Truth versus Marketing

While online I tend to come off as harsh at times, it's likely because in person I'm usually very accommodating. The truth of the matter is that I realized a long time ago that the truth is usually fairly relative, and that humans are fallible enough that most people tend to not have all the answers. Hence the need for collaboration, compromise, and yes, dialogue.

My brother Deacon Yid is not like this. He believes in, and practices, what A.J. Jacobs once described as "radical honesty". In most circumstances (unless he can get something out of you), Deacon will say exactly what he thinks, to whomever he pleases. Most people, including me, tend to interpret this as being rude, mean, or sometimes just plain uncompassionate. But to Deacon, he's telling it like it is. He once told me that he felt sorry for me because I let people walk all over me. As far as he was concerned, asking him to hold his tongue or walk away from an argument (or perceived slight or insult) was like asking him to lie, to compromise his ethics.

I bring this up today because it really helps explain Tzvi Fishman.

Tzvi is stuck. On the one hand he has a cause-- encouraging aliyah to Israel. On the other hand, he's an ideologue. Like Deacon, he's also a binary thinker. Either you're telling the truth or telling a lie, either you're an authentic Jew or you're not. If the truth hurts, so be it.

But let me explain something. For every Jew you may convince with columns like this, you easily turn off five.

Can anyone imagine a Puerto Rican kid not speaking Spanish? Or a Japanese kid not speaking Japanese? Of course not. This is the natural, healthy, common-sense order of life.

But when it comes to the Jews, something gets very screwed up. You would think that, like in the above examples, every Jewish kid should know how to speak Hebrew. Just the way Spanish is the language of Puerto Ricans, and Japanese is the language of the Japanese, Hebrew is the language of the Jews.

Nothing could be simpler, right?

That’s the way it is in Israel. That’s the way it should be. Jewish children grow up speaking Hebrew. They also may know Yiddish, or English, or French, but they all speak Hebrew fluently.

But in the Diaspora, things get screwed. In the Diaspora, there are millions of Jews who don’t know Hebrew at all! Instead of speaking their own language, they speak an assortment of foreign tongues that are totally alien to their souls and their brains.

This alone should make everyone realize how damaging, mind warping, and insidious Diaspora life is for a Jew.

Tzvi is right that language is deeply rooted to community and identity. But he essentializes language to the point that you'd think it was the primary element. In Diaspora cultures particularly, where people become dispersed over a wide area and need to adapt to wherever they end up, this is simply not true. Jews have been struggling over Hebrew as far back as the days of the Talmud. But to Tzvi, this diversity of language is shameful, because it indicates a break with continuity, an aberration in a nation's "normal history." Rather than positively promote learning Hebrew as a way to engage with the holy books of Judaism, connect with the richness of Jewish tradition, or cultivate relations with other Jews around the world, Tzvi instead focuses on the negative approach: Jews should speak Hebrew. In Israel they do. Elsewhere, they don't, because the Diaspora is evil. The Diaspora "warps" Jewish minds by making them speak foreign languages "alien to their souls."

Sure, the wise and saintly Yosef, and members of the Sanhedrin, knew 70 languages. No problem with that. But Hebrew should come first.

So if you don’t know Hebrew yet, start learning. It’s your language. It’s who you are. It may say on your passport that you are a Canadian, or Frenchman, of Englishman, or American, but that’s only a piece a paper. You are really a Jew. So start speaking Hebrew and be who you really are. Why live a life imitating others when you can be yourself?

Here Tzvi relies on rhetorical devices that are clearly subjective. He dismisses a national identity as "only a piece of paper", saying that speaking Hebrew turns you into "who you really are." What tremendous power! Never mind that for generations, while most Jews knew Hebrew, it was not spoken as their first language (particularly women, who tended not to have as much educational options). Good to know that all those famous Jewish figures, rabbis, etc were doing it wrong all those years.

Tzvi is not a salesman. He is an ideologue. To him, he's telling it like it is, and the only alternative is to lie. But what that means in practical terms is that rather than inspiring, he criticizes. The only motivation is to avoid guilt and shame. And most people will not respond to messages like that. Several years ago, I read a book exploring different aspects of the American Jewish experience. One woman in her 40s, explaining why she was so ambivalent about Jewish practice, said that to her, "Judaism was an old man saying no."

No one likes being told what to do, or harshly criticized. And many Jews tend to be rebellious by nature. The Zionist pioneers rejected the status quo of their day, as did the Zionist rabbis. Tzvi, too, rejected the status quo of his own day.

But these days, Israel is its own status quo in the global Jewish community. And while some Jews will choose to immigrate by rebelling against their elders who tell them "no", it is highly unlikely that any fence-sitters will decide to go to Israel based on Tzvi Fishman dumping on their Jewishness.

Nefesh B'Nefesh has done some amazing things. But, for the most part, it is probably in spite of guilt-trippers like Fishman, not thanks to them. To a binary thinker, any moderation is a surrender. But it's sad to think that Tzvi doesn't realize that every time he writes his column, he's likely working against his goals, not for them.

Taking Stock

It's been two years since Obama's election. And what can I say, it's been depressing. I am becoming more and more convinced he may wind up being a one-term president. His eloquence before taking office seems to have either disappeared or is no longer effective at reaching people, and on policy he has generally not been able to deliver on his promises. Not always his fault, granted, but it's happening on his watch.

Obama, who was supposed to be so smart, so tactical, so, if need be, ruthless, seems to have, through a number of factors, just wound up being out-matched by circumstances. Granted, he has inherited some truly dire problems. But the bigger issue has been his inability to communicate or get things done. Without communication, he can't buy any more time or slack from opponents. And without accomplishments, he makes it very hard for supporters to keep sticking up for him. Obama has shown that he does not know how to, A, deal with the daily work of getting things done in Washington, or B, how to combat the constant bombardment of criticism from conservative politicians, media, and the rising populist anger represented by the Tea Partiers.

The irony is that despite the rantings of the right, I don't believe that Obama is all that extreme in his politics (particularly when it comes to some of the crazier conspiracy theories that he's out to either hand us over to Jihadists or remake America into the Fourth Reich). When it comes down to it, I think Obama is a lefty, but less an ideologue than a pragmatist. I think at the end of the day he would probably be happy to do whatever will get results-- at least I hope so. But I question the strategy and ideology presently at work in his administration. There are nothing but tough problems and essentially all the good will he had earned through the election has been squandered fighting the Health Care fight, which may, as that bonehead said way back when, become his Waterloo.

It really comes down to trust and confidence. Obama can't point to anything concrete and say, "Look, I fixed it." Granted, that's not specifically his fault since there are a ton of problems he's trying to fix. But the lack of any real victory to rally the troops behind is definitely hurting him (the fact that Health Care was finally happened is tempered by it taking so damn long to get there and that it will be years until we see effects). And I think the fact that the opposition is so loud, so extreme, and so downright nasty, is resulting in a double-whammy: First, Obama's supporters feel overwhelmed and plain old tired. Second, Obama feels like his back is in a corner and so his only options are to fight back or to carry on, seemingly ignoring opposition. But wait, weren't accountability and transparency some of the biggest and most alienating issues with the Bush White House? The truth is we don't need Obama to fight back against Fox, we need him to work on convincing whoever he can to get on board-- and, yes, to maybe be a little more transparent to critics if only to shut them up.

I don't know how different things might have been under a different President-- I doubt Hillary, for instance, would have gotten a cakewalk from the right. But I also thing Obama, by representing the other, in so many convenient ways, has become the gold standard for anyone that could have said "no" to say it-- and then maybe even go a few steps beyond. In the age we live in people aren't just angry, they're scared. And there are forces that are cynically manipulating this and capitalizing off of it. Obama has proven repeatedly that he is spectacularly inept when wading into the fray of talk-media and weighing in on issues of the day. If he tries to be decisive, he comes off as imperial. If he changes his mind, he's a flip-flopper. When he tries to please everyone, he impresses no one. He really can't win.

When it comes to my President, I'm disappointed. But when it comes to my party, I'm downright disgusted. The Democratic Congress was elected because of the sheer corruption, inefficiency, and obscene partisanship represented by the Republican party. With that mandate, they pledged to be bipartisan and transparent-- just as Obama did. This has not happened. Dems have squandered their mandate and shown that they can be opportunist, corrupt, and partisan, too. I will not be surprised when we lose one or both houses of Congress in November-- and the fact that no one wants Obama to campaign for them is a great indicator of how terrible things are.

Am I too naive? I want a government that's responsible, functional, reasonable and sane. I want a government that keeps us safe, tries creative solutions, works together, stays honest and is actually interested in solving problems (national and global), not putting band-aids over them. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, because these were some of the key issues Obama appealed to during his campaign and which people voted him into office on.

I also have core social issues I won't budge on, and that's why I can't in good conscience be an independent-- because there are some beliefs that I'm not negotiable on (though I also think that compromise, civility and respect would go a long way towards resolving some of the emotional components of these political divisions-- but then people wouldn't be as fired up about supporting their media hacks or donating money to their politicians, so good luck getting them on board). But on economics, on foreign policy, on energy... I think I'm flexible. Let's find ideas that work, are feasible, and which let us sleep at night. Presumably this should not be an impossible criteria. Presumably Americans agree on more issues than they disagree. If not, why not?

Here's my dirty secret: beyond all the crazy BS of the Tea Party movement, I think they do have their finger on the pulse of the country when they point out how far removed Washington seems to be from the people. In some cases it's deliberate. In other cases it's the nature of the beast. But there has to be a better way. There has to be a way to move forward. I have to believe that, or I have nothing to hope for.

But I don't know if this President or this Congress can get us there. The sad thing is I'm all-but-certain that the Republicans can't, or won't, do it, either.

What now?

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.

A Dose of Stupid

Wow, that's a few hours I'll never get back...

I feel bad. Mostly for myself, but also for the readers of one of WND's newest baby conservatives, the painfully named Chrissy Slatterfield. While looking for new material, I stumbled upon one of her columns. As so often happens with car wrecks, I couldn't look away. I'm not going to get on my high horse and say something silly like, "I don't understand how anyone under thirty can be a conservative Republican." I respect that there are younger folks who are just as committed to their beliefs as folks on the left are. However, I do find Chrissy's lectures-- particularly those where she targets fellow young folks-- rather tiresome.

For instance, Chrissy really doesn't like criminals. Fair enough, I suppose. Except that she then uses any defense of "criminals" as a link to bludgeon her political opponents over the head.

Example:

Tony Papa, a communications specialist, whatever that is, finds it troubling that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Really? I find it troubling that you spent years in the big house for what you claim to be a "first-time nonviolent offense." I'll bet there's more to your simpleton story than you claim. Don't blame the War on Drugs for your mistake; you look like a crybaby. Are we supposed to just let people break the law? Hey, you want to smoke some crack in the library? Go right ahead! What kind of country would this be if that were the case? What about thieves and rapists? Isn't incarceration a violation of their human rights as well? It's only fair that we allow everyone to live their life however they choose, right? Or do you want to light up so badly, without fear of arrest, that your judgment has been clouded?

So... someone who was incarcerated for a first-time drug offense must: A- be lying about why they were sent to jail, B, is a pussy, C, therefore thinks that all drugs should be done anytime, anywhere, and D, is apparently a drug addict. Nothing like some fun character assassination to start your day.

Wow, that's some slippery slope you've got there, Chrissy. I guess it's kind of like how since Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage, he must therefore also support gay orgies in front of schoolkids. In a church. On Easter Sunday. Why not.

Another example? What luck, I found one!

Everyone is chattering about the new Arizona law that was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23. The law is so controversial that even Meghan McCain and "Saturday Night Live" shelled out their "legal expertise" on the matter.

This law makes illegal immigration, without proper registration documents, a crime. Many people are shocked by this law, but shocked at what? Oh Em Gee, illegal immigration is a crime!

...Bottom line, anyone living in the United States illegally should be deported. It's not a race thing, it's a criminal thing. Arizona has decided to take action against a heinous crime that is raping our nation of its right to flourish safely. Do I think all illegal immigrants are criminals? Yes! To a certain extent, they all are criminals, hence the "illegal" part.

Oy. So not only should all illegals be deported immediately, they're also rapists. I guess this is what you get when you put your "transportation analysis" degree to good use writing political commentary.

And if you disagree with her? Well the answer's obvious, isn't it?

For those who do not support Arizona's efforts, riddle me this …Why are you against punishing criminals? Should we allow burglars to wander the streets? Yes, I am comparing illegal immigrants to burglars because a crime is a crime is a crime.

Now see, it's interesting, because while in theory Miss "Tough on Crime" Chrissy would want to lock up or deport all criminals (Download music? That'll be 15 to Life), she seems to be flexible as long as they share her belief system. Imagine that.

Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide. Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot. When asked about the vandalism, William Warren, the spokesman for Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics, said, "It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation." Hmm. That's interesting, because the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics felt its only recourse was to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God." They probably figured that because the Bible teaches Christians to turn the other cheek, we'll just take their abuse forever. We will only take so much before we stand up against our oppressors. Besides, I can't count how many times an atheist and I have had a "conversation." They're not as calm and passive as Warren suggests.

...What did this group think would happen? They placed this controversial message on a billboard that just so happens to be on a street named after Rev. Billy Graham. Did they expect the response to be positive? The group claimed that the billboard was not meant to disrespect Rev. Graham, but for some reason I don't trust them. This billboard campaign was a calculated insult to Christians, and the atheists thought it was appropriate. That shows you how spiteful this organization is. They took an American celebration and made it about them.

Got that? So anyone that engages in a crime-- any crime-- is a heartless scumbag... but if all you're doing is messing with atheists, it's totally justified, because they're mean and they had it coming. I mean, the street was named after a preacher, for God's sake!

Chrissy later backtracked from this, claiming she agreed with the vandals' message, not their methods. Yeah, I can see how readers would be confused after reading this:

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the man or woman responsible for this vandalism. I appreciate the action you took. Thank you for reminding me that I'm not alone. It took a lot of guts to do what you did – and the fact that you haven't stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero. It shows everyone that you are more devoted to the message than you are to the spotlight. I encourage you to keep your cover. Don't give the secular world a reason to call your name; instead, let them call for our God.

I also need to extend a thank-you to some people in Sacramento and Detroit. In February, 10 atheist billboards were defaced in the Golden State and a slew of atheist bus ads were vandalized in Detroit. My dose of honesty this week: I am not happy that vandalism seems to be the only way to get an atheist's attention. I'm happy that I can count on other Christians to stand up for themselves and for Christians everywhere. It gives me hope.

Also confusing is the fact that the "but you made conservatives mad!" argument seems to come up in other columns, as well.

For instance, in 2007 a restaurant owner pissed off a veteran by flying two flags above his restaurant. The issue: the Mexican flag was above the American one. This, as Chrissy laments, is unfortunately not against the law (darn, there goes her trump card!)

There are strict protocols for flying Old Glory, but they apparently are only optional and hold no consequences for disrespecting the Red, White and Blue.

Uh yeah, because we're not in the military? Hence millions of people doing disrespectful, anti-patriotic things like daring to fly the flag at night. Too bad we can't jail or deport them like the rest of the criminals, right?

Anyway, the veteran went to the restaurant and cut down the two flags, then stole the US flag and took it with him. He's alternately been condemned as a vigilante and praised as a hero. Chrissy, of course, is trying to have it both ways again:

Let me be perfectly clear: I do not support the actions of Mr. Brossard; I do, however, understand his reasons. The restaurant owner might as well have given the U.S. the finger. Hey buddy, if you'd like to fly the Mexican flag over the American flag, move to Mexico.

… why do people come here, become citizens and then disgrace all that we as a nation stand for? It pains me that some people applauded the restaurant owner as though he'd done some great act. He said he was "flying the flag as a mark of solidarity with the Hispanic community." Don't fool yourself into thinking it was for some "greater cause," because it wasn't. He wanted to make a point and show his disrespect for this great land of ours. You know what really sucker-punched me? The fact that he is a citizen. Yikes!

... I don't believe all immigrants or naturalized citizens want to disrespect this country or the American flag. I do believe, however, that if you're going to come here for that better life, maybe you should be a little more appreciative; maybe you should be shaking the hand of that veteran and every other man and woman in uniform.

...Legally, the restaurant owner is a citizen of the United States, but should he be? Anyone who thinks it's OK to fly Mexico's flag or Canada's flag or the Confederate flag or any other flag above the American flag should be escorted out and sent packing back to the country they still have feelings for.

Here's my question: does all the spleen-venting over flags only happen if the US flag is underneath another one? What if he had only been flying the Mexican flag? Is that also grounds for having your citizenship or patriotism questioned? Also, where would you propose deporting Confederate flag wavers? Brazil?

Being an American citizen is a privilege, not a right. You shouldn't be able to call yourself an American just because you were born here or because you took a citizenship test. There's so much more to it than that. We need to show our loyalty to this country by treating her with respect. We need to prove our devotion by lifting America up. It's not too much to ask.

Especially not when you're purposefully as vague as possible. I like how we've decided, incidentally, that this guy absolutely despises every single thing about America based on which flag was on top of his flagpole.

By the way, if you're a celebrity who disagrees with Chrissy, I hope you've steeled yourselves with a bite gag and some good whiskey, because she considers you... gasp... "Celebutards." I know, try to work through the pain.

The biggest Celebutard of the moment is apparently Lady Gaga. And the reason? Being upset about Arizona's immigration law. Her biggest crime, according to Chrissy? Citing a human example of people the law was going to affect. That bitch!

It was reported, "During Saturday's concert, Lady Gaga told the crowd about a boy she met earlier in the day whose home was raided over 'a parking ticket or something,' and whose brother was deported to Mexico." I like the "or something" part. It allows liberal dingbats to glaze over important details, while at the same time leaving their opinions full of holes. Gaga has no hard evidence that this family was torn apart over a parking ticket. It tells me that a) this boy probably doesn't exist; b) if he does exist, she obviously wasn't paying attention to his story; and c) she doesn't care to know the whole truth. Again, because she has a microphone in her hand she thinks her story is automatically valid. You should get your facts straight before you put Arizona on blast, Gaga.

What I love is that Chrissy, while blasting Gaga for not getting her facts straight, does not apparently seem interested in finding the facts out for herself, either. As with the Anthony Papa story before, she just decides the story is false because she disagrees with the politics behind it, and goes from there. Which, funnily enough, is the mirror image of the same intellectual shallowness she accuses liberals (and the Celebutarded) of suffering from. Two words, Chrissy: Google. Search. You can still question the accuracy of the story's details, but I think you'd at least have to concede the kid exists. By the way, not only is he undocumented, he's also gay. Just think, if you hadn't been so invested in claiming he was imaginary, you could have had two bones to pick with him.

More on Chrissy, the Patron Saint of Fact-Optional Self-Righteousness, next time.

Mama Grizzlies vs Mama Ewoks? I say shoot them both

I know that nothing gets under liberal feminists' skin like conservatives like Sarah Palin accusing them of not being real Americans, real feminists, or real women. I also know that conservative bloggers want to use this silly video to show the shallowness of liberal feminists trying to counter Sarah Palin.

But honestly, all I can think of at this point is, "This is how demented the political process has gotten. One jackass is using a utterly stupid neologism to draw her political lines of legitimacy in the sand and elevate her as a tough mom who's also a savvy political fighter. At the same time, her opponents seem to be getting distracted from the actual issues and instead are trying to counter her on rhetoric, not substance." It's like when the photographer uses a stuffed bird to distract the infant from the camera.

Truly, a golden age for politics. Thank god no one had this idea during T.R.'s last election.

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