talk about statistics that show that bilingual students who get high-level instruction in both languages do significantly better than students who drop one? Or the fact that not being able to communicate with your family in your home language can lead to alienation, emotional and social problems, and even contribute to dropping out of school? Nope? Well, I guess you were right, looks like schools aren't about educating. Moving on then...

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

So... the best way to show how much "we" care about learning isn't in making sure we all have the resources and supplies we need, funding clubs and activities, or even trying to motivate students by, say, offering scholarships or class rewards for excellent performance, attendance, etc... Instead, it's to punish, stifle, or otherwise harass students (and faculty!) through a dress code. Wow, I can't believe no one's asked you to be their principal yet.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events... It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Decent intent, but again, the implementation is key. Also, "holy and the obscene" is mighty lofty talk for a SECULAR public school.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sigh. Dennis, let's agree to disagree. Self-esteem, like most things, is best in moderation. The ideal is to have students be self-confident without being narcissistic and to find that sweet spot between resiliency and total disconnected douchy-ness. How about this: I'll concede that there should be just one valedictorian, and you'll concede that, as part of the goal to "make better Americans," school should try to encourage, support, and, dare I say it, INTEREST students, as opposed to being like, I don't know, a prison?

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue.

I don't understand, these are things their parents already spend all day being scared crapless over by the 24-hour news media (which includes you). Are you saying kids should be immune from the scare-cycle, or just that the information should be presented in a less partisan manner? I like the thought of trying to reduce partisanship in school, but you're sort of all over the place here. Global warming should be taught within the confines of a science class, if appropriate. Smoking and sex ed should certainly be discussed if you have a health class. Sexual harassment isn't "terrifying," it's an important issue that kids, particularly young women, need to be aware of, and know how to properly respond to. If you think people are teaching something wrong, that's one thing. But saying kids shouldn't learn about a topic because it's "political" is a lazy cop-out. Should we cancel all history and government classes while we're at it? There's plenty of potential for bias there!

There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.

I'm guessing this will be a special elective class, taught by the eminent Dr. Prager? Let's see, it will probably be called  "Get Down On The Ground, Kiss That Sweet American Soil, And Thank God You Weren't Born in Sweden 101". Or something.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Hey Dr. Dumbass, these are kids in PUBLIC schools. They say the pledge every day. You actually meant to imply that they don't believe in it or understand it. This joke, like your whole essay, gets one big F. I'd give you a do-over, but I don't want to read it again.

Silly searches

- Shmuley Jackass: I'm proud to have helped contribute this to the Internet.

- latin king prayers: Does Kingism have prescribed prayers? Or is it more hitbodedut focused? Help me out here, readers.

- it is possible to dent your head: Um, have you ever watched a small child?

- Dennis Prager Gets Married: Must be a new comedy coming out.

- Jews in the South: Not a myth, just funny.

- Rabbinate is Illiterate: To be fair, wouldn't it depend on the language? I don't know how many rabbis who can read Uighur.

- Chuck Norris on witches: I think he's still against them.

- Yehoshua Sofer and Chuck Norris: This would either be a great idea or super terrible.

- kabbalah+geology: Did I get my math wrong?

- Rav Chaim and Shnekel: Presumably this is some unfortunate ventriloquism act in Lakewood.

- How to wear Keffiyah Scarf: Point of Order: I'm guessing that if you don't know how to tie this, you shouldn't be wearing it.

- Friar Yid: Hooray, sometime still likes me!

- Huge curvy friar photo: UM... not like that, thanks.

What I've been up to

Apologies for being so AWOL the last couple of months. Here, in no particular order, are some things on my mind:

1- Reg. Peter Beinart: Yes, there is a disconnect between young American Jews (particularly non-Orthos) and Israel. It gets harder to be a Zionist every time Israel does something stupid or overblown or just downright cruel to the Palestinians/Turks/anyone who looks at it cross-eyed.

2- The crazier Israel's conversion/marriage situation gets (Rotem bill, demanding three generations of ketubot, etc), the more number 1 will continue to be true.

3- The Rebbe was a far better-- and fairer-- book than Jonathan Mark gave it credit. Hopefully a more thorough review will be forthcoming.

4- Family tree research continues ever-so-slowly. Recent highlights include getting a copy of my g.g.grandfather's death certificate (and the marriage certificate proving he was a bigamist).

5- Shiksa Girlfriend's latest reading interests have veered towards memoirs of kooky women in kooky religious groups. So far I've given her Mennonite in a Little Black Dress, The Rabbi's Daughter and this terribly-written waste of ink. Any other suggestions from readers? (She's also enjoyed Rashi's Daughters and Tova Mirviss' books in fiction.)

Books I'm Reading:

- Political Assassinations by Jews (Nachman Ben-Yehuda). Great title and very thorough, though slightly plodding.

- Untold Tales of the Hasidim (David Assaf). Alternates between dry and juicy. Sort of like my attempts at cooking steak.

- Poor Cousins (Ande Manners). Nice historical tidbits and decent style, though the constant quotes without sources are driving me crazy.

- 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs: The Election that Changed the Country (James Chace). Fascinating background on these four politicians, particularly useful given that the first two seem to be some of Glenn Beck's favorite whipping boys these days.

Books I recently finished (this happens very rarely):

- Napoleon's Privates (Tony Perrott): Funny and informative, though the author seems to assume I attend far more dinner parties than is actually the case.

- Aaronsohn's Maps (Patricia Goldstone): A good introduction. Intrigue like you wouldn't believe.

- Every Spy a Prince (Dan Raviv & Yossi Melman): Particularly timely, given the Mossad Passport brou-ha-ha. Not saying people should be paranoid about Mossad, but damn, these guys really don't screw around. Also useful for developing healthy skepticism of blanket denials from politicians.

That's all for now, time to pack for our trip to SG's homestead.