The Language of Hyperbole

I went to a bilingual school. I work in a bilingual school. I know, from first-hand experience, that there are pluses and minuses to both bilingual and monolingual education. That's ok. But I can't help getting a little irked when I hear people that clearly know next-to-nothing about bilingualism start blaming it for the breakdown of American society. I know, I'm just weird that way.

Enter Barry Farber, another WND Court Jew and, apparently, Pat Buchannan impersonator. Barry wants to let you know that English is important. But not just important-- really, really important:

...The English language is the only glue holding America together.

Really? You don't think things like a shared economy, values, government, help even a little? Wow, that's a pretty dim view of American unity coming from a supposed patriot.

Strong? Startling? Yes, and also true. People in Alaska care about people in Florida. If there were a terrible hurricane in Key West, that would lead the news in Alaska. Now put that American map on top of Europe. If there were a terrible earthquake in Turkey, the people in Norway, being quite decent people, wouldn't say, "Don't bother me with that!" But there wouldn't be that same sense of "our people." You've got six major languages and 18 minor ones separating Norway from Turkey.

Ah yes. This must be why not a day goes by that good folks in Alabama and Hawaii don't take a minute to check in on our language-neighbors in Belize, Liberia and Micronesia.

Among America's major blessings is one unifying language – a blessing compounded by the happy fact that our particular language is also the universally acknowledged "international" language.

Um, no. It is not THE international language, it is is ONE of several. And right now, yes, it happens to be the most widely-spoken. However given that the economy of the US is stagnant while China, India, and even Russia seem to be on the rise, it seems foolish to discourage people from learning to speak some of those languages on the grounds that English will let you chat with folks in Fiji and Barbados. 100 years ago one of the most widely spoken international languages, particularly in Europe, was French. Now, not so much. Times change.

Those who would destroy America could do no better service to their goal than balkanizing America into a patchwork quilt of different languages.

Oh please. People balkanize themselves according to any criteria and using just about any excuse you give them. You might as well advocate banning baseball teams so Yankees and Red Sox fans will finally stop jabbering at each other.

They've succeeded in convincing too many Americans that you're somehow a hater, at least a little, with all that bluster about English.

It depends how you talk about it. If you rant about bilingualism being the downfall of American civilization, then, yeah, there seems to be a little hate there.

They cheer their success at leading well-meaning Americans to suppose that if so-called "English Only" legislation is passed, women on assembly lines will be dragged away in handcuffs if they're overheard speaking Spanish with one another. Try explaining to the hard-left that the law intends no such thing, that we're talking strictly about conducting public affairs in one consensus language only. Maria can continue to talk to Linda in Spanish, Hans to Fritz in German, Darko to Srechko in Serbian.

Barry, the issue isn't whether people are going to be sent to re-education camps, it's about the scope of such laws as well as the intent behind them. Whether Barry wants to admit it or not, there is a definite nativist streak in American politics these days, and it is coming out on such issues as immigration, "Culture War," and English. Some of the people who are carrying on about how English should be the only language are plainly anti-immigrant, and the language fight is part of that battle to forcibly Americanize people into an imaginary America of the 1950s.

Alabama, by the way, is lucky. They have driver's license exams in only 12 languages. I've heard that in Los Angeles you can choose from among 42 different languages! We've already had major traffic accidents because licensed drivers in America don't know what "Merge" means.

First, I don't believe you. Just because. But even if this were true, it demonstrates that we need stricter driving tests, not that there shouldn't be bilingual education or that America should be an official mono-lingual culture.

The so-called "bilingual education" programs have been pretty much revealed as employment scams for teachers who don't speak English too well; programs that wind up making the kids illiterate in two languages.

Spoken like a true ignorant moron. First of all, there are many different kinds of bilingual programs. While many public schools do have their classes taught by bilingual teachers, at my school, kids are taught by one teacher in one language, then by another in the other. Second, as I have discovered over the past few years, it is actually not very easy to become a teacher. In California, home of myself and the Tower of Babel you just referred to, it happens to be extremely hard. The only states that put more roadblocks in your way are four East Coast states that require you to get master's degrees. Now, in addition to all of that, you also have to have a separate certification, a BCLAD, in order to be allowed to be a bilingual teacher. This is also not easy to get. So believe me when I say this: Barry, you are talking out of your rear.

Second, assuming that there are probably some unqualified teachers in bilingual positions: again, this demonstrates that we need better teachers, better schools and better programs, NOT that bilingual education shouldn't exist. Does the fact that there are bad math teachers suggest that we should stop teaching math?

Also, the children of all immigrants are growing up speaking native, un-accented American English.

What I think Barry means is that if you just put immigrant children (or the children of immigrants) in English-only schools, they wind up speaking perfect English. Which, by the way, isn't true. It may happen, depending on circumstances and motivation. But probably not the norm. (Why would you even bother throwing out a ridiculous statement like "all?")

But what's actually more important in the context of this point is that there are years of long-term studies showing that students who come to school speaking one language who are allowed to keep learning that language IN ADDITION to English do better in school-- because not only can they continue communicating with their family members, stay connected with their home culture, etc... (which, among other things, helps them do better in school because their family is still involved in their education), they also THINK in that language! If you don't let Spanish-speaking kids learn in Spanish or Chinese-speaking kids learn in Chinese you are making them start all over again.

Another important argument for bilingual education is the fact that content transfers between languages. I spent three years of middle school learning geometry and trig in a language other than English. I had never had any English instruction in geometry until high school. However, as soon as I entered the classroom, I immediately understood what was going on. All I needed was vocabulary. Verbal reasoning, critical thinking, math, even reading and writing skills... all these things are helped, not hindered, by a bilingual environment... when the education is actually bilingual. (As opposed to kids speaking one language at home and another at school, which really just means that they are mono-lingual in two different contexts. Unless their parents are teaching them math or literature or science in their home languages at the same level they use at school, it's not actually bilingual education.) This is a point made in the very excellent documentary Speaking In Tongues, which I encourage everyone to see.

Those who say, "Let a hundred languages bloom!" think they're ablaze with brotherhood. They're ablaze with nothing of the kind. A country with one unifying language that lets itself slip away to two or more is ablaze with nothing but poor housekeeping.

Really? Wow, I bet such pretty well-functioning countries as Canada, Bolivia, the Phillipines, Israel and India (among others) would love to learn they've been doing it wrong. Incidentally, I wonder if Barry knows that Hawaii, Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico are officially bilingual. That must be why they're constantly on the verge of collapse.

By the way, among the almost 30 states where English is the ONLY official language? California and Alabama. Way to do that research, Barry.

Shakespeare may have turned the English language into cultural glory. Churchill turned that language into adrenalin arousing freedom's beleaguered and embattled forces to a civilization-saving victory. It may not seem as impressive. But English is now serving an even more important role. As glue.

Sure, Barry. Do us a favor and go eat some, ok?

No Bias Here

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

Well gee, what is he mad about?

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

Really? Well, ok...

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

Oh good, some even-handedness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not blaming the victim, but...

...but watch me while I do just that.

That's pretty much the gist from this speech, given by a Gerrer Hasidic Shoah survivor a year ago, and posted on this blog, whose name ironically enough means "Unity of the Heart". Apparently it was posted in March, well-before Holocaust Memorial Day, but given that I neglected to write a post for the occasion, I think it's appropriate that I use it for this belated purpose.

First, to the blogger's credit, he realizes that the speech is going to piss people off and tries to cushion the blow beforehand.

A people that has been devastated by the Holocaust will not find a morally acceptable rationale for focusing on one Jews choice as juxtaposed against that of another Jew. When those Jews had nothing to compare the horrors they were about to endure with anything that had gone before.

That said we Jews today should have no illusions as to the depths of monstrosity the nations of the world are capable of descending to, there is no room for compromise or excuses.

So, in other words, "We have to be careful when discussing the Holocaust, and we don't want to blame anyone for their choices, but that said..." huh? Why is the "that said" necessary? You really could have thought this introduction out better.

Here are the troubling passages from the survivor, Mordechai Raz:

My grandfather was burnt in Treblinka with all his family and their ashes covered the land of Poland.

This all happened because Jews did not listen to the words of the Gerrer Rebbe.

Really? That's why it happened? Wow, thanks for clearing that up. Incidentally, three are a lot of historians (and idiot ideologues) I need to call.

The Im’rei Emes warned the Jews of Poland 100 years ago to buy land in Palestine just as he and many of his followers had done.

Then, the Gerrer Rebbe told the Jewish people to run and escape to Palestine with whatever they had- ‘Even in their slippers’. But my grandfather, Moshe Shalom Karp, and many men like him didn’t listen to him.

Not to be rude, but when exactly did the Gerrer rebbe start telling people to "escape?" I know he started establishing institutions in Israel in the 20s, but he didn't get out of Poland until 1940, when the Nazis occupied the country and it was becoming extremely difficult to leave. If he had some foreknowledge or intuition that things were going to get bad in Poland, why wait until the war broke out to leave? Or, a better question-- why leave so many people, including his brothers, eldest son, and his grandchildren behind? Surely the rebbe's brothers could have bought some land, too! I can't help thinking this sounds like revisionism to justify the fact that while some rebbes fled and "cried," their followers stayed and died.

Back to Mr. Raz:

We had lived there for a thousand years and so many felt comfortable to buy land in Poland, in Warsaw, Lodz, Krakow, Lamze, Bialystock, Katowic, Sosnowic, Bendin Czestechow and many other cities in Poland, and also in Berlin, Nuremberg, Munich and other cities in Germany as well as Vienna in Austria.

Many other leaders, including Harav Moshe Blau from Agudat Israel in Jerusalem, Jabotinski, Harav Moliver, Gershon Koren from Bnei Brak and many other Rabbis from Palestine tried to persuade Jews from Poland and Germany to buy land in Palestine.

Those Jews who listened to them, now have grandchildren who are now wealthy in Eretz Israel, especially in Tel Aviv, in suburbs like Florentine, Lillinbloom, Shuk a Karmel etc, and also Bnei Brak, Petach Tikvah, Yerushalaim etc.

Those who didn’t listen to the voices of the Rabbanim at the time, stayed in Treblinka, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Birkenhaus, Bergen – Belsen etc.

Their ownership of Polish land was meaningless and made no difference.

I'm sorry, this is just unfair, dishonest and classist. First of all, most Jews in Europe, Poland in particular, were way too poor to buy land anywhere, period. Second, if you were going to buy land, yes, it does make kind of practical sense to buy some in the country where you live as opposed to somewhere you have no plan to ever go. Just saying. Third, ownership of land in Israel was also meaningless by the time Jews were under Nazi domination. They didn't care, and having a deed to a parcel in the desert wasn't exactly protection from Nazi atrocities or death. (Nor, incidentally, did not owning land in Israel doom one to die.) The whole focus on buying land in Israel is a bizarre red herring.

I know Mr. Raz wants to show that his rebbe was really smart and that if people had only listened to him they would have been a golden ticket to safety and life, but the reality is that this is simply not true, and is not a fair point to criticize people for.

Even though there were many wars with the Arabs, these [Gerrer] Rabbis and their followers didn’t leave Eretz Israel, and they tell everyone not to leave Eretz Israel.

The gerrer chasidim are the biggest patriots of the nation of Israel until this day!

Wow. I don't even know what to do with this. I suppose it's an instructive look at Mr. Raz's mindset, if nothing else.

You know, I feel almost bad for fisking a Holocaust survivor. But you can't give a talk in which you criticize people for essentially not being rich and important enough to buy land in Israel or have large groups of followers agitate for exit visas on their behalf and then turn around and pat yourself on the back like this:

My speech is not about advice or opinion, but about history, and a message for future generations.

I'm sorry,Mr. Raz, no dice. Yes, Israel is important. Yes, being able to read "the writing on the wall" is important, as is having "back-up plans" for emergency or extraordinary situations. But there was no logical reason to follow the rebbe's advice. Buying land was not the act that saved people. Being able to physically leave was. And it is unacceptable to chide the victims for not having had enough money to buy their way out. When you make this connection, when you say the Shoah happened because they didn't "listen," you're not just twisting the truth and using other's suffering to enhance your rebbe's image. You're also suggesting that all those people's deaths were their own fault because they were poor. That is simply beyond the pale. My relatives don't deserve this kind of commentary. And neither does your grandfather.

Get some copy-editors

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

This first one was not so bad:

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

This next one was really, really bad:

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

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

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

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

Um, no.

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

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

Just FYI.

---

Edit: Apparently illiteracy is contagious.

Get some perspective

Richard Silverstein has an interesting, by which I mean exasperating, story, about rightwing hack organization Im Tirtzu's latest posterboy, Amir Benayoun. Benayoun spends the whole song bemoaning the "hate" and betrayal of the IDF by the Israeli left. I mostly want to focus on Benayoun's ridiculous lyrics, but I do think it's interesting that Silverstein notes that Benayoun was not allowed to serve in the army due to his criminal record. Apparently Benayoun's particular brand of patriotism consists of being a criminal thug, going BT, then pretending to be holier than thou while accusing his ideological opponents of hating the state. Good to know.

Here's the translation to Benayoun's song. Translation by Silverstein & some friends (could be wrong, I don't know. Other versions here and here.):

I am Your Brother

I preserve your identity
I protect your children
I put my life on the line for you
and you spit in my face

After they failed to kill me from the outside
you come and kill me from inside
I haven’t seen my mother in a month
neither my son nor my house nor my wife

I always charge forward
with my back to you
[but] you sharpen the knife
more than anything, this thought burns my soul
and you, how come you still don’t understand

I am your brother,
you are an enemy
you hate me
I love [you]
when I weep you laugh behind my back
you are killing me
why, you are my brother

I am the future
you are the past
and the present is broken between us
I go hungry for you
you gorge yourself and over-imbibe [reference to Deuteronomy 21 in which Israelite is stoned to death for such 'sins']
when my throat is dry you drink liquor
my lips are always sealed for your safety
but you deliver me to the foreigner [meaning gentiles--reference to Goldstone, NIF, Anat Kamm]

I am your brother, you act like an enemy
Why? You’re my brother

[Narrator intones prayer: He who blessed our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
May He bless the fighters of the Israel Defense Forces
Who stand guard over our land and the cities of our God
From Lebanon to the desert of Egypt
And from the Great Sea [Mediterranean] unto the approach of the Aravah
On the land, in the air, and on the sea

For it is the Lord your God who goes with you
To battle your enemies for you to save you
Now let us say: Amen

Honestly, about the only good thing you can say about this tripe is that it's so hyperbolic and one-sided that you have to hope it doesn't convince too many people who don't already subscribe to its views. But here are some interesting ironies I found:

1- Who in Israel relies on the army to "preserve its identity?" Hint: not the Left.

2- "You spit in my face." Watch the news. At the very least we can agree that spitting in soldiers' faces appears to be a bipartisan activity. (Gush Katif?)

3- "You sharpen the knife." Really? Let's take a census and figure out which political demographics have the guns.

4- "I am your brother/You are an enemy/You hate me/[but] I love"

No denying there are Israelis who hate the IDF. But the really scary rhetoric about demolishing the state and going after "traitors" ain't coming from lefties.

5- "When I weep you laugh."

Who was cheering Sharon's coma?

6- "You gorge yourself, etc..." My memory's gone again... remind me, which Israelis get paid government subsidies to live in large houses they otherwise could never afford? Ah yes, all those liberals.

Get over yourself, Amir. You can bitch about the left all you like. But the real ones "killing you-- and the army-- aren't the left-wingers. The sooner you realize this, the better off you'll be.

Being Even-Handed

I know I take a lot of jabs at Haredim. But I don't want people to think I am under the illusion that non-Orthodox, or secular, Jews, can do no wrong.

So in the best tradition of removing the timber from one's own eye, I present... a secular Israeli who is a complete asshole.

Behold.

During his program "Non-Stop Radio", Gazit called the Haredim "leeches," "parasites" and "worms", saying they should be sent out of the country or else kept within their own neighborhoods, disconnected from the national water and electricity grids.

Take note, people: I'm saying it loud and proud. This guy is a jackass. The fact that some Haredim are jerks (or act like jerks) is a legitimate point. The fact that they have special privileges in Israeli society that others might see as really unfair is also a legitimate point. Bashing an entire community, however, to the point of dehumanizing them and advocating expelling them from their country, is so far past the line of decency that you might as well be in a different time zone.

Here's a hint for Mr. Gazit: Israel's biggest problem isn't the Haredi sector. Neither, for the record, is it the Mafdal sector, secular sector, or even Arab sector. It's the fact that every time a mob of idiots does something stupid, rather than trying to seek out reasonable spokespeople within those communities and try to work on strengthening relations between the different groups in Israel, people instead circle their respective wagons and start bashing whatever group or denomination the idiots crawled out of-- thereby alienating everyone in that group even further. If you're lucky, they may even start screaming about libel and try to get you charged with incitement, thereby wasting everybody's time and attention, not to mention taxpayer money.

Honestly, the only silver lining in this whole incident has been the comment from Uri Orbach, who appears to be the only MK who is capable of keeping his head along with a sense of humor:

MK Uri Orbach said to Ynet, "The Israeli public is mature enough to avoid rising to such childish provocations. Cursing settlers and stalking Haredim who didn't stand to attention during the siren (marking Israel's Memorial Day) is so outdated, almost like listening to Gabi Gazit."

Wise words.

Truth, History, and Community

Earlier this month there was an article in the NY Times Magazine about Roman Vishniac, famous Jewish photographer of the shtetl. Alana Newhouse basically concluded that while Vishniac's pictures had been genuine, many had been staged and his captions deliberately deceitful. Why? Because Vishniac's employers, the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, wanted him to represent the Jews of Europe as poor, traditional folk who desperately needed the help of their American cousins. So what he came back with were almost unanimously pictures-- or descriptions-- of poor Orthodox villagers.

Some bloggers suggested that maybe this wasn't that important. Others, such as John Rabe and myself, disagreed. My biggest point was that the Vishniac pictures were more than academic history, they were personal to a large number of American Jews, many of whom never got a chance to see the Old Country, and never will. Vishniac's popularity, to a degree, was because he was thought to be giving us a glimpse, a contact point, with that society. The revelation that Vishniac was fibbing-- cutting out the middle-class and anyone who wasn't visibly Orthodox, for instance, not only hurts the Jewish community personally, it also robs us of the richness of our past, and feeds into the "Fiddler on the Roof" version of Jewish history that continues to be a thorn in the side of the American Jewish community.

The Vishniac story is important because truth matters.

However, it turns out there is a silver lining in all of this. And it comes from the most surprising of sources. Rabbi Avi Shafran, hardly a huge supporter of pluralism, had this insightful comment:

But communities, in the end, are like elephants, their observers the proverbial blind men, one touching an ear and concluding that the beast is floppy and thin, the other feeling a leg and imagining the subject tree-like, a third encountering its trunk and pronouncing the pachyderm a python.

American Jewry is a good example. The air of one part of that population is permeated by academic achievement, economic success and social concerns. It constitutes a parallel universe, though, to that of the Orthodox community, which extols Torah study and observance, and breathes an atmosphere of religious tradition.

In fact, and sadly, the two worlds barely acknowledge one another. Many Jews who define themselves as non-Orthodox or unaffiliated tend to view those who consider their Jewishness paramount as relics, either amusing or threatening, depending on the day and circumstance.

And all too many Orthodox Jews, especially those of us in the more insular haredi world, can be oblivious to the large mass of our distant relatives beyond the physical and conceptual ghettos we inhabit. And when we do think of them, we often see them essentially as objects of “outreach.” A laudable goal, to be sure, born of the desire to share something precious, but qualitatively removed from the deeper recognition that they are worthy of our concern and love as fellow Jews even if they never choose to live like us.

... A photographer could easily produce a volume portraying one American Jewish world or the other. Only a book, however, that portrays both (and likely several others in-between) could rightfully lay claim to the ambitious title “The American Jewish Community.”

Even within each part of the American Jewish scene, a constricted focus can be misleading. Some non-Orthodox Jews profess atheism or agnosticism; but others ponder G-d and their purposes on earth more than do some Orthodox-by-rote. And so it would be a disservice to truth to present either sub-group as emblematic of the non-Orthodox whole.

As it would to imagine, inspired by some popular media, that the Orthodox world is rife with white-collar criminals and slumlords, or harbors a disproportionate number of child abusers. We Orthodox surely have our share of scoundrels, knaves and hypocrites. But examining the dirt under the elephant’s toenails conveys nothing at all of the animal’s majesty. As a whole, measured by the vast majority of its members, the Orthodox community is precisely what unprejudiced observers come to see: a world of broad and deep religious dedication, charity and kindness.

Assuming that a group stereotype is a group description is the essence of prejudice. As the Vishniac article reminds us, even the most compelling snapshots can mislead.

Of course, Shafran's remarks aren't perfect. He still winds up talking down to non-Orthos to elevate his own community (no social concerns in Orthodoxy? Where has he been?) It's also interesting that the Orthodox world is described with specific terms and concepts-- religious education, charity, kindness, Torah study, tradition, preciousness, etc. Non-Orthos, by contrast, focus on academic achievement, economic success, and, occasionally, "pondering God". Surely Rabbi Shafran knows that charity, kindness, and yes, even tradition, are huge parts of other Jewish denominations as well?

The irony of the whole Vishniac story, as Rabe pointed out, is that in the end it's about truth. Specifically, Jews' ability to accurately document the truth about themselves, and share it with others. Shafran is right to point out that no Jewish sector has a monopoly on stereotyping the other, or on being stereotyped. But the answer to this problem is for different kinds of Jews to spend more time with each other, to debunk stereotypes. To actively seek out the truth about who we all really are, rather than reacting to every group-insult or stereotype lobbed across an ideological mechitza.

Is this something Rabbi Shafran, Agudath Israel and Cross-Currents would support? I'd love to believe it. But honestly, I'm not holding my breath. And if that's the case, Shafran's good words, like Vishniac's pictures, ultimately just wind up becoming another kind of well-intentioned fiction.

Yes, please tell me what to do

All right, I know I'm far from even-handed on the political thing, but I'd like to think I can usually refrain from ramming my opinions down other people's throats. I appreciate people that disagree with me, and actually don't mind having an intelligent discussion with those who think differently. (This, incidentally, is why I can't stand the fact that when I spend time with the conservative members of Abbot Yid's family he insists on bitching about Bush being an idiot and accusing his bothers of being racists. Both things might be true, but honestly, I'm a lot more interested in letting them speak for themselves so I can see how they feel about the issues.)

I'm not going to claim that everybody on the left, much less the Jewish left, sees things the way I do. Part of this is because I am emphatically not an activist. I don't live politics, I more saunter through it when I remember it's there. So clearly if MSNBC or Fox News or their online equivalents are your bible, you're going to take these discussions a whole lot more seriously.

But I have to say, I do find it a little irritating when the bozos at WorldNetDaily start lecturing me on how I had better share their politics if I want to be a good Jew.

Let's start with Dennis Prager. I mean, at least he's actually Jewish. Dennis' latest waste of pixels is the usual mix of unsubstantiated crap, along with (of course), various lists that show in excrutiating detail how right Dennis must be and how if you don't agree with him you're no better than a dirty Karaite.

For instance:

Most observers, right or left, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, would agree that Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory.

Based on what? What about when Eisenhower put the screws to Ben Gurion and told him to get out of the Sinai or he'd institute sanctions against Israel? Or when Bush I and James Bakker started a long-standing feud with Shamir because he wouldn't stop building settlements and they wanted to tie Israel aid to their compliance? For a guy who's written so many books, you sure don't seem to bother reading much.

Among the many indications is that only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think President Barack Obama's administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian...

Hey Dennis, why should the ideal perception be that Obama is biased in FAVOR of Israel? Incidentally, the Palestinians don't see him as being pro-Palestinian, either. Incidentally, as long as we're throwing around random polls, another recent one shows that 34 percent of Jewish Americans think Obama is a strong supporter of Israel. Does that make them all insane?

According to Dennis, sure. But most of his article isn't about why the left hates Israel, but rather why the right loves it. Here are the dumbest:

conservatives' values are closer to Israel's values than perhaps those of any other nation. As President Harry Truman said, "Israel is the embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

As usual, Dennis cannot be bothered to give even the slightest bit of evidence for this statement, which not only simplifies and dumbs down Israel's values (and there's a long way from Haredi anti-Zionism to Mafdal Zionism to secular democracy, just BTW), it also does the same for conservatism. Just for fun, here are a couple of huge differences between the Israeli status-quo and mainstream conservative values:

1- There is no civil marriage in Israel (so much for Libertarianism or personal choice/responsibility!)

2- Israel is officially bilingual, and has many government-run bilingual schools (there goes the English Only movement). Most Israelis speak at least two languages if not several others. For the record, as of the 2000 census, only about 21% of Americans were bilingual (and there's been a huge cultural backlash against introducing bilingualism into public schools by the right).

3- Gay soldiers can serve openly in the IDF. Nuff said.

4- In 2006, the Israeli Supreme Court required the government to recognize all same-sex marriages performed outside the country. (Whereas in the US, many conservatives are trying to ban SSM not only in individual states, but also refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages.)

In short, Dennis is once again full of crap. Oh, the surprise.

Finally, there is a fifth reason tens of millions of Americans, many conservative commentators, support Israel and worry about America if American support for Israel wanes.

To the left in America and around the world, this reason is dangerous nonsense. But for a vast number of America's Christians, many Jews and even many non-religious conservatives, it is deeper than any military or political reason. The reason is based on a verse in Genesis in which God, referring to the Jewish people, says to Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."

One need not be a Jew or Christian or even believe in God to appreciate that this verse is as accurate a prediction of the future as humanity has ever been given by the ancient world. The Jewish people have suffered longer and more horribly than any other living people. But they are still around. Their historic enemies are all gone. Those who cursed the Jews were indeed cursed.

Funny, last I checked there was still this little country called Egypt... oh, and there's the Catholic Church. And Communism seems to still be hanging on by a thread, at least if you buy the arguments made by the likes of Dennis and Glenn Beck.

Let's be honest, Dennis. Part of why you can make this claim is because the Jews changed over time. Some of their enemies did as well, but you're conveniently choosing to ignore that. The fact that Jewish society in 2010 looks nothing like Jewish society in 70 CE or 1492 doesn't stop you from still considering it as the same basic thing. Yet you're suggesting that because the Babylonian Empire or Nazi Germany no longer exist as specific cultures or nation-states (never mind their descendants still being around) constitutes some kind of deep proof of Godly power. Or something.

Sure, America has by and large been quite nice to the Jews, but why this obsession with declaring things "the most blessed?" What makes America "more blessed" than Canada? Is is political or economic power? Is it culture? For that matter, what measurable criteria do you have to determine that America has "blessed" its Jews more than Canada has, or Australia? Is it that there are more Jews IN America? Who knows? Dennis isn't talking. Presumably he also isn't interested in the fact that Jews were banned from living in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire until the 1690s, or that even in places where Jews were permitted to live, they often were not allowed to vote or hold public office. Hell, New Hampshire still had a law on the books requiring a Christian oath from officeholders until after the CIVIL WAR! That's not even getting into violent antisemitism. Yes, things have been much better in the US than in many other places. But let's have some perspective, please.

Those who curse the Jews today seem to be cursed. The most benighted civilization today is the Arab world. One could make a plausible case that the Arab world's preoccupation with Jew hatred and destroying Israel is decisive in keeping the Arab world from progressing. The day the Arab world makes peace with the existence of the tiny Jewish state in its midst, the Arab world will begin its ascent.

So... Europe is doing fairly well these days because of how nice they were to us? Your faith must be really flexible to be able to do all these gymnastics, Dennis.

Israel shares America's values, such as liberty, an independent judiciary, a free press, freedom of religion, free speech and women's equality. The Arab and Muslim worlds have none of these.

Here's an idea, Dennis: go to Israel and ask some Reform Jews (or Messianic Jews) about freedom of religion there. Ask the Women of the Wall about women's equality. Ask Israeli Arabs, leftists, and rightists about free speech. Talk to Israeli journalists who operate under, and must always remember, Israel's formal military censor about free speech. Oh, and go ahead and ask all the American Jews who move to Israel and are then told that they, their spouse, or their kids aren't Jewish and are prevented from marrying, being buried in a Jewish cemetery, or converting under a rabbi of their choice. Oh, and there's that whole "Sixty years running and still no written Constitution" thing.

Yes, Israel's much better than Iran, but, again, you're spinning endless BS to inflate your argument. And not only is it getting old, it's actually kind of insulting. You don't need to whitewash Israel's real problems in order to explain why America should support it. When you do you actually undercut your own arguments. Dummy.

If you enjoyed Dennis' masturbation session on how glorious Israel and US conservatives are, you'll really love Pat Boone's call to action, which he so poetically (and Marx-esquely) entitled Christians, Jews, patriots: Arise, unite!

Pat starts by pointing out just how unhappy Jewish liberals have become with Obama. Why, Pat has all of two examples, one being the well-established fickle Ed Koch (who supported Bush II against Kerry, for, among other things, being more pro-Israel), and the other being an unnamed Jewish acquaintance, a doctor no less. A doctor, you say? Well, that's all the Jew-dentials I need.

Yes, it turns out Pat's two Jewish friends have concluded that Obama is actively demeaning and slandering Israel, and toadying up to the Arab states to try to push Israel towards a peace plan and to create an alliance against Iran.

But here's the funny thing- Israelis can't even agree on who to blame for the US-Israel settlement kerfluffle. Observe:

Haaretz: "How would you define PM Netanyahu's management of this episode - responsible or irresponsible?" Responsible-42 percent; Irresponsible-37 percent; Don't know-27 percent.

Yedioth: "Who is to blame for the crisis with the U.S.?" Israel-35 percent; U.S.-37percent.

Israel Radio: "Who contributed more to this crisis between the U.S. and Israel? Mainly Barack Obama-41 percent; mainly Benjamin Netanyahu-37 percent; both of them equally-7 percent

Israel Radio: "Do you think the American government's response toward Netanyahu and Israel was..."Justified and at a correct and appropriate level-17 percent; Justified but totally exaggerated-31 percent; Both unjustified and exaggerated-43 percent.

Haaretz: "Some say that Israel needs to stop building in Jerusalem until the conclusion of negotiations with the Palestinians, others say that Israel needs to continue building in all of the city even if the cost is tension with the United States. What is your position?" Keep building in all Jerusalem with cost vis U.S.-48 percent; Stop building in Jerusalem through negotiations-41 percent; Don't know-11 percent.

Yedioth: "Should the construction in East Jerusalem be frozen as well? Yes-46 percent; No-51 percent.

Yedioth: "Should Netanyahu extend the construction freeze in the settlements?" He should extend the freeze-44 percent; He should stop the freeze-46 percent.

Shocking, Israelis actually think their own leader might be capable of being as arrogant, pig-headed and combative as US conservatives accuse Obama of being? Wow, it's like they actually recognize that politicians can be douches regardless of what country they live in. How refreshing. (The same article also mentions a Haaretz poll which finds that 51% of responders think Obama is "fair" towards Israel. So much for Dennis' bitching.)

Back to Pat:

This great, unprecedented experiment in freedom and self-government we call America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Yes, right out of the Bible. As scholar David Barton has pointed out, in the 15,000 writings by our founders archived and studied by political science professors, there were 3,154 quotes, and 34 percent of them were straight out of the Bible, mostly from Deuteronomy.

David Barton? Dishonest asshat from Wallbuilders-dot-com David Barton? Personal hack friend of Glenn Beck David Barton? Hmm.

BTW, Pat- the fact that the founders quoted from the Bible... not really impressive. Especially not without any, you know, context. Nice numbers, though.

Simply and truly put, our whole system of law and government was based on Mosaic Law, given by God, and recognized as supreme and perfect by our founders.

Actually, no, because lots of the founders had no idea what Mosaic law even meant. You know, not unlike yourself. (Now, if they'd been willing to let Jews live in their colonies, maybe they could have ASKED them about these strange things called mitzvot and halacha...) BTW, you know who DIDN'T think Mosaic law was "perfect?" All the rabbis since the Pharisees.

We who believe in God and His word still are a large majority in this country.

Well sure, but a lot of that has to do with this being a super general statement. Kudos.

Our best and only hope to recover what we're rapidly losing is to rally and unite under one banner, ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

"If My people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

– 2 Chronicles 7:14

That's the health care we desperately need.

Yes, well, much luck curing your HPV with that one. I'll certainly be praying for you.