A question about Gebrokts

First, some background for those who don't know, courtesy of our friends at Chabad:

Many communities, chassidic ones in particular, have the custom to refrain from eating gebrokts -- matzah that came in contact with water after it was fully baked -- on the first seven days of Passover. Although such matzah is kosher-for-Passover, this stringency is kept by many as a higher level of safeguarding for the matzah.

In order to refrain from wetting the matzah, the matzah must not come in contact with any water. This affects cooking: those who are careful with gebrokts don't eat matzah balls, matzah brie, or matzah anything -- in short, they do not cook at all with matzah. Also, they are very careful to keep the matzah on the table covered, and away from any food that may have water in it. Drinks, soups, vegetables that have been washed and not thoroughly dried, etc., are all kept far away from any matzah.

..."Gebroktz" is the Yiddish word which refers to matzah that has come in contact with water. "Gebroktz" literally means "broken," and it has come to mean wet matzah because matzah is usually ground or broken up into crumbs before it is mixed with water.

Those who refrain from eating gebroktz on Passover do so for fear that during the baking process there may have been a minute amount of flour which did not get kneaded and mixed into the dough and remained dry. If that is the case, upon contact with water the flour will become chametz.

...A situation in which this stringency comes into play is during the Korech step of the Seder. This step requires that we take maror -- lettuce and horseradish -- and put it between two pieces of matzah to make a sandwich. Because the lettuce will be actually touching the matzah, it must be absolutely dry. Many families spend much time preparing the maror for the Seder; these preparations include careful washing of the lettuce, and then very meticulous drying.

Of course, anything to give our wives ourselves more work. Sure it's a sacrifice, but that's what being a pious Jew's wife Jew is all about.

So here's the question: how can one be so concerned with not eating matzah that has come into contact with liquid when...

A- At the same meal, you drink FOUR CUPS OF WINE, and soup, and hopefully a little water,

B- The process of digestion involves everything you've chewed being deposited into LIQUID stomach acid.

If A doesn't make everything you're eating gebrokts, B certainly should.

In conclusion: WHAT?

(I think I just broke Judaism. Sorry.)

Hametz as a Civil Liberty

There was a recent court decision in Israel to allow the open sale of hametz, or leavened bread products, during the 8-week holiday of Passover. Some people are understandably angry about this:

According to MK Zevulun Orlev (NU/NRP), who was next to address the plenum, "the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public wishes to adhere to the Jewish tradition not only personally but publicly and nationally."

"If only we had no need for a law - that should have been the ideal situation, just like we do not need a Yom Kippur law, a Brit Mila law, and just like there is no law mandating the consumption of matza on Pessah," Orlev said. "The Hametz Law was enacted because people - maybe they were a minority, especially in the Tel Aviv area - were scornful, did not show sensitivity, and served hametz in public."

To which the obvious answer should be- SO WHAT? This is the price of living in a democracy. Yes, even those secular bastards in Tel Aviv are entitled to do as they please.

The Haredi Shas party has responded to this by not only threatening to quit the government (something that is irritating some right-wingers, interestingly enough, as it shows just where Shas' priorities are), but also by promising its constituents that it will work extra-hard to make sure to "sweep out" any pesky civil liberty loopholes out by next year.

Shas leader Eli Yishai on Tuesday announced that by 2009 it will be impossible to sell chametz, speaking only hours after the Attorney General ruled the state will not appeal a Jerusalem court's controversial decision to allow the sale of the foods by certain businesses during the Jewish holiday.

"The People of Israel can relax, by next year it be impossible to sell chametz," said Eli Yishai, who is Employment, Trade and Industry Minister as well as heading the ultra-Orthodox party.

Well I'm sure this is helping someone sleep easier. Presumably, someone with way too much time on his hands.

Proponents of the Hametz law are basically taking three approaches. The first, in what is unfortunately becoming all too common, is threatening violence. Because, of course, at this time of great joy, remembrance, and Jewish unity, the best way to show all us sinners the errors of our ways is to burn garbage cans and throw rocks. (One Reform rabbi is trying to spin this positively; I'll wait and see what happens to the businesses that refuse the polite letter.)

The second is to bemoan the good old days when the quasi-Marxist elites of Israel still enforced a status-quo which didn't challenge the religious mores as overtly as they do now. Rabbi Berel Wein leads the way:

There were certain norms of respect that once governed Israeli society, even though that society was perhaps even more secular in lack of observance and in its anti-religious ideology than it is today.

Marxism was a powerful influence in the Jewish world then as was its attendant atheism. Nevertheless the general consensus was a modicum of respect towards traditional Jewish norms that prevailed.

Maybe it was nostalgia or just good hardheaded common sense that the climate in the country reflected a Yom Kippur without traffic, Pesach without public displays of chametz, and Tisha B’Av without restaurants being open for business.

Such was the climate of the times – not one of religious observance but rather one of respect for Jewish history and tradition and for the great section of Israeli society who held these concepts and observances dear.

But the estrangement of Israeli society to this type of public climate has been taking place gradually over the past few decades. Respect for tradition and knowledge of the Jewish past are certainly not emphasized and in many cases not even taught in the Israeli public educational system.

Religious Jews are demonized, albeit subtly but nevertheless constantly, in the main media channels. Sensitivities to neighbors and fellow citizens have become non-existent. Public Shabbat desecration abounds and no one takes into account the damage - spiritual, social, and generational that springs from this.

The climate has changed – no respect for tradition or our past or for the sensitivities of a large and ever growing section of Israeli society is present.

So it is not the individual issue of a public display chametz on Pesach that is so hurtful. It is rather the indication of how severely the climate regarding Jewish tradition has changed. There are many Jews who are not observant but who nevertheless respect the prohibition of chametz on Pesach.

What R. Wein forgets is that much of this status-quo had less to do with ACTUAL respect for Orthodox traditions and customs and more to do with patronizing and courting political support. Much of Israel's old guard were die-hard secularists who were downright antagonistic to religion precisely because of experiences back in the old country, and were either first or second generation departees from Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, there is no reason why my respect of someone else's method of observing a holiday demands driving hametz underground. I can respect what YOU do without doing it myself, or requiring that a third party be forced to go along with what we're both doing (will we mandate seder attendance next?). Same for Shabbat observance- you're in shul all day, what do you care what I'm doing? And why should respect always flow one way- you have religious MKs calling this decision "liberal terrorism." What about respecting the right to civil disagreement, or personal freedom? It's the religious parties who want to legislate behavior here, not the other way around. You can't legislate respect.

The third is just to be pissy:

This week every radio talk show in Israel and every newpaper discussed the “hametz” law. I was surprised no one made a point that I often make when there is a charge of religious coercion: In Switzerland it is against the law to wash your car or hang laundry on Sunday. You get fined! But how come no one calls that ‘religious coercion” ?

Maybe if anyone gave a crap about Switzerland...

And pissier:

Anything to show America and Europe that they are like “everyone else” and disregard religion, because it is “archaic and out of date”, they are more “enlightened and know better”. This is probably the furthest the “High Court” has gotten as far as Torah is concerned. Now we know where we are headed….

And even-pissier:

Israel is a Jewish nation. If someone wants to eat Chametz on Pesach or purchase Pork they should chose a different place to live. If they are living in Israel, they need to respect the laws, culture and tradition of the nation.

I am sure there will be large demonstrations in front of any business selling Chometz, and I am sure that those businesses will be boycotted completely. But, all we need, really is one person standing outside these establishments on Hol Homoed with a cell-phone camera to photograph every person going in and out. Then, those photos should be posted on the internet, the patrons should be identified, and if any of the patrons of these establishments are in the process of conversion, or if they have come to Israel under the Law of Return, the should have their citizenship and/or conversion immediately revoked.

They must be cut off from the Jewish people.

Hey genius, maybe some people want to live in a different kind of Israel, one that doesn't mandate that everybody follow theocratic laws. Israel was built on the backs of its pioneers, religious AND secular. Come on, you're talking about photographing people eating BREAD like they were walking into freaking whorehouses and trying to get them deported. It's not crack, it's freaking BREAD!!

I'm sorry guys, you live in a democracy. People have the right to eat whatever they want. If you want them to not be jackasses about it, try asking them nicely instead of insulting or threatening them. And before you chalk this all up to me being a heretic and all, here are a bunch of more religious folks (relative to me, anyway) who agree with me.

R. David Hartman:

One is caught in this dilemma. I can appreciate the aversion people have for legislating religious principles. I appreciate the feeling of some that the government should not enter into your own private spiritual domain and dictate to you what you can and cannot eat on Pesach. Freedom of religion or non-religion is an option that should be decided by the individual and not by the legislative power of the Knesset.

On the other hand, if we are interested in some shared, collective space that mediates some flavor of Jewishness and gives a Jewish quality to our public life, then it is the role of the Knesset to establish the minimum conditions that would give expression to our Jewish historical heritage.

Should Jewishness be legislated or should it be the result of a personal freedom of choice?

Friend of the blog Antigonos, who, questionable culinary taste aside, makes some excellent points about personal freedom:

...the head of one of the most religious political parties has now declared that he intends to seek a law forbidding the sale of chametz absolutely, making it impossible for even a Moslem or a Christian to have a felafel in a pita too.

...Dear Mr. Yishai: No damn government is going to tell me whether I may eat chametz or not. Get a law passed prohibiting the sale or display of all chametz, and there will be bread on my Seder table (if only for show)! With "friends" like you, attempting to force observance by coercion, we ordinary Jews don't need don't need any other enemies. Please go count your tzitzit, or something, and stay out of my kitchen. I don't force you to eat treif, don't force me to eat matzah (which, by the way, I love).

Another FOTB, Xyre:

The Israeli Haredi establishment won’t be satisfied until every square inch of Israel is a theocracy, and the men in black hats have all the power. Like Iran, but Jewish. People should have the right to buy, sell, and eat what they want during Passover. Just because some three-thousand-year-old law says you shouldn’t eat hametz, that means everybody in the country must be prohibited from it? Passover is about freedom. This includes the freedom not to give a damn about old laws and customs.

...I’m glad for the judicial ruling that recognizes that if people—Jews—want to sell and buy hametz during Passover, they have every right to do so. This is victory for rationality, consideration, and tolerance, and against caving to the Haredim and surrendering personal choice to the theocracy that some Jews are intent on creating in Israel. People have rights, including the right not to observe old (and frankly, quite silly) traditions.

I don't hate Passover. I don't hate religious Jews. I understand that some of them are very upset by a Jewish state that doesn't seem to care about enforcing Jewish law. But the laws of the State of Israel are not the same as Jewish law, and not banning hametz does not infringe on religious Jews' rights to practice their religion. One blogger says the loss of the hametz law paves the way towards the final split of the Jewish people in Israel:

You want stores to have the right to sell chametz on Passover. For seven simple days, you cannot stand the idea of going without bread. You’ll follow your carbohydrates-free diet all year long, but on Passover, woe unto those who dare to deny you the right to buy pita.

For the right to buy some rolls and noodles, you will turn your back on my beliefs. No, I don’t expect you to believe, but would it be so costly for you to honor my right to my beliefs?

...Ultimately, the sale of chametz products in Israel means another desecration of what sets us apart from the rest of the world; what makes us a unique Jewish State. It will not impact on the ability to keep kosher for any religious Jew. All it will do is show us, once again, how far apart Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are – and even more importantly, it will convince those of us with orange hearts that it is useless to believe that we can ever really be one nation.

There was a civil war after the evacuation of Gush Katif. It did not play out in violence as the media and the left so gleefully predicted. It took place in the hearts and souls of those on the right. We surrender. Eat your chametz on Passover and shop on our Sabbath. Desecrate the laws of the Torah if you will and cry about your right to eat pita for those precious 7 days of the year. But what you have lost, the cost of buying that chametz will be in the millions of dollars those stores will lose from religious customers. It is our right to buy OUR pita where we will.

Go ahead, refuse to buy wine from the Golan Heights and honey from the Shomron. Don’t buy products produced in Ariel or those made in Maale Adumim. And we, in turn, will refuse to buy from stores open on Shabbat and those who sell chametz on Passover –and we will all be poorer for the experience.

But even more important than the monetary issues is the fact that you will lose our hearts, our determination to be one with the nation you want to maintain. We will not join a country that would desecrate what we value most – all for a loaf of bread, one time per year. We cannot be part of the Israel you are trying to build because it runs against everything that we believe in – a land that we hold not by the might of the army, but by the right of all that we are, all that we have survived as a people.

What is the cost of selling chametz on Passover? Far greater than Israel can afford to pay.

I acknowledge this woman's pain, but her personal anguish and anxiety seems to be clouding her identification over exactly which party is being wronged here. There is no legitimate reason to FORCE other people to observe Passover the way SHE thinks it should be properly observed. Furthermore, she does not need a LAW to either: A- celebrate her holiday the way she wants to, or even, B- to encourage others to NOT do things she'd rather they didn't. No, you SHOULDN'T get to deny people their bread products, anymore than they should get to deny you your right to eat kosher food or wear traditional clothing. It's your RIGHT to do those things, and its their right to eat whatever on earth they want.

Which leaves us with Conservative Rabbi Reuven Hammer's thoughts:

The tragic reality is that these religious-political leaders do not realize that the more laws they enact the more they alienate so-called secular Jews from Judaism. The more they rant and rave against secular Jews, the less chance they have of creating an atmosphere in which Judaism, Jewish values and Jewish observances will be honored and even followed by the population at large. The more coercion is brought to bear in religious matters, the more the population will rebel against it and revile Judaism.

Rather than spending their energy in trying to enforce unenforceable laws of dubious value, true religious leaders - as opposed to political leaders wrapped in the cloak of religion - would spend their time teaching and demonstrating the beauties of Judaism. Instead they are busy demonstrating the exact opposite. They use their political leverage to wrest vast sums of money from the government, i.e. from the pockets of the taxpayers, to support thousands who will not serve their country in the army or any other way, thereby creating hatred among the secular. They bring disrespect upon Judaism - and desecrate God's name - by sending to the Knesset those who end up in jail for flaunting the very laws of the Torah they pretend to represent.

Every time a religious leader stands up in the Knesset or elsewhere and spouts nonsense such as the speech we recently heard about homosexuals being responsible for earthquakes or faulty mezuzot bringing on terrorist attacks, every time we hear religious people denouncing the government, the courts, the police and whatever as illegitimate, more and more people are turned away from Judaism.

Former Meretz MK and Israel Prize winner for law scholarship Amnon Rubinstein agrees:

The great majority of Israeli Jews want to remain Jewish and would like their offspring not only to stay within the Jewish people but also know more about their heritage. This is why the great majority would opt for Jewish marriages, even if one day civil marriage is introduced. In the same way, they continue to circumcise their male babies - although this should have logically been the most difficult of rites to observe - and to be buried under rabbinical auspices. But when there is an attempt to force on them religious law through secular parliamentary exercises, many rebel.

I am not religious, but out of a mixture of sentiments - including irrational ones - I observe certain traditions. This is why I do not eat hametz on Passover and enjoy matzot throughout the holiday. But I do recognize the right of others to eat and buy whatever they like. This is the substantive meaning of democracy, and this is why, to people like me, Israel can be both Jewish and democratic, notwithstanding the post-Zionist mumbo-jumbo to the contrary.

Indeed. If people on the right are really so concerned about what their fellow Jews are eating, they should be spending energy making them WANT to follow the holiday, to want to at least make an effort. Don't legislate it, and don't demean people that don't want to do it the way you do. It will have the opposite effect, turn them off even more from Judaism and holiday observance, and create ever-more resentment between the two groups.

Any religious practice that can only be enforced through coercion isn't worth enforcing. Such a move is a failure of both religion and democracy, both of which should be voluntary by nature. Passover is the most widely observed holiday in the entire Jewish world. Allowing some supermarkets to sell bread will not stop this. But legislating people's personal rights and freedoms will leave a bad taste in their mouths for years to come. And I'm not just talking about the matzah.

Battle of the Haggadahs: The Revenge

Slate decided to reprint Mark Oppenheimer's rant about how having too many different Haggadot at Passover ruins the unity and uniformity of the holiday. It was stupid then, and still is. Oppenheimer's argument basically boiled down to, "My version of cultural Judaism is about bubbe, zayde, and Bernard Malamud," not, heaven forbid, mixing goyishe politics with the part about how we should all appreciate our freedom- wouldn't want things to get too relevant, after all.

Oppenheimer's article also included a loving tribute to the most staid of Haggadot, the Maxwell House Haggadah.

I think the best response to this attitude was from Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, via Velveteen Rabbi:

I am here to free you from the Maxwell House Haggadah, to free you in your Pesach celebration!
...But you are not just free to use better Haggadahs, (the ones with good translations and more openness), you are also free to use the material as a jumping-off point for playing, for elaboration. Like the Siddur, the Haggadah is a kind of a cookbook filled with recipes. You can’t eat a cookbook, even ones with the tastiest, the most nourishing recipes. You must do the cooking to turn recipes to dishes. And it’s similar with the Haggadah: You make the words three-dimensional, four-dimensional. Every Seder you have is a different way to bring the words off the page with different “spices,” different life-conditions.

Amen. Oppenheimer's entitled to want to use as many Maxwell Houses as he wants (take ours, we got them free from the supermarket), complete with weird, old-style Ashkenazi transliteration, (who writes hadlik as "had-leek", or "Adir Hu" as "A-deer hu"?) and those iconic (boring?) pictures sprinkled around ever-so-slightly. Enjoy. But there's no reason to discount what everybody else is doing as invalid just because you want stay cloistered in the land of coffee-scented Haggadot.

BZ from Jewschool also found Oppenheimer's pooh-poohing infuriating:

I think his diagnosis is completely backwards. Oppenheimer suggests that the diversity of creative haggadot can be attributed to the Jews who are primarily “secular Americans” and feel “unease” around Judaism, and that those who are more secure in their Jewish identies will opt instead for the unadorned Maxwell House. On the contrary: “Secular Americans” who have a minimal connection to Judaism but nonetheless attend a seder out of nostalgia or ethnic identification are more likely to, like Oppenheimer, read the Maxwell House from rote, while those who make Judaism more a part of their year-round lives are more likely to add layers of meaning on top of the traditional haggadah text, whether by using a creative haggadah or simply by making discussion an important part of their seder.

Pretty much.

For the curious, here are some segments from my own Haggadah. Needless to say, it's a bit more, shall we say, Leitzniyut than Mr. Oppenheimer or the Maxwell crowd might approve of.

The Seder Plate

You may have noticed that our main platter looks weird. We assure you, we did not steal it from a cafeteria. The Seder Plate is used to hold the six depressing symbols of the meal. As we explain what these are, please remember that yes, Passover is supposed to be a happy holiday. Just… give us a few minutes.

The symbols on the seder plate are:

1. Z’ro’a, a roasted lamb bone, usually a shank bone, a symbol of the lamb sacrifice that used to be offered in the Temple in Jerusalem at this time, then roasted and eaten with the meal. Traditionally, the function of the bone was to remind the Jews that their seders were not complete while they were still in exile. Some might choose to see the bone as a symbol for anything missing or incomplete in their own lives. (Vegetarians sometimes use beets, which isn’t nearly as cool.)

2. Karpas, a green vegetable. This is dipped in salt water to symbolize the tears of the Hebrews in Egypt. As if slavery wasn’t depressing enough, now you get to eat tears.

3. Haroset, a mixture of chopped nuts, apples, wine and spices. It is a symbol of the mortar and bricks made by the Hebrews as slaves. Tastes slightly better than it looks (and sounds).

4. Beitzah, a roasted egg, another piece of food we can’t eat because there’s no Temple. (To compensate, we have prepared a whole bushel of hard-boiled eggs. Take that, you stuck-up egg!)

5. Maror, bitter herbs, usually Romaine lettuce or horseradish, to symbolize the bitterness of slavery. Slavery is sad, but watching people eat maror is pretty darn funny.

6. Hazeret, extra maror for the korech sandwich, one of the weirdest sandwiches you will ever see (but more on that later).

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

The “Four” Questions and their Misleading Answers: A Smart-Ass’ commentary

Asking questions is a very old Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, not all good questions always get accurate answers. Even the title “Four Questions” starts things off on the wrong foot by confusing everyone. There is actually only one question, there are four answers, and they are mostly wrong.

How is this night different from all other nights?

1. On all other nights we eat hametz and matzah. On this night, we only eat matzah.

This, of course, is a lie, because no one ever eats matzah unless forced to.

2. On all other nights we eat all kinds of vegetables; on this night, maror.

Not only does horseradish barely count as a vegetable, the Haggadah also seems to be presuming a lot about the Jews’ table habits. Just how many summer salads were there in the ancient world?

3. On all other nights we do not dip our food even once; on this night, twice.

Apparently no one told the Haggadah about chips and salsa. Or pita and humus.

4. On all other nights we eat either sitting or reclining; on this night we all recline.

Only those of us privileged enough to have personal Roman orgy couches. The rest will have to make do with the floor or by slouching on chairs. Sorry.

Maybe tomorrow I'll post my version of the Exodus story.

Two-Minute Haggadah

Shiska Girlfriend and I are four days away from our first seder. Since we are nothing if not over-confident, we have invited 9 other people, and I have written my own Haggadah (40 pages in the original, now close to 90 after making it large-font for the older guests and battling with stupid Kinko's fonts). Since presently I'm flirting with the idea of running off for the weekend and leaving everyone to split a box of matzoh and bottle of Manischewitz, I got a large chuckle out of this:

For those of you who don't have the patience to sit through a full Seder: The Two-Minute Haggadah - A Passover service for the impatient.

Opening prayers:
Thanks, God, for creating wine. (Drink wine.)
Thanks for creating produce. (Eat parsley.)
Overview:
Once we were slaves in Egypt. Now we're free. That's why we're doing this.
Four questions:
1. What's up with the matzoh?
2. What's the deal with horseradish?
3. What's with the dipping of the herbs?
4. What's this whole slouching at the table business?
Answers:
1. When we left Egypt, we were in a hurry. There was no time for making decent bread.
2. Life was bitter, like horseradish.
3. It's called symbolism.
4. Free people get to slouch.
A funny story:
Once, these five rabbis talked all night, then it was morning. (Heat soup now.)
The four kinds of children and how to deal with them:
Wise child-explain Passover.
Simple child-explain Passover slowly.
Silent child-explain Passover loudly.
Wicked child-brow beat in front of the relatives.
Speaking of children: We hid some matzoh. Whoever finds it gets five bucks.

The story of Passover:
It's a long time ago. We're slaves in Egypt. Pharaoh is a nightmare. We cry out for help. God brings plagues upon the Egyptians. We escape, bake some matzoh. God parts the Red Sea. We make it through. The Egyptians aren't so lucky. We wander 40 years in the desert, eat manna, get the Torah, wind up in Israel, get a new temple, enjoy several years without being persecuted again. (Let brisket cool now.)
The 10 Plagues: Blood, Frogs, Lice-you name it.
The singing of "Dayenu":
If God had gotten us out of Egypt and not punished our enemies, it would've been enough. If He'd punished our enemies and not parted the Red Sea, it would've been enough. If He'd parted the Red Sea (remove gefilte fish from refrigerator now.) etc.

Eat matzoh. Drink more wine. Slouch.
Thanks again, God, for everything.
SERVE MEAL.
Say Grace. Drink more wine. Sing some more songs. Try to stay awake.
Who knows one? Who knows two through thirteen?
Dad bought a goat for two zuzim. Everyone beats up every one until God steps in.
Go to sleep.
Do it again another night.

This was courtesy of Rafi at Life in Israel. Funnily enough, a commenter criticized him for posting "Leitzonus," that is, "mockery," or "scoffing." A google search for leitzonus turned this up:

The Torah teaches us, “V’eileh toldos Yitzchak ben Avraham; Avraham holid es Yitzchak” - And these are the offspring of Yitzchak, the son of Avraham; Avraham begot Yitzchak. Rashi comments on the obvious redundancy of the verse. After having just said that Yitzchak was the son of Avraham, why does it have to repeat that Avraham begot Yitzchak? He answers that it is to reveal a great miracle that occurred. The leitzonei hador, the scoffers of the generation, were promulgating that Sarah Imeinu, after all those years of not having children from Avraham, probably didn’t conceive from her husband. Rather, on the celebrated night when she was abducted by Avimelech, the king of the Philistines, was the time when Yitzchak must have been sired. In order to disprove this evil rumor, Hashem changed the facial features of Yitzchak so that he looked exactly like Avraham. Thus, everyone would know with an absolute certainty that “Avraham holid es Yitzchak.”

As someone who considers themselves a Leitz Hador, I have to say, I thought this Passover nugget was quite good (and, as usual, I don't understand what all the fuss is about).

Cleaning out the Tabs

Some things that have been rattling around in my browser for a while:

- Jimmy Carter meeting Hamas. Sounds like a good idea in far-off, theoretical principle-land to me (if anyone could put a good face on the US vis-a-vis Hamas it would be Carter), except that Hamas doesn't strike me as being interested in becoming buddy-buddy, making the whole scenario rather pointless. Carter is supremely well-meaning, but I don't think he's very relevant anymore. (On the other hand, saying he should be stripped off his security detail seems rather childish; I might as well start asking why MY tax dollars have to pay for Bill Clinton to give a speech at a college campus or G.H. Bush to play golf? They're former Presidents, part of the contract is getting Secret Service guys. If you don't like it, change it.)

- An Israeli Rabbinical Court is hearing the divorce case of a couple from French Guadelupe. I'm not sure what to make of this.

- Secular Israelis launch a counter-boycott to the Haredim's actual boycott. This is awesome. Hat-tip Failed Messiah, whose commentary is also good and insightful. Also this from Haaretz, who points out that this isn't as much about Sabbath observance as it is economics. There's some sneaky stuff going on here.

- An oldy but awful: this conservative activist is oh-so, super-totally outraged and shocked at an ad she saw for Puppetry of the Penis in her newspaper. More hilarious than her paranoid accusations that this was deliberately timed to coincide with Easter are her tangled arguments for why this should merit a boycott of the local paper:

"It is apparently no longer safe to even open the local paper at home. The moral squalor in our culture worsens because few are prepared to take a public stand and risk abuse for doing so. We're going to take a stand," she said.

She described the ad as "homo-erotic" and condemned its apparent "mocking of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," especially on such a day as Good Friday.

"It's clearly not what you would expect for a big city newspaper," she told WND. "You'd expect this in a seedy, fringe newspaper found in a coffee shop."

Damn you, coffee! First caffeine addiction, then adding "venti" to our national vocabulary, and now this! Forget the newspaper, let's just burn down all the coffee shops. Trickle-down outrage. I'm sure it will work.

- WND reenacts that cool Join or Die Ben Franklin cartoon on its website as it quibbles over who's more entitled to teach the Bible in public schools. An Alabama State senator is pissy because the Bible Literacy Project has some liberal people on its editorial board and may incorporate some Hegel, "an occultist whose philosophy laid the foundation for communist brainwashing." He says we should all use Chuck Norris' Bible method instead. Then someone from the BLP responds, basically saying "nuh-uh- we're totally evangelical enough!" (On the actual issue of Bible classes in public schools, see here and here.)

- A Holocaust memorial about Nazi death trains is having trouble in Berlin. Which is bad, but calling the head of the state rail operating company "a Nazi who would have deported Jews himself" isn't the way to fix it.

- Speaking of Jews invoking Godwin's mighty law, something seems to have crawled up Ben Stein's rear and died. Then he made a movie about it. Spoiler Alert: Darwin Equals Hitler.

- A new Jewish peace lobby rears its head. (What happened to Brit Tzedek?)

- Roy Moore has his gigantic black judge's robe in a twist over two incidents he claims demonstrate how intolerant gays are. The first is where two lesbians in Alabama fought against a school board trying to prevent them from attending their prom as a couple. Moore's commentary is as loopy as ever:

Attorney Edmiston not only exhibited hypocrisy but also helped set a precedent for mandating acceptance of homosexuality in the public school system. Pushing aside the right of elected school officials to regulate school functions, the court summarily disregarded the rights of parents and other students who depend on school officials to maintain moral standards. Intent on normalizing deviant behavior, the courts have once again imposed an immoral standard upon an unwilling community.

Exactly what cause did the school have to regulate this couple? They showed up and danced, the only difference was one girl was in a dress, the other in a tux. Look out, Alabama might implode!

Roy is also mad about a photography studio in New Mexico that was sued and fined for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Roy says "New Mexico is in essence demanding that small-business owners be forced to work against their will." Apparently a lot of conservatives are mad about this one (check the comments for more). Which is funny, because it reminds me a lot of this case, which I'm sure they would have had no issue with.

- Last, the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was yesterday. My father's paternal line left Warsaw between 1909 and the 1920s, but there are many cousins who never got out, whose names we do not even know. I do not know if any of them were still there in 1943, if they were part of the fighters or not. But I take comfort in the fact that their neighbors, friends, landsmen, were among those who stood up and fought back. One of the crazy things about the Holocaust that I always have trouble remembering is that, for all its absorption into the public consciousness, for all the research into it by countless scholars, it still remains a very new event, relatively speaking. So it is perhaps not that surprising that there are still some historical debates going on about exactly who did what in the Warsaw Rising.

But an Israeli cloud of disagreement was hovering over the events. Joining the visit was former defense and foreign minister Moshe Arens, who has been dedicating a large part of his retirement to proving the part played by the Beitar revisionist movement in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Arens claims the official histories have written them out of the story. When asked about this, Peres chose to answer diplomatically, saying he honors all the fighters and victims.

I've read some of Arens' work. It looks solid, and Israeli history has often been very slanted towards the Labor party and their political predecessors. I look forward to the day when we will know about and honor all the heroes who fought-and-died- in the uprising, and all the others. Regardless of their politics.

"They All Look Alike"

A number of years ago I was reading an article by a Breslover rabbi and author (who, incidentally, is the reason that as much as I think Tzvi Fishman and Lazer Brody are absolutely out of their gourds, I can't in good conscience consign the whole sect to the dustbin). The author, R. Gershom, had a very interesting book review which he used as a platform to critique the shoddy and lazy reporting of the Haredi community in secular media, particularly the non-Jewish media. I thought a lot of his points were very good, though I'd like to think that things have improved in the past ten years.

One of the best points made, which I also remember reading in Prof. Heilman's "Defenders of the Faith," where he spent time with Haredi groups in Israel, including participating in pilgrimages with them, was the fact that outsiders see the group as a monolith. R. Gershom writes,

...It is difficult to make an arrest because all the Ultra-Orthodox look alike and they will gang up on anyone, including police, who tried to restrain them... (p. 147)
They all look alike --- Yes folks, he really did say that! We all look alike, even if some of us have light hair and skin, and some of us are dark-skinned, some tall, short, fat, skinny, old, you name it -- not to mention male and female, young and old. But Mr. Pippert does not seem to be able to see us as individuals with distinctive faces -- he can't get beyond the clothes. At least now we know why he lumps all Orthodox Jews together as Hasidim -- because we all look alike to him!

Sounds pretty straight-forward. It was this article, incidentally, and R. Gershom's website in general, that got me more interested in Hasidism and Hasidic history, and which I often try to keep in mind to avoid general stereotyping.

So I couldn't decide whether to be amused or sad when I came across this, posted on, of all places, Breslovworld:

When I got out of my taxi at the airport, I was suddenly thrown from anonymity amongst my own kind in an island of frumkeit in Ashdod, into the cold waters of the outside world, where I stood out like a sore thumb. I was almost the only frum person in a sea of what?.......non-frum Yidden?..... non-Jews? I really couldn't make out the difference because they all looked the same to me.

Charming. This is written by the Rebbetzin of a Hasidic sect in Israel. A Hasidic sect associated with the Breslovers, which has a large proportion of BTs. People that focus on outreach to secular and unaffiliated Jews, and who likely know many personally. The Rebbetzin even mentions growing up with non-Jews in London, so it's not like she's so cloistered.

These are people that, one would hope, would be particularly attuned to the need to go beneath superficialities of dress or fashion, especially since many of them probably have, or continue to struggle, with being labeled as less than frum or illegitimate because they do, or did, things a little differently.

So it is troubling, to say the least, that the Rebbetzin carps on and on about how low and fallen her non-Jewish Jewish quasi-bretheren are:

You would think that having lived most of my life in London together with the non-Jews (even in the same block of flats with them) I would be immune to the realities of the gentile world, but it seems that living and interacting almost totally only with frum people does refine you so that you are hit anew by the decadence of the world outside the frum area.
As I walked into the airport I was struck by the indecency surrounding me, from the advertisements and the shop-window displays to the immodest clothing. And as it all hit me it made me stop - and think - of who we really are.

...And if we are such a glorious and majestic people is it not sad that those Yidden who have chosen to go the way of the other nations have let go of this splendor; instead they cleave to the dross that glitters but is not gold. They have chosen to sell their birthright as the King's beloved children for a pot of lentils – to look and behave like the non-Jews - and in doing so have let drop their elevated status.

...But with the pride of being Hashem's chosen people comes a tremendous responsibility; we are Hashem's children, His ambassadors and emissaries, and as such the eyes of the world are upon us. With this awareness we must behave in such a way that we are an example to the people around us.
And make no mistake about it, when a non-Jew does something, however bad, it is accepted and condoned by the world, but if a Yid does the slightest thing wrong, he, and by extension, the entire Jewish nation, are condemned as being a bad and rotten people, and a shame to their heritage.

As an ambassador of Hashem I am careful to dress cleanly, neatly and smartly when I walk the streets, and to behave politely and considerately to those around me. I am careful to be scrupulously honest and meticulous in my dealings with other people as befits someone who should be setting an example to those around her, and I will not demean myself by descending to the level of those who should, but do not want to know better.

I am always aware that I stand out clearly and starkly as a frum Yid and that my behavior and actions are watched and taken note of. Anything I do will be filed away in the mind of the non-Jew (and the non-frum Yid) for future reference, whether for the good or the bad, to be used by them at the appropriate time.

Here's a tip. Comparing non-Haredi Jews to Esau (!) does not win you any friends. Saying that we all look alike does not make anyone want to hear what you have to say. And I don't care how neat your sheitel is; it doesn't help you if you go around acting like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou because all those sluts at the airport have the audacity to show their wrists in public. You're right, Rebbetzin: we're all examples, and you too, especially now that you have an audience on the web. How much love, for one's fellow Jew or human being, period, is there in an essay about how you can barely stand to be around people that are different than you?

Take a step back and look in the mirror, Rebbetzin. You are not doing frumkeit, or the Jews, any favors.

This essay has the full endorsement of the Melitzer Rebbe shlit’a.

Oh Good. And here I was afraid that this snide worldview only extended to the female members of the sect.

Make up your mind, Lazer

Lazer's identity crisis is getting annoying. Is he Rabbi Rambo? A Noahide missionary? A brilliant (if a fews years late) Kabbalist mathematician?

No, friends, Lazer is all of these things. And more. In his newest incarnation, Rav Brody has apparently gone into the used car soul business. Just check out his pitch, which sounds like it was lifted from some guy named "Crazy Stan" wearing a ten-gallon hat.

Rebbe Eliezer promises: "Anyone who engrosses himself in Pereq Shira every day - I bear witness that he is destined for the World-to-Come, and is delivered from calamity, and from the Evil Inclination, and from severe judgment, and from the Satan, and from all types of evil and destruction..." (introduction, Perek Shira).

What could be a better signed check than being delivered from all calamity, Evil Inclination, and destruction? Who can give you a better life and homeowner's policy for 10-12 minutes a day?

That's right friends, and if you act now we've got all sorts of financing to help you SAVE YOUR SOUL! That's right, no suffering, no hell, not even a little purgatory, we'll have you on the road to Paradise in style, and all it takes is a few thousand payments of ten minutes a day for the rest of your life. Perek Shira covers hurricanes, cancer, getting hit by buses (or Kassams), termites, root canals, and even unwanted pregnancies. Perek Shira works by letting you keep the hair you already have, and our new formula is designed to prevent 90% more anal leakage!

Best of all, if you're not satisfied, all you have to do is take it up with Rebbe Eliezer, for which you'll want to consult our newest work, "Getting your money back from the Dead: A Guide for the Perplexed (and Annoyed)."

So come on down to Lazer's download shop and we'll get you out on the road with a new Perek Shira- and soul- today!

Lazer and I are totally on the same page

Lazer is hawking a new translation of Hasidic wisdom by R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, "Noam Elimelech."

Lazer's pitch:

This monumental work is the product of a rising star in contemporary Chassidic research... We here at the Beams have had the privilege of a sneak preview of Rabbi Zwecker's outstanding work, and are pleased and proud to give this important book our wholehearted recommendation and endorsement.

This book will give a new dimension to the English-speaking Shabbat table, as well as enable English speakers to taste the beauty and sweetness of classical chassidus.

I heartily agree and encourage people to sniff this out. After all, don't just take Lazer's word for it, read what Elimelech's Hasidic peers used to say about his book:

Rabbi Mendel of Rymanov used to say that only on the eve of Sabbath, after emerging from the ritual bath, was he able to grasp the meaning of Noam Elimelekh. Rabbi Hayim of Kossov went further, declaring that only "a person who is able to revive the dead is able to understand this book."

Run out and get your copy today!

A Great Day for Stupid Quotes

- Larry Elder, pimping his book and skewing statistics:

As I wrote in my new book, "Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card – and Lose," a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked which type of presidential candidate would you not vote for, even if that candidate agreed with you on most issues. More Democrats (17 percent) than Republicans (13 percent) wouldn't vote for a Mormon. For a 72-year-old candidate – again, more Democrats (19 percent) than Republicans (12 percent) refused to vote for someone that age. Likewise more Democrats (4 percent) than Republicans (3 percent) ruled out voting for a black candidate.

A whole percentage point! Those racist bastards.

- Pat Boone also likes to play with stupid statistics:

And in this election year, I feel compelled to pass along some data just provided to me by Frances Rice of the National Black Republican Organization. Quoting statistics combed from the 2004 University of Georgia Selig Center Study, the National Black Chamber of Congress and the 2004 National Urban League's "State of Black America" report:

In 1950, when most blacks were Republicans, 63 percent of blacks were married. By 2002, when most blacks were Democrats, only 35 percent of blacks were married.

In 1960, when most blacks were Republicans, 80 percent of black children were born in wedlock. By 2002, when most blacks were Democrats, only 25 percent of black children were born in wedlock.

The pain, it burns.

- Ellis Washington, trying his hardest to claim that the Teacher's Union is "just like" Joseph Stalin:

As I traveled through Detroit's old neighborhoods, it suddenly came to me like a bright light from heaven. Yes, liberalism, or the secular faith that FDR-style, Big Government programs are indispensable to remedy all societal problems, is viewed by over 90 percent of blacks (and at least 50 percent of whites) as the 11th Commandment. Conversely, what institution or organization put those diabolical ideas inside people's minds?
It was the public schools all along! Stalin was right that the offensive-weapon effects of state-controlled education "depends upon who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Whose hands are America's public education system in? That's right, the teachers and their powerful teachers union, the National Education Association.

The NEA is less an education association interested in improving quality education for all American students and more of a liberal special-interest group hell-bent on teaching socialist dogma and treacherous propaganda – "America sucks!" "Hip-Hop Summits," "safe sex," abortion, evolution, 2+2=5, outcome-based education, "Heather has two mommies," "Daddy's Roommate," metal detectors and other insanities.

It's amazing they ever get to math or English, seeing as how they're so busy teaching about people's 85 Mommies and making sure that no banana goes uncovered. Incidentally, what does hip-hop have to do with socialism? And why are metal detectors deemed "insane" and pinned on liberals? Next we'll be getting blamed for all the schools that were built with asbestos.
- Jack Cashill, beating the dead horse that is Jeremiah Wright:

On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of Waco, it seems an appropriate time to review the way in which Barack Obama's spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, responded to that tragedy.
Given his famous sensitivity to racial slights, one would think that a tank assault on a multicultural religious community would have caught the good reverend's attention.
After all, more than half of those incinerated at Waco on April 19, 1993, were ethnic minorities, 39 out of 74 to be precise, six of them Hispanic, six of Asian descent, and a full 27 of them black, ages 6 to 61.
After considerable research, however, I could find no evidence that Wright ever so much as questioned the Clinton administration about this unwitting bit of slaughter.
A photo taken of Wright's one recorded meeting with President Clinton five years later shows a smiling, sycophantic pastor too enthralled to be enraged.

Excellent point, Jack. I say we draw up a list of all the jerks that have had their picture taken with slick Willie since 1993 and have NOT used it as an opportunity to bitch-slap him upside the head for Waco. All of these people should then be blacklisted. I say we start with these guys.

- Jane Chastain, hailing the praises of Ben Stein's ode to Intelligent Design, "Expelled":

"This is not a scientific battle; this is a worldview battle," "Expelled" producer Mark Mathis told me. Mathis has encountered unbridled hostility from the scientific establishment, i.e., avowed Darwinists, at previews.
"Expelled" connects atheism and Darwinism with no missing link, one of the film's two major flashpoints.
Darwinism is a specific evolutionary theory that excludes everything but material processes in the design of all life forms. No Intelligent Design allowed.
"What's driving it is Darwinism is a foundational principle – scientific validation of secularism, atheism, liberalism – and that it strikes at the core of who they are," said Mathis.
"Secondarily, these scientists are the high priests of the biggest question ever asked. They have all the authority, knowledge, power, funding," continued Mathis. "This is ground they own exclusively. They look down their elitist noses at the unwashed ignorant religious masses and scoff. That's why they respond with such extreme hostility. They are very concerned that if this monolith cracks, then the whole thing could crash."
Indeed, "Expelled" is already making a difference. Last month, Ben Stein, star of "Expelled," screened it for Florida legislators as they prepared to present a bill guaranteeing academic freedom in their schools. It looks ready to pass. Last week, Stein screened "Expelled" to Missouri lawmakers followed by a press conference promoting three academic freedom bills germinating there.

Wow, "Academic freedom," "Intelligent Design," "Death Tax"? And conservatives dare to complain about LIBERAL new-speak. And I like how any opposition to ID is attributed to elitist liberal scientists being threatened by having their gravy train derailed. As opposed to, say, actual issues with the science. Heavens no.
It goes on...

Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism, it is foundational to eugenics, the other reason for the left's apoplexy against "Expelled," according to Mathis. They cannot tolerate the connection "Expelled" draws between Darwinism and Adolf Hitler.

Or Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
"Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism," said Mathis. "Sanger was an open proponent of eugenics, and Darwinism is an idea that naturally leads to eugenics, which they are denying," said Mathis. "But they are compatible."
That Hitler and Nazism drew from Darwinism is irrefutable. "Hitler said genocide of Jews was doing good, cleansing the world of 'useless eaters' and strengthening formation of an 'Aryan' race of super-humans," said Mathis.

They can't "tolerate" it because it's inane.
First, I would argue that Hitler's ideology could just as easily be traced to a particularly ruthless Utilitarianism than any theories of natural selection. And perhaps also elements of the German martial tradition, which also went way back. Second, the "this is just like/this influenced Hitler" argument is old, tired, and stupid. There have been a heck of a lot of Christians over the years that have been total bastards. Does that mean that we can toss Christianity out the window because it spawned and motivated such wonderful guys as the Crusaders and Conquistadors?
Incidentally, "compatible" and "causal" aren't the same thing. Not even close. Rape and mass murder have been shown to be "compatible" with Christianity, it doesn't mean that such things are integral to it, or are caused by it.

Last but never least, Pat Boone has apparently dug up his ancestor's coonskin cap and smoked the hell out it, thereby producing a wonderful high and a very fuzzy recollection of American history:

If anybody today is paying even casual attention to the news, it must be obvious that our society is going through cataclysmic changes. While there have always been occasional scandals and public shocks, they've never been the rule. I remember reading about the "Teapot Dome" scandal, involving major politicians in cahoots with unscrupulous businessmen. But that enormous fiasco seemed to effect a wholesale cleanup that lasted perhaps a decade. That's the way it seemed to work: a big shameful mess followed by a period of decorous, moral behavior.

Pat says this like it's something to be proud of: Hey, our politicians are only greedy, dishonest scumbags every other decade! In your face, Russia! And that means we should only have had about 12 major scandals for the 23 decades we've been around. That sounds pretty good... oh wait. Also, has Pat never heard of, say, the Gilded Age? Credit Mobilier, Boss Tweed, Spoils System... and that lasted about 50 years. So much for Pat's "decade-on, decade-off" theory.

For most of our history as a nation, the Judeo-Christian principles that fostered and permeated our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution – our very way of life – dictated that immoral, corrupt, dishonest behavior was simply unacceptable. It was no secret that we all, fallible and failing at times, actually believed that there are unchanging standards of acceptable behavior. And, that failure to live up to those widely accepted standards would bring consequences: loss of reputation, position, compensation and possibly jail time, depending on the enormity of the breach.

Of course, for the several decades it took to get caught, life was pretty sweet. Which probably meant that God was on their side. Also, the massive corruption in a lot of cities seems to belie the claim that "deep down, we all knew right from wrong"- sure, except for everyone in charge of remotely ANYTHING.

I mention "Judeo-Christian" principles. In other words, the Bible. Even atheists, non believers and total reprobates had to acknowledge that America was guided by and founded upon principles from the Ten Commandments and the Sermon the Mount, the Golden Rule and all the well-known biblical pronouncements and examples.

Code of Hammurabi. The Bible didn't invent the Golden Rule, you boob. (Which we've never been that good about following.) And the religious dissenters "had" to acknowledge it because otherwise you accused them of witchcraft and burned them at the stake. (I like how non-believers and atheists are lumped in with "total reprobates," BTW. Thanks for being such a douchebag, Pat.)

Oh, some few agnostics and non-religious people questioned the guidelines, calling the accepted rules "puritanical," as Hugh Hefner did in his long-running, pompous "Playboy Philosophy" in his slick, sick, decadent magazine. And Larry Flynt presented himself as a proponent and "defender" of the First Amendment, even while he abused and degraded it.

Don't you just hate it when "a few" people ruin everything by telling you to get your Decalogue out of a public courthouse? Or say that the Bible shouldn't be shoved down people's throats, whether in court or school? Aren't they totally just like pornographers?

But, for as long as any of us can remember, our currency has borne the slogan "In God We Trust," our national motto.

Yes, it's been on our money since 1864, or about half of our nation's existence. Of course, that also means that for the first 90 years, we got along without it just fine (and didn't care about it not being there). The national motto thing is even later- made official only in 1956, over what had been the long-established (but unofficial) one, e pluribus unum. But never mind the facts, Pat has drug-induced pearls of wisdom to share!

Most of us find it only natural that our Pledge of Allegiance affirms us to be "one nation under God." As much as 90 percent of the populace traditionally has professed some measure of faith in the existence of God and continued to expect us all at least to try to live in a way compatible with the teachings of the Bible – which is, after all, the indisputable source of moral thought.

1. No it's not.
2. Who says that an abstract belief in God, or "a God" means you agree that the Bible is the "indisputable" source of morality?

3. Especially the parts that tell us to do horrible things like wipe out Canaanites and kill rebellious children, right?

WND is sooo not good for my health- physical or mental.

O'Shmuckface is losing it

Poor Bill seems to be losing his touch.

Evidence, you ask? Observe:

A few weeks ago, Bill is oh-so-outraged about a stupid "Hunky Jesus" contest going on in SF. First Bill establishes just how mad he is:

Now, we're going to segue from Judas to Jesus in our favorite town, San Francisco, which despises any remnants of Christianity or Judaism or any organized religion on Easter Sunday.

Really? News to me. I bet it would be news to these guys, too. Oh, and them. And them. Don't forget them. And them, too. And someone should let these folks know. (Now, these guys might agree with you. But probably not.)

And that's just the Jews. News flash, Billy. There are THOUSANDS of churches, synagogues, mosques and temples in SF. And not that I was keeping count, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of them were full on Easter, too.

Anyway, just when I started anticipating Miller jumping on the "yeah, this is awful" bandwagon, there was a refreshing change of pace:

MILLER: I say that whatever covenant I have with God — and I assume most people do — it's not impinged upon by moron homosexual guys having parades in San Francisco. My sanctum Santorum I set the cover charge. Idiots don't get in. And if they want to do this, fine. Nobody should get involved except God. If God wants to smote them, if he's still in the smoting business, he should. Other than that, it matters not a twit to me. These guys looking for a gay parade theme every week.

O'REILLY: Tell me the truth, Miller. I want you to answer this question truthfully.

MILLER: I am telling you the truth.

O'REILLY: Wouldn't you love to see all of these people turn to salt? Wouldn't that be just great?

MILLER: I don't know, Bill. It's just — it doesn't matter to me.

Aww. That had to hurt. I hope no one docked Miller's check for that.

It gets better. Last week Bill had some more guests- clueless liberal apologist and unhinged whine-master, to talk about how awful TV has gotten. His target? Oprah and that transgender man having a baby. As usual, Bill's main argument boiled down to the fact that he thought this was "icky."

O'REILLY: Jane, what do you think?

JANE HALL (Fox News contributor): Well, you know, I don't -- I think it is something of an oddity I suppose Oprah's women audience would love to know what a man being pregnant actually feels like, thinks like. You know, I don't consider it as bad as all the interviews with pimps that we saw after the Eliot Spitzer scandal. I mean, the man hasn't done anything immoral. He's done something very odd, and that's what they're cashing in on. But I don't think --

O'REILLY: Right, but if your 13-year-old is watching --

HALL: -- it's the same category.

O'REILLY: Do you want a 13-year-old watching this kind of stuff, and you've got to explain all this crazy stuff? Do you want that?

This is always the fallback position: "I don't want my kid seeing this, because then I have to explain it." As if that somehow justifies any idiotic position. I don't want to have to explain evolution to my kid, therefore don't show any documentaries on Darwin in his school. I don't want to explain interracial marriage, so don't show my kid any pictures of Barack Obama.

HALL: I'm more bothered by stuff that looks pretty darn pornographic. This looks like a medical oddity. I would say it's not as bad as some other stuff.

O'REILLY: All right. So --

HALL: That's all.

O'REILLY: -- neither of you are upset about this.

Don't you just hate it when your guests turn out to not give a crap about your fake-outrage-topic of the week?

GOLDBERG: Well, I don't think it's good. I think it's one more example of how crummy television can be, and frankly, more than television, the whole culture. You know, a guy -- she's born a woman, she becomes a guy, but she still has ovaries and a womb. She marries some guy and she has a baby --

O'REILLY: She married a girl.

GOLDBERG: -- marries a girl.

O'REILLY: Yeah.

GOLDBERG: This --

O'REILLY: It's hard to keep track, Bernie. It is.

No, it's not, schmuck. Thomas Beatie was a woman. Had gender reassignment surgery. Became a man, with one key difference. Got married, is now pregnant. And Goldberg playing the media prude is ridiculous, too. Considering all the other crap that makes the news- including Fox News, this one (couple gets married, has baby) is downright wholesome. Or would be, if you didn't view the fact that trans- and gay issues make any story morally tainted. At least Beatie isn't getting media attention for sleeping with whores, being a druggie or flashing his crotch to the world (but somehow you're all protected from the fact that you beam that crap into everybody's TVs with O'Jackass' caveat, "I don't care about any of this.")

O'REILLY: You imagine a poor kid getting born into that family going, "Hey" --

GOLDBERG: Now that's --

O'REILLY: -- "whoa. Who are you today?"

GOLDBERG: That's the real tragedy.

No, the real tragedy is that you morons get paid to say this crap.

Best of the worst round-up

Having been on vacation for a while, I feel the need to clean out my list of browser tabs waiting to be fisked. So here is a short list:

- Shas MK gets his just deserts. It couldn't happen to a nicer or more self-righteous doofus. As I said, he has shown us the way to be a Torah-true jackass. Tell a friend. But don't worry, he's appealing!

- Chuck Norris has a bee in his bonnet about the 3 big Gs. Since I find the gun debate boring (shoot me), I'll stick to the last two:

I was also saddened this past week to read about the comic in the University of Virginia's pre-Holy Week, school-sanctioned student paper. The Cavalier Daily published a cartoon that pictured a naked man smoking a cigarette in bed with a woman in her underwear who asks, "Come on God, be honest – did you really get a vasectomy? I can't let Joseph find out about this." The man, who is now revealed as God, replies, "Well, Mary, you're f---ed."

How abhorring it is when the freedom of the press is abused to demean the biblical God and the most sacred couple in Christendom, especially right before Easter. If the cartoon depicted Allah or Muhammad, there undoubtedly would have been a national decry of bigotry. Yet it seems in vogue to disgrace Christianity, and so it was brushed under the rug of contempt and barely highlighted by any news agency.

Maybe the fact that it was "barely highlighted" by any national media is indicative of the fact that NO ONE CARES about wanky political cartoons in college newspapers. Also, I like the phrase, "biblical God." Because if it was the Qu'ranic God, you know you wouldn't care. Just admit it. Incidentally, the only reason Mary and Joe are the "most sacred couple" in Christianity is because you have NO OTHER COUPLES (well, at least not until you admit that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were more than "just friends").

One can only imagine how the university's eminent founder, Thomas Jefferson, might have regarded such a shameful posting.

Considering that Jefferson thought Jesus was "just a guy" and wrote his own edited Bible miracle-free, I can't imagine that he would have cared that much. He might even have found it funny.

Speak of God and prejudices in the news, I might as well throw in my two cents about Obama's relation to his pastor. My primary qualm is this: If Obama's patriotism doesn't prompt him to challenge his own pastor's extremist views for more than 20 years, how can we trust his judgment to confront extremists' views as president for the next four years? One's church and friends reflect one's values and beliefs. We simply can't trust that lack of judgment and inability to confront in the highest office of the land. Since the Revolutionary War and the Barbary Conflict, U.S. presidents have fought to counter anti-American sentiment. We need a president who can oppose unpatriotic radicals, not shrink back in the face of their adversity.

Good point, Chuck. Well, there goes McCain. I mean, it doesn't get more radical and anti-American than saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves, right?

Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that on Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing a "Day of Silence," or DOS, which is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. (DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group – the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.)

Actually, AFAIK, it's to promote the idea that gays and others have to live in silence, not allowed to be honest about who they are, specifically with a focus on anti-gay harassment. That's a good argument, though. Sort of like saying that teaching about the Holocaust promotes converting to Judaism. Or being a gypsy.

Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our forefathers expected for the public education they founded? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America.

"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least" (Bill 64, 1779). Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?

Is Roy Moore running for anything? Or maybe Santorum.

While I'm not of course espousing such treatment,

How big of you.

I do believe that we should equally and adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called "Day of Silence."

First of all, bozo, commemorating gay-BASHING is not the same thing as promoting the gay lifestyle. And I can't help wondering what your latest issue with "the gays" is- I'm going to guess it's the same old "knowledge of something makes you do it" bullcrap. Feel free to correct me.

You can check to see if your local schools are on the DOS observance list. Whether they are or not, write their administrators to inform them your family will be boycotting the event if it takes place in your vicinity.

Boycotting what? Other students taping their mouths shut? Chuck really should put a little more research into his columns.

Feel free to keep your kids home, Chuck. Chances are they won't be missed.

- The Crazy Sanhedrin has Ideas and Opinions. About things. Women especially. Surprise, surprise, they aren't pro.

The self-appointed Supreme Judicial Court of the Jewish People, also known as the Sanhedrin, passed down on Thursday a halachic ruling which calls to exempt women from army service and expel those who have already been recruited.

Hmm, I wonder if Ynet likes the Sanhedrin or not. It's just so hard to tell.

According to the Sanhedrin rabbis, by integrating women into mixed army units the IDF is surrendering to "political and ideological demands".

Well duh. You might as well say, "you're doing this because you think it's a good idea, you bastards!" How unconscionable.

The ruling stated that "rabbis and parents will not send their sons to an army that recruits women to mixed units. There is no place for any flexibility and compromise (in this matter)."

I guess they mean, "rabbis and parents that actually pay attention to us." So, actually, very few people at all.

Sanhedrin member Professor Hillel Weiss told Ynet that separating male and female soldiers would not do, and called to expel women from the army entirely.

"I remember when I would be called up for reserve duty and the IDF sent women instructors to show us how to operate a heavy machinegun; they couldn't even cock the large weapon," he said. "Today I meet women soldiers who say they are proud to be serving in the Armored or Artillery corps. It's a joke.

Maybe that just means there should be an "extra beefy" women's division. And incidentally, how strong do you have to be to operate a tank or artillery?

Besides, I don't think we can trust R. Weiss on this. Just look at him. No beard? What kind of rabbi is that?

- Lastly, kudos to Dennis Prager for fighting yet another strawman that no one brought up: after regaling his readers with a long laundry list of horrible things people have been doing to each other this past week, Dennis ties everything together as only a genius such as he can:

The world is filled with evil. Always has been. The biggest difference today is that, thanks to communications, we are far more aware of much of it.

I am convinced that human evil is so great that most people choose either to ignore it or to focus their concerns elsewhere – like those who believe that human-created carbon dioxide emission, not human evil, poses the greatest threat to mankind. No one will ever get killed for fighting global warming. Fighting evil, on the other hand, is quite dangerous.

Ow, ow, ow. Also, let's hear it for the modern human ability to concentrate on fighting more than one bad thing at a time. Maybe Dennis doesn't believe in this ability, though. After all, it might have something to do with evolution.

Burt Prelutsky is a lunkhead

DovBear points us to Burt's latest droppings:

Among the many e-mails I received was one from an black man in New Jersey. He identified himself as a successful entrepreneur in his mid-30s. The tone of his remarks was reasonable and he seemed to be well-educated, but by the time we had had six or eight exchanges, he’d managed to convince me he was an idiot. Let us call him Mr. Christopher.

Got that? Agree with Burt and you're "reasonable," presumably even educated. Disagree with him as many as eight times and you make the idiot list.

The rest of Burt's column is a series of email exchanges, which once again makes me wonder, "why do these guys get paid?"

Among the most annoying tidbits from Burt:

You are merely parroting a lie that has been sold to the people by the Democrats. It was, after all, the Democrats who created the KKK and initiated and enforced Jim Crow laws in the South. It was Earl Warren, a Republican, who was appointed to be chief justice of the Supreme Court by Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, who ruled that separate but equal was unconstitutional. And although Lyndon Johnson was in the White House in 1964 when he pushed for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, it became the law of the land because of the Republicans. In the House, only 64% of the Democrats, but 80% of the Republicans, voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68% of the Democrats endorsed the bill, 82% of the Republicans voted to enact it.

And many of those recalcitrant Democrats defected to the GOP after the bill, who welcomed them with open arms, and whose social positions had (and have) close overlaps with the "legislate morality" wing of the GOP. And though the Democratic party has indeed not had that glorious a track record in regard to race relations (or other matters), neither have the Republicans, and it's the reddest of all herrings to connect either party of today with their predecessors from 100-plus years ago.

Burt also is brave enough to buck the ever-so-popular diversity trend, God bless him.

What makes us strong is that we are a nation that was founded by a group of extraordinary men who weren’t very diverse at all. Some of them were Christians, some were deists, but all of them were white and they all spoke English. What they were was brilliant. They created a nation that was based on Judeo-Christian concepts that emphasized justice and freedom for the individual. The diversity came later. But so great was their creation that it managed to accommodate wave after wave of immigrants, and to transform millions of people who had never experienced democracy into a nation willing to fight and die for a notion that was summed up by the Latin phrase, e pluribus unum.

This is interesting. Actually, the beliefs of the Founding Fathers were pretty complicated (especially depending on who you include in that definition)- some were deists, some were less traditional free-thinkers, and a few even dabbled in things like paganism (which, depending on your rituals of choice, may not be that different from Deism). Most of the more educated among them probably spoke several languages, including Latin, and the language of international diplomacy at the time, French. And we won't know until we do DNA tests, but there's still a persistent rumor that Hamilton was part-black. Anyway, I think Burt is subtly trying to say that, yes, America was designed to accommodate diversity, even if its original founders weren't that much (whether diversity should be a goal in of itself might be a different question).

Burt's column this week is just sort-of dumb, though. The real stinker was last week's:

It’s one thing, after all, for this half-white fellow to join the Trinity United Church of (a Black) Christ in order to use it as a launching pad into Chicago’s scummy political scene.

Because a White Christ is so much more accurate and inclusive, right? At least Africa is Middle-East adjacent.

It was back in 1964 that the Civil Rights Act was passed. In the intervening 44 years, this country has spent billions of dollars to compensate people who hadn’t suffered from Jim Crow laws for the simple reason that they hadn’t even been born yet.

This, of course, assumes that things immediately begin improving the day after a law is passed, or that if one is part of a community that has been persecuted and oppressed for generations, merely signing a piece of legislation should be enough to overturn it. Were that it was so. It's a long way to middle or upper-class when you're starting from the very bottom. Yasher koach to those who can make it, black or otherwise. But I don't think that the people who fail to get there should be treated as if they're defective or lazy.

The truth is, in America, anyone with brains, grit and self-discipline, can rise to unimaginable heights.

Sorry, but this simply isn't true. America is a great country in not placing as many stumbling blocks in people's paths as other states do and have. But as someone that knows their family history, the truth is that there is definitely a limit, and all the more so historically, as to how far you could go, particularly with limited education or economics. The wealthiest branch of my family became millionaires because they had connections in the diamond industry. Everyone else worked in sweatshops and groceries and only gradually worked their way out in small increments. And it took generations.

The best line, however, has got to be this one:

If we were a racist society, Oprah Winfrey, your fairy godmother, certainly wouldn’t be a billionaire; she’d be fetching someone’s mint julep. And Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice wouldn’t grow up to be secretaries of state; they’d be sweeping out the stables. And Will Smith and Denzel Washington wouldn’t be movie stars; they’d be in the fields picking cotton.

Got that? The absence of institutionalized slavery equals no racism. Brilliant, Burt. And nowhere is this better demonstrated than the 100-odd years between the end of the civil war and the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

Hey, if we'd just listened to you, we could have avoided wasting all that time and money passing the act in the first place.