Fishman Goes Swimming

In the deep end. Of a drained pool. Head-first.

I'm not a fan of Israel's overzealous incitement laws that result in honest folks like R. Nati at Mystical Paths being hauled in for questioning, or lovable nutso Tzvi Fishman getting arrested at a protest rally for HOLDING A SIGN. I don't agree with much these two guys say, but police harassment is always disturbing and it's another reason Israel consistently gets on my nerves (to say nothing of my prospects of making aliyah anytime... well, ever.)

On the other hand, Tzvi's time in the lockup seems to have done wonders for his writing. Just look at this hilarious post.

I am declaring myself a national leader. To this end, I am establishing a new political party that will be constituted, at the very beginning, by Americans who have come on aliyah. The Jews who came to Israel from Europe, and the Israeli generation that followed, have made a mess of things. Today, the country needs the idealism of the Jews who gave up the comforts of America to take a part in the building of Israel. A little good old fashion “American know how” can go a long way in cleaning up the mess that the Zionists, Pseudo Zionists, and Post Zionists have made.

Yes, apparently Tzvi is finally putting his money where his mouth is, and throwing himself beard first into the rough-and-tumble world of politics.

Check out his platform:

*All Arabs must leave the Land of Israel.
*Any Israeli politician who voted in favor of Oslo or the Hitnatkut [Disengagement], or who promotes the Road Map Plan, will be brought to trial as a national traitor.
*Relations with the United States shall be suspended until Jonathan Pollard is freed.
*All atomic facilities in Iran will be immediately destroyed.
*Any missile launching on Israel will be met with a devastating retaliatory attack.
*Anyone who propagates leftist propaganda will be deported from the country.
*All missionaries will be tried in court for kidnapping and murder, and crucified on the Mount of Olives.
*The judges of the Supreme Court will be replaced by rabbis who will judge all cases according to Torah law.
*TV and radio will be shut down on Shabbat. Driving on Shabbat will result in license suspension.
*Women who dress immodestly will be fined. Repeated offenders will be imprisoned.
*All non-medical abortions will be forbidden.
*No woman will serve in the army.
*All secular newspapers will be shut down.
*Israeli television will be run by a board of rabbis, and Arutz7 will be the only authorized Internet news service.
*All computers will be equipped with anti-pornography filters.
*Teacher’s salaries will be doubled.
*Massive funds will be allotted to promote aliyah, and all Jews who refuse to immigrate to Israel within three years will forever forfeit their right of return.
*Haredim will donate the funds to rebuild Gush Katif, and they will do all of the hard labor or face imprisonment.

Wow. Some good stuff here, and I'm glad Tzvi had the presence of mind in the midst of such important issues like creating Haredi chain gangs to work the Gaza strip to remember that the root of all evil is digital boobies.

I really liked the comments to Tzvi's list, particularly from RW-activist Daniel Pinner, who thinks Tzvi's gone off his nut:

There are many legal, ethical, and halachic problems with your platform:

1) "Anyone who propagates leftist propaganda will be deported from the country." Define "leftist": if someone promotes social welfare, socialized medicine, or the environment, will he be deported?

2) "All missionaries will be tried in court for kidnapping and murder, and crucified on the Mount of Olives." Without a Sanhedrin there is no death penalty; Halacha never uses crucifixion as a death penalty; and unless someone has kidnapped or murdered, he cannot be executed for these crimes.

3) "Driving on Shabbat will result in license suspension." And if someone has to drive to hospital/police in a life-threatening emergency? And if the driver is not Jewish, but a ger toshav?

4) "Women who dress immodestly will be fined. Repeated offenders will be imprisoned." Define "immodestly" - showing their wrists? Displaying their hair? Both eyes? If a woman's hair is uncovered, will she have to show proof that she is unmarried? And where oh where in halachah do you find a source for imprisoning a scantily-clad woman?!

5) "All secular newspapers will be shut down." Including Time, Newsweek, Economist? Including "Ha-Shavua bi-Yerushalayim"? Including "Eretz" magazine? What about an honest, right-wing, nationalist nespaper? What about a viciously anti-Israel religious newspaper (one put out by Neturei Kharta, for instance?) Who defines "religious"?

6) "Arutz7 will be the only authorized Internet news service." How do you propose to enforce this? Why do you want to ban Steven Shamrak, Rotternet, etc?

7) "All Jews who refuse to immigrate to Israel within three years will forever forfeit their right of return." The most outrageous of all. For a Jew to live in Israel is a Torah-ordained mitzvah, and no Jew has the right, under any circumstances whatsoever, to prevent another Jew from making Aliyah. This is equivalent to saying that any Jew who has not kept Shabbat and kashrut for three years will be forever forbiden to keep them. How do you feel about that one, Tzvi?

8) "Haredim will donate the funds to rebuild Gush Katif, and they will do all of the hard labor or face imprisonment." Why only Haredim? All Haredim? And how do you define "Haredim"? Do you include Habad? National religious who wear black kippot? Those who wear black hats on Shabbat and t-shirts the rest of the week? Yourself?

One final point, Tzvi: If merely spending a few hours under arrest qualifies you to be a ntional leader, then there are thousands of people more qualified than yourself - Rabbi Arye Deri, for example, or Omri Sharon.

Daniel's right. Al Capone for Prime Minister!

I personally like the idea of an American olim party. Tzvi said he wants ideas for a name, and I'm always happy to oblige:

- United Jews of Israel

- Israel the Beautiful

- The Star Spangled Tallis Party

- The Benei Liberty Party

- The Yesha-Crats

- The Nativists

- The W(h)igs

- Uncle Shlomo Wants You!

And my personal favorite...

- The Yankel Doodles.

Add your suggestions here. I'll be sure Tzvi gets them.

Tom Cruise's Narishkeit

It was a surprising moment of pseudo-activism in my family. Tom Cruise had just had his "psychiatrists are the Devil" spat with Matt Lauer while pimping War of the Worlds. In response, Mother Superior Yid, who possesses a doctorate in Nursing and has worked in Mental Health for her entire career, said that no one in the family was to see his "stupid movie." Despite me no longer living in her house, I still felt slightly guilty enough to abide by her orders.

Cut to last week, where the Tom Cruise Youtube video made its appearance. Though some celebs are mad, saying Tom is still a human being (I guess), I still got a kick out of it- mostly because of the Mission Impossible music going on in the background.

But there have also been some interesting parody movies. Jerry O'Connell did one I couldn't be bothered to watch. A better one was posted on Jewcy. Go on, guess what it's about. Even if you haven't seen the Cruise movie, the Jewcy one is still worth watching. Besides, at a merciful 3 minutes, it's already 3 times better than Tom's.

What?

Peggy Noonan on the O'Reilly Factor talking about the great watershed moments in the 70s/80s (paraphrased because I was barely paying attention):

"Suddenly you had people standing up to government, taking back their country, protesting X in California, Y, in New York, busing in Boston."

Wait a minute. Did you just praise people protesting busing in Boston? As in, busing in black children to desegregate the school system? And the tactics? My father was living in Boston back then, and people were throwing bricks at these buses and threatening to blow up tunnels to stop them. Threatening children? Stuff as vile and racist as anything in the South in the 60s.

And these are Noonan's heroes? Wow.

Election Stuff

I am a Liberal Jew and I am Pissed has a great post that articulates most of the reasons why I will be voting for Obama when the primaries swing out West.

I will vote for Barack Obama because I like him more. His speeches make me proud to be an American. His ideas energize me. I like to listen to him because he sounds presidental. I truly believe either Clinton or Obama would be a great president, I just don't have any passion for Clinton. That said, I will vote for who I want in the primary and who I need in the general election.

This has been an interesting question with some of my family and friends. One man, who has known me for forever, asked me several months ago if I planned on voting for Kucinich. I was confused. "Why would think that?"

"Well, your politics seem to match up pretty well."

Not quite. Kucinich is in the same boat for me as Ralph Nader, only less contemptible. Not only did he never have a snowball's chance in hell in the first place, he has built all of his campaigns around the fact that he can say whatever he wants because he will never in a position where he has to implement his ideas. Which is sort of brilliant, if also brain-hurty. Not unlike Ron Paul (no offense to Sholom, who is apparently much more conservative than I realized- not that that's a bad thing!- but I just don't see it happening), Kucinich's impact comes from him being able to be as honest and direct as possible without any danger of being held accountable for his views when it comes time to put them to work.

So then the question came to who would I actually vote for. I pretty much side with Abbot Yid as far as understanding that in a general election one is often forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, though his constant chant of "electibility" is getting somewhat annoying, only slightly less so than the now-regular, "I just don't think America's ready for a black President. *shrug*" speech, as if his choice of vote doesn't have any impact on that supposed readiness.

It's also a tad odd to hear from my father (who frankly, while being quite smart doesn't always bother doing much reading to substantiate his opinions) that he thinks that Hillary Clinton, who the right wing has spent more then ten years pillorizing in every media outlet available, is more electable than a relatively unknown newly minted Senator who happens to be black. I think it's far more likely more people will vote against Obama because of his lack of experience than his skin color or (and on this, I really am asking a favor from all-mighty Sweet-Buddha-Vishnu-Christ, not for me, but for my faith in my fellow Americans), the ongoing BS rumors that he is a closet Muslim.

Maybe it's because I watch too much Fox News (though not as much as I used to- these days, O'Reilly just seems like a crankier and less funny rip-off of Stephen Colbert), or because the "Washington Insider" label (combined with the inanity of the election cycle) is making me want to have someone as least tainted by Washington as possible. Maybe I'm even a little bit subliminally sexist and am holding Hillary up to an unfair likability standard. But I don't really like her. I don't feel inspired by her. And after her spending so much time trying to move herself as centrist-ward as possible, I don't really trust her. She seems very calculating, more so than Obama. Part of that is image, admittedly, but in terms of who actually gets me EXCITED, it's no contest.

Shiska Girlfriend's father, Habakkuk, made an interesting comment when he came to visit with my parents. He referred to himself as a "Yellow Dog" Democrat (not to be confused with Blue Dog Democrats), which means he would rather vote for a Yellow Dog than a Republican. It made me smile and a little sad at the same time. (More interesting stuff on the Yellow Dog history and phenomenon here.)

I like to think I'm open-minded. And intellectually, and even socially, I think I am. Compared to my peers at college, I didn't seem to be quite as angry or personal about "Republican SOBs." I don't think, as some dillholes insist on bleating, that conservatives are evil. I just seriously disagree with them.

But in terms of who I would personally vote for? None of the Republicans on the ticket, or any in my lifetime, come anywhere close to where my personal values lie. I am not negotiable on Roe v. Wade. I believe that there is, in fact, a social contract between the government and the citizens of its country, and that it has a responsibility to assist those who need it. (I don't know enough about economics to have much of a position other than that the idea of a truly "Free" Market seems about as Utopian as a truly Marxist society, and that in any event, Bush was about as fiscally conservative as a dog turd.) I want the religious right to keep its faith confined to Churches and private schools. I like that Mike Huckabee is the first non-bitchy evangelical politician I've seen in ages but it's not enough to make me vote for him. I hear them talking and it's like we're on different planets or speaking different languages. And though I believe the War against Jihadist Nutjobs is important, I'm unconvinced that either Republicans or Democrats have all the answers. Frankly, even if the Republicans DID have all the answers, their tactics for smearing their opponents as pansies or traitors is enough to make me not want to have anything to do with them (and if Guiliani says 9/11 one more time, I'm going to make him eat his glasses).

So that's where I stand. Feel free to sound off.

Oh, and I visited my parents over MLK weekend and was highly amused by one of the Propositions on the SF ballot. Apparently some group of bozos wants the city to purchase Alcatraz from the Parks Service, tear it down, and replace it with a Global Peace Center, consisting of a conflict resolution room (we'll just shlepp the Israelis and Palestinians over there from now on instead of Camp David), a Medicine Wheel, a labyrinth (???) a "Harmonium," and, not to be overlooked, a series of something called "Artainment" multimedia centers. In my house, usually the second you make up a new word you lose the argument, but if that wasn't enough, one of the very left-wing papers in the city also panned the idea. Best line: "People don't have to support everything with peace in the title."

Though my family often feels uncomfortable siding with the SF Republican Party (in this case they were the only ones who bothered to write anything against it on the ballot packet), this time I don't think there will be too many qualms. These guys look and sound like nutjobs, and besides, Alcatraz is a major tourist attraction precisely because of its checkered history. Plus, old prisons are cool.

But apparently things are more complicated than I realized. Just observe this exchange of letters in the SF Chronicle:

'Negative' landmark?

Editor - San Francisco's Proposition C - The city acquisition of Alcatraz in order to tear it down and replace it with a so-called "peace center" ("Park bond, police pension measures await city voters," Jan. 22) certainly ranks among some of the idiotic issues brought before San Francisco voters in recent years.

I'm not sure what "negative energy" proposition backer Da Vid feels Alcatraz generates, and it's beyond me how the mere presence of Alcatraz, as Vid claims, "is negatively affecting the psychology of the entire Bay Area." When I view Alcatraz, I see a historical landmark that is part of the rich history of San Francisco. Also, I have certainly not felt any negative energy as the result of touring the former federal penitentiary.

Perhaps Mr. Vid and his Mill Valley followers would better serve San Francisco by focusing their energy on resolving more pressing issues such as graffiti, homelessness, gangs and the Municipal Railway.

Proposition C tells me that Da Vid and his followers want a location with million-dollar views to conduct business but want San Francisco taxpayers to foot the bill. Vote no on this measure.

RIC EWING

San Francisco

---

Editor - I was astounded at your editorial ("A vision for Alcatraz?" Jan. 23) writing off a global peace center in favor of ... an old funky prison? Duh. No local people ever go to this place called Alcatraz. It is a tourist place and a certain kind of tourist place. What social merit does it have? What cultural merit does it serve? What artistic merit does it share? None.

Please, liberate yourself and your readers from this old way of thinking. To move forward into a new and better world is noble. Do we need an old, falling-down prison to show "our history is rarely uplifting"?

We could use some peace, though. The proposed center sounds wonderful. Give peace a chance.

DONNA O'SAMMON

Novato

Wow, you stupid, stupid moron. You know, no New Yorkers ever go to Ellis Island or the Statue of Liberty either. What should we turn those into, a 20-story Dunkin' Doughnuts? You know what's also depressing? The Alamo. Oh, and don't forget concentration camps. Let's turn them all into global peace centers. Or at least Harmoniums. Wait, didn't they already do that in one place?

And again, notice how the people supporting this idea are NOT residents of the city! Fascinating, ain't it?

Frankly, the only people involved in this weird venture I have any respect or sympathy for are the Native Americans, who seem like they're getting conned.

"My bottom line is getting the actual prison off the island," [Native American spiritual leader Marshall "Golden Eagle"] Jack explains. "There's a lot of crystal energy, spiritually wise, on the island. It's an icon for a lot of tribes around the Bay Area who were here way before the Europeans. A Global Peace Center idea is just an option, but if it doesn't manifest that way, if it becomes an ecological center, fine."

Must... resist... smart-assery... Has... valid right to... weirdo... crystal theology...

Oh wait, more white people. I can ridicule them guilt-free.

Jack serves as assistant director of the Global Peace Foundation, a branch of the nonprofit San Francisco Medical Research Foundation, which Mill Valley resident Da Vid founded in the late 1970s — about the time he first had a vision of domes on Alcatraz.

"I saw them during a Celestial Healing Festival on Mt. Tam in 1978, seven years after the Indian occupation ended," says Da Vid, who says he is a medical doctor and artist — and currently serves as treasurer of the Alcatraz Conversion Project, a political action committee whose coffers contain $30,000 from Da Vid's mother, Miriam Ornstein.

GPF assistant director Kevin Ohnsman told the Guardian, "We feel that the Republican Party's opposition to Prop. C is our best endorsement."

I wouldn't bet on it, bobo.

Equal Opportunity Mobs

For all those who think the Haredi world has a sexism problem, this bit of recent news should make all you slandering anti-Orthodox naysayers quake with embarrassment.

So there! Now go and repent.

Give me back your oxygen

The world is full of idiots today.

First, Britain, where an attempt to be culturally sensitive just makes everyone look stupid.

Fearing Muslims would be offended, a story based on "The Three Little Pigs" was rejected by a government-funded British agency from consideration for an annual award...

But there was no complaint prompting the decision, and Sheik Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain called it "bizarre."

"The vast majority of Muslims have no problem whatsoever with the 'Three Little Pigs,'" he told the London Daily Mail at the time. "It's always been the traditional way of telling the story, and I don't see why that should be changed."

Mogra acknowledged Muslims are forbidden to eat pork, "but there is no prohibition about reading stories about pigs. This is an unnecessary step."

Mogra asked how far society would go.

"Are we going to change the seven dwarves because it's discriminatory towards people who are physically less able? Where do you draw the line?" he asked.

I'm pretty sure the crazy-line gets drawn about three miles back before you start banning books with offensive animals in the title. Next thing you know I won't be able to read any books about Eli the Magical Eel (and his Fantastic Trip to the Sushi Bar) at my local JCC library. A shande!

Then of course, as nature and WND often do, we have an example of the exact opposite problem: people are fed up with political correctness, so they act like giant douchebags to even things out.

A new, cutting-edge, political TV show will challenge Islam with biting humor tomorrow night, placing the face of the prophet Muhammad onto a cookie and then having it eaten on camera.

"We're going to take a stand and say Muhammad's face is delicious," said Molotov Mitchell, the 28-year-old incendiary creator and host of "Flamethrower," a program described as a low-budget, gritty cross between the "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," and "The View" if Ann Coulter were the producer. "This is religious and culinary history in the making."

The theme of this week's episode is "All Things Islam," as panelists take on the faith of Muslims in a no-holds-barred fashion.

Ok, first of all, there are no recorded pictures of Mohammed, so how Muslims can be offended by his necessarily approximate representation has never been quite clear to me. Then again, there are no pictures of Moses, but Jews know damn well that he didn't have no horns.

Anyway, these guys seem like shmucks, as evidenced by the next line.

Islam is not even a religion," Mitchell told WND from a location somewhere in Eastern North Carolina. "It's an ideology of 'might makes right' disguised as a religion. We're going to show that Allah was with us when we baked this cookie and ate it. Deal with it!"

What the hell does that even mean? Is there some cleverness here I'm just missing?

Mitchell and his fellow panelists – all of whom are Christians in their 20s and whom he calls the next generation of conservatism – are trying to make the point that America is still a free country, and there's no need to cower in fear from Islamo-fascism. He laments the frequency of Islamic suicide bombings, giving a new twist to a famous line from "It's a Wonderful Life," by stating, "Every time a bell rings, a Muhammad gets his wives."

See above. Huh?

"What we're doing is exercising our freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the fullest in order to challenge a tyrannical, oppressive system that has doomed the cultures and countries of the Middle East for centuries," Mitchell told WND. "Now it's trying to invade our borders, and somebody has to speak up about it."

That's right, nothing sticks it to Osama like eating butter cookies. Incidentally, someone should tell Mitchell's craft services department to brush up on their frosting turbans. That's not Mohammed, it's a freaking snake charmer.

In it, cast members dress in traditional Muslim clothing and deliver "totally atrocious" real news items, recounting, says Mitchell, "what some jerk named Muhammad did this week. "I'm not going to be hurt and insulted. I'm going to ask people to ignore this," said Iftekhar Hai, president of United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance in South San Francisco. "They would dare not do it to any Jewish person, saying 'the Jews killed Jesus.' The Jewish lobby would slaughter the Christians if they did that."

Hey now, let's be careful about using "Jews killed Jesus" and "Jews would slaughter the Christians" in the same sentence.

Mitchell says politics is the driving force of his show, saying, "The [Christian] church really doesn't seem to get it when it comes to politics. The church likes to ask, 'What would Jesus do?' But it often suggests Jesus would hug somebody for every situation, and that's not what Jesus would do. I'd rather ask, 'What would George Washington do?'"

Lose his teeth cracking walnuts? Provoke a war while cowering in a mud fort, then surrender to the French? Be a Deist? No, wait... deforestation? Man, history is tricky.

"Muhammad murdered people and he married a 9-year-old. That makes him a murdering pedophile," said Mitchell. "I don't think that we should burn the Quran. I'm a Christian environmentalist. We should put that thing to use. I mean, at least get some toilet paper out of it."

As opposed to the highly ethical murdering adulter known as King David. Gotcha.

Let's hear it for the land of the free... even for morons.

Edit: WND has an update. Prepare to be outraged.

A national television network has decided to censor an episode of a new political show featuring self-described Christian "infidels" eating a cookie emblazoned with an image of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Faith TV made the decision in the wake of WND news coverage about "Flamethrower," a cutting-edge program whose latest episode originally scheduled for this week deals with "All Things Islam."

"We're not going to air it," said Jim West, president of the Florida-based, Christian network. "We feel this program just goes beyond the bounds of good taste."

"We appreciate the producer's attempt at parody and drawing attention to controversial subjects, and we embrace his right under the First Amendment to express his views," he added. "But it does violate one of our programming philosophy tenets which is not to disparage any world religions."

..."If Faith TV pulls our show, I guess it was Allah's will. Peace be upon them," Mitchell clowned. "I'd say the real winner in all this is Muhammad."

West made it clear his network was not dousing "Flamethrower" entirely, only the episode with the edible prophet.

"We have a responsibility to our affiliates who have FCC licenses," said West. "We have a programming philosophy we have to live by whether we personally agree with their content or not."

When asked what specifically bothered him, West said, "Painting Islam with a very broad brush rather than focusing on radical Islamic extremists. I think the other problem was although much was presented in the form of a parody, it was done in a condescending, spiteful manner."

..."With all respect to Faith TV, I think this decision reflects a fundamental problem in the way Christians address pagan religions. The questions Christians should ask themselves are: 'Is what Molotov and the "Flamethrower" panelists are saying true?' If so, should we stifle it? And secondly, and I believe most American Christians need to think about this one is: 'Does Jesus hate Islam?'"

I love this. Exactly what information about Islam as a religious system was being displayed here? Saying Mohammed was a child molesting murderer? That has about as much relevance to the theological underpinnings (or sociological problems with) contemporary Islam as an entire episode castigating Judaism for the patriarchs' polygamy several thousand years ago. And incidentally, dopey, I don't think Jesus had an opinion about Islam given that, you know, he died about 700 years before it started. Sorry to ruin your fun with, you know, math.

Mitchell says the entire program will soon be posted on the "Flamethrower" website, and, by popular demand, the Muhammad cookies will be made available there as well.

"One fan said if we all told an Islamic joke and ate one cookie a day, Islam would go away forever," he said.

This tells you something about the kind of brilliant minds we're dealing with. Luckily, WND has no such qualms about supporting idiots, and has made the whole segment available on its website. Also, this brave stand for free speech should come as no surprise to anyone that has followed WND's long history against censorship.

Keeping Me on My Toes

Antigonos, legion commenter of the Jblogosphere, helps educate me regarding my last post on the Haredi bus situation.

"There is a legitimate point to be made that these buses are pre-designated as "Mehadrin," or gender-separated, and that it's not like this is happening on every bus."

~~~No, it's not a legitimate point. Egged has the contract to provide PUBLIC transport to ALL the public. I pay my fare, I sit where I want. And in any case, it's not MY problem, sitting next to a man, it's HIS problem if he's haredi, and he can get up and move elsewhere. If the haredim want segregated buses, let them hire a private bus firm.

My mistake; I was under the impression that the Mehadrin buses were semi-private entities created to cater specifically to the Haredi community; i.e., operate as "Haredi buses." Egged should not be able to operate as both a public service and a private organization with its own miniature codes of conduct varying from bus to bus. (Though I have to say that unfortunately, I see no way to force Egged to make this decision on their own, as it's against their economic interests.)

Antigonos also added that in practice, Mehadrin buses are not so much divided in "two" as they are into, say, quarters- three for the men, one for the women. Cute. What a nice way to put the "we do TOO value women" slogan I've heard from Orthodox acquaintances into practice.

I also can't help but think of a comment I read on a Jewish blog this week (unfortunately I can't recall which one) from a Haredi man in NY who said, something to the effect of, "I feel bad that I don't care enough about these sorts of issues- but if I get a seat on the train, I'm whipping out my New York Times or falling asleep, and I'm oblivious to whoever's sitting next to me." Interestingly, he added, "but I understand why they can/should be more strict in Israel."

Sultan Knish and my old friend Sam added their respective shekels as well, noting that the reason the public policing keeps going on is because no one is willing to rein the Haredim in, and because Olmert is too busy kissing their kaftaned tucheses to care much about the rule of law (and the recent departure of his coalition by Yisrael Beiteinu will probably make him even more desperate to keep them happy). Sam goes so far as to compare it to desegregation. It's a sorry fact, but from where I'm sitting the truth seems to be that the bizarre super-frum mentality presently at work among the Haredi majority is more hostile to THEIR OWN WOMEN- mothers, sisters, and daughters, than American whites' views of blacks were in the 19th and 20th centuries. The ironic thing is that this view isn't just, to my liberal elitist values, a tad, shall we say, odd, it's also what science-fiction nerds like to call a RETCON, or a false or "invented" history. Just check out Harry Maryles, far from a liberal heretic like myself. First Harry opines about the Hasidic custom (particularly prevalent among the Ger sect in Israel) of wives walking MULTIPLE STEPS behind their husbands for modesty purposes. What say thee, Harry?

"I’m sorry this is not normal."

Hmmm.

There's more.

Whether it is the manner of dress of Yeshiva students, or the color, size and style of their Kipot, or whether it is in the total rejection of mixed seating as the norm for events such as weddings, bar Mitzvos, or banquets, this chumraization [increased strictures] has cast a pall on those of us who were brought up in a world where even the Gedolei HaDor [Great Rabbis of the Generation] went to mixed seating events and sat with their wives. The Talmidim [students] of today have become Kanaim (zealots) for their mentors in certain areas of Judaism. In past generations that was not the case. One of my Rebbeim at HTC, HaGoan R. Mordechai Rogov, ZTL, said that in Lithuania they did not consider such things important. I recently saw some archival footage of Yeshiva student of pre-war Ponovezh. The students were all wearing light colored suits and hats, and they were all clean shaven with no Peyos (Side curls). Can you imagine walking into Lakewood today and seeing even one student wearing a light colored suit?

Case in point: an old picture of a student most people only know as an ancient beard-man. Still more from Harry:

This phenomenon is part of the over-all ‘move to the right’, that has been taking place over the last 60 years. After the holocaust when Chasidim immigrated to the United States in huge numbers, they brought all their Chumros with them. Chumros not practiced in the United States and not common in the Lithuanian Yeshivos of Europe. That is how the slide to the right began. Many Kulos that were standard practice even pre holocaust were abandoned in the US when the Chasidim who never used these Kulos immigrated and widely practiced them. The Yeshiva world saw it and copied it.

There are two very clear instances of this.

In one area it was actually a Tikun. It restored a Halacha that was all but abandoned even in pre-holocaust Lithuania: that of married woman covering their hair. Chasidim never abandoned that Halacha. When the rabbinic leaders of the Yeshiva world saw that, they were somehow able to convince their wives to cover their hair too. And they made sure this Halacha was instilled into their students. Since that time hair covering has come back with a vengeance. Where it was virtually unknown in the United States pre-holocaust, the vast majority of observant women today cover their hair. The younger they are, the more likely they are to do so even among the modern orthodox.

The other area which is not a Halachic requirement is in the area of separate seating of the sexes. The biggest Lithuanian type Gedolim of the last century sat with their wives at at weddings. There are photos that prove that. And they proudly introduced their wives to everyone. This was not only the case here it was the case in Europe.

When asked about it by a Talmid who back in the late sixties was faced with pressure to have separate seating at his wedding: Rav Mordechai Rogov told him, “In Der Lita, Zennen Mir Nit Given Makpid”. In Lithuania weddings had mixed seating.

But, when the Lithuanian Torah world saw that all the Chasidic wedding had separate seating, they instituted it for themselves. Telshe banquets in Chicago started out with mixed seating. After a few years of observing the Chasidic world, they made a conscious decision to not be out-Frummed by the Chasidim.

Now they actually bully people into having separate seating at weddings. Case in point: Back in the early nineties the daughter of a close friend of mine got engaged to a Telzer. My friend intended to have mixed seating at his daughter’s wedding. When Telshe found out about it, one of the Roshei Yeshiva paid a visit to my friend. And he used extreme pressure on him to have separate seating. ‘How would it look’ he said, ‘if one of their Bachurim had a mixed seating wedding?!’

...It’s about image. It’s about ‘Frumkeit. Who can look ‘Frummer’ …who can sound ‘Frummer’…and who can act Frummer.

Indeed. And what's particularly sad is that this group-think mentality is superficial, stupid, and, to my understanding, rather incongruous with a lot of the message we're supposed to get from most of Jewish history. Not only has there historically been quite a bit of diversity in customs and practices among Jews, a major component of Judaism has always been that there is legitimacy and dignity in not mindlessly following group trends, be they harmless (designer jeans) or more problematic (Crusades). If our predecessors had been as easily coerced by peer pressure as today's Haredim seem to be, the world, both Jewish and otherwise, would have been all the poorer for it.

And to conclude, an old Jonathan Rosenblum post on the subject which refreshingly throws some cold water on the Haredi hotheads who beat a grandmother for the sake of their "modesty." (Did they wear gloves?)

If BaGaTz [The Israeli Supreme Court] eventually bans Mehadrin public buses, those who were so insistent that Mrs. Shear vacate her seat will have made a significant contribution to the final decision. Certainly they have already helped make Torah Judaism appear as something ugly and fanatical in the eyes of hundreds of thousands around the world.

...There is a growing tendency in our community to attempt to impose our halachic standards, even chumrot, whenever we have a momentary majority, such as on the early morning bus to the Kotel. Even leaving aside the consequences of such a strategy on the attitude of traditional and secular Jews towards the chareidi community and Torah itself, I fear it is a dangerous approach.

Democracy may not be the Torah’s ideal form of government, but in recent history it has generally proven to be the best protector of the rights of Jews and of our ability to flourish as Torah Jews. Therefore Torah Jews have an interest in playing by the rules of a democratic society. If we want the majority of Israeli society to respect the rights of the chareidi minority, then we have to also respect the rights of the majority.

To argue that the rules of the game followed by Torah Jews in America do not apply to the chareidi community in Israel is, in my mind, a perverse form of Zionism.

Adopting violence as a tool would be a disastrous mistake, even from the most narrow and short-range perspective. As Yossi Sarid and other secular politicians have been only too happy to remind us over the years, at the end of the day, the secular public is much larger and has lots more guns.

Separate seating on buses may be a very positive thing. And if it is important enough to the chareidi community, then the community will support our own separate bus lines (though hopefully not by throwing stones at competing public lines, as has happened in Ramat Beit Shemesh).

But separate seating is not the only Torah value at stake. Yereim v’shleimim [pious folks, I think] in New York regularly ride the New York City subways, on which the crowding is far greater than anything experienced on Egged buses in Jerusalem. And the late posek hador, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, long-ago ruled that it is permitted to ride New York City subways.

Damn straight. Suck it up, guys, or get your own damn bus lines. Hell, the way Olmert is headed, you'll probably be able to make him pay for it.

The Haredim on the Bus go...

"Quack Quack Quack!"

Well, actually, not so much.

There have been a few well-publicized cases of women being harassed or attacked on Jerusalem buses in the past few years. Now author Naomi Ragen and a few other women, tired of seeing Jim Crow rules play themselves out in Israel are taking their case to the Supreme Court.

The state argues that the segregation - with men sitting in front and women in back - is voluntary and that the companies operating the mehadrin lines "are prohibited from forcing the voluntary arrangement on the rest of the passengers who are not interested in it.

"There is no reason for the Transportation Ministry to get involved, as long as each person maintains a right to use those lines without being coerced by these arrangements," the state said. "A suitable arrangement is based on the assumption that there should not be a coerced segregation arrangement in public transit, but there is no obstacle to allowing the passengers to have voluntary separation between the sexes."

I feel (almost) conflicted. There is a legitimate point to be made that these buses are pre-designated as "Mehadrin," or gender-separated, and that it's not like this is happening on every bus. So the very fact of the buses existing may not be the actual problem as much as the really crappy attitudes that are occurring in conjunction with these bus lines when women don't follow the rules (the Israeli Reform movement, all five of them, disagree). Also, as Orthomom said back in 2006, if you're actually doing your job as a Haredi man and using your spare time for studying, it shouldn't make much of a difference if a woman is sitting next to you or across from you.

Incidentally, I've seen buses in New York that have women and men sitting ACROSS from each other throughout the whole length of the bus, using a curtain to keep things separate. It seems that part of this is also a desire from certain groups of Haredim to keep things as rigid, inflexible, and generally unpleasant, as they can possibly be. It's one thing to have a socially repressive (or, to be polite, "highly regulated") society, it's another thing to impose it on other folks, ESPECIALLY with the threat of violence. Gil Student put it quite well:

The problem with the arrangement in Israel is simply that the community there is incapable of controlling its hooligans. This should come as no surprise and has been a growing problem for decades.

Damn skippy. Gil also does a good job of demonstrating how the more attention this issue gets, the more ridiculous the whole thing starts to look to outside observers- especially when Orthodox women try to defend the practice as "empowering." Yeah, empowering the same way the May Laws were.

Still, some people are not convinced that Ragen and co's hearts are actually in the right place.

Reform Jews do not consider themselves bound by Torah mandates such as those relating to separation of the genders, but there are many observant Jews who have difficulty with these issues as well. Many, however, feel more comfortable in such an environment.

“There are lines all over the country, traveling to the same places, in which anyone can sit anywhere they like,” one regular rider on the mehadrin line told IsraelNationalNews. “There is no reason for a woman to sit in a men’s section on a bus clearly intended to cater to those who observe Torah law,” he said, “other than for the purpose of deliberate provocation."

The rider, who requested anonymity, likened the situation to that of a woman insisting on using the men’s public restroom. “It’s not illegal for a woman to force her way into a men’s bathroom,” he said. “But it would be unusual and bad-mannered, to say the least.”

The state argues that the seating arrangement is voluntary and that the bus operators do not force passengers to sit in any particular area, but that the restrictions are set by the community served by the line.

The standard Israeli public bus system, in which there is no gender separation on the buses, includes routes traveling to every destination served by the “mehadrin” line.

The separate, “mehadrin” system was created in 2001 in response to a growing demand by hareidi religious Jews for a bus line that would enable men and women to travel separately without being forced into uncomfortably close proximity, especially on crowded buses.

The “mehadrin” line provides for separate seating and offers direct bus service between cities with large hareidi religious populations.

Hmm. Sort of makes me think back to the old question of whether Jerusalem (or the buses going to and from it) should belong to all Jews or just the religious. Let's just hope they don't take their cues from the Klausenberger rebbe on this one.

Edit: Well that's a little surprising.

Suspicious haredi leaders and activists were pleasantly surprised to discover Monday that the Supreme Court can be an ally and that liberal, democratic values such as human rights and freedom of religious expression can sometimes serve haredi interests.

"Today the Supreme Court gave legitimacy to our claims and backed them up with values such as human dignity," said Shlomo Rosenstein, a member of the Jerusalem Municipality and Transportation Coordinator for the Haredi Public in the capital.

Yeah. Maybe next year they'll support your freedom of speech as applied through bleach-spraying.

On Monday, a panel of judges chaired by the modern Orthodox Elyakim Rubinstein seemed to show empathy and understanding for the haredi community's desire to strictly separate the sexes on public buses, according to haredim who were present at the discussions.

"The questions they asked and their comments seemed to show that they understood our needs and sensibilities," said a haredi PR man who works with one of the large bus companies that runs "Mehadrin" lines that seat men at the front and women at the back.

"The judges failed to understand what Naomi Ragen was so upset about. Why should a woman care if she sits in the front of the bus or in the back of the bus?" asked rhetorically the anonymous PR man.

Isn't that sort of like the all-white court deciding that "separate but equal" was a perfectly fine legal precedent? Maybe the court needs some women on it.

The first major development in haredi influence was the community's discovery of its buying power. As the haredi population grew they became aware of their formidable consumer buying power.

They could put pressure on the cellular phone operators to offer handsets that do not have Internet access, SMS or access to other services that offend haredi sensibilities.

They could demand that supermarkets carry products with more stringent kosher supervision. They could put pressure on El Al, the national carrier, to stop flying on Shabbat and they could demand that building contractors build haredi-only neighborhoods.

Now, haredim may have entered a new stage of influence: using the Supreme Court, that bastion of liberalism and equality, to support haredi religious freedoms as long as they do not hurt the freedom of others too much.

Ow. My poor head.

One of these things does not match the other

I'm reading a book of stories about Hasidic rebbes. It has some interesting reincarnation tidbits.

The Apter Rebbe once said he had been the High Priest in ancient Jerusalem. The Berdichever was the reincarnation of Rabbi Akiva. Israel of Stolin claimed to have Rashi's soul, which was convenient, since his father, Asher of Stolin was said to have been the reincarnation of none other than King David.

Ok, so far it's pretty standard. But apparently the Yismach Moshe, the first Moshe Teitelbaum, had some really interesting reincarnation claims.

In reverse order, he claimed to have been:

1- the prophet Jeremiah.

2- A member of the original group of Israelites in the Exodus (he wouldn't answer if he supported Moses or Korah)

3- and the last, and original soul... well, that's where things get weird.

Apparently Rabbi Teitelbaum was one of the sheep in Jacob's flock when he worked for Laban. I'm not sure what we're supposed to learn from this, other than that souls can move between species. Also, I'm disappointed that there's no further commentary in the book about this. Are we supposed to infer that being a sheep of a patriarch is just as high-prestige as being the prophet Jeremiah? Did the rabbi take certain insights away from his time as a sheep? Like vegetarianism, or the importance of treating animals humanely? Making sure to shear them on time?

Hey, wait a minute! Israel of Rizhin was also one of Jacob's sheep! I wonder if they were friends. You know what some Jewish studies grad student should do is research whether any of the rebbes or rabbis claiming to be reincarnations ever overlapped with each other... like, at any given point, were there multiple claimants to be King David? It would be pretty impressive if there weren't.

Swing and a Miss

Found an old post of Jonathan Rosenblum's on Cross-Currents about the Israeli economy, and the effect it has on government subsidies.

Typically, the release of new poverty figures generates large headlines in the chareidi press, and the figures are seized upon as proof of the government’s failure in this area and of the need to return child subsidies to former levels.

That is not going to happen, I would guess, no matter how grim the poverty figures. Periodically, particular coalition constellations – such as the current government’s need to retain Shas in the coalition – may lead to a temporary increase in child subsidies. But there are important factors militating against a dramatic long-term rise in child subsidies.

By far the largest beneficiaries of child subsidies are the Arab sector: There are over twice as many Arabs as chareidim in Israel. Since the cut in child subsidies, there has been a substantial drop in the Arab birthrate (which, Baruch Hashem, has not been accompanied by a parallel drop in the chareidi birthrate). The decline in Arab birthrates is crucial to Israel’s demographic survival.

Aside from the creepy pseudo political eugenic implications from cheering that less money for Israeli Arabs is resulting in less Arab children, it also turns out that, well, Rosenblum's point is just plain wrong.

The total fertility rate in the country's ultra-Orthodox community has dropped sharply in the past several years, according to figures released by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).

Whoops.

Haaretz continues:

...the fertility rate among Muslim women in Israel has also dropped dramatically, from an average of 4.7 children per woman in 2000 to just 4 in 2006.

Most of this drop occurred after the large reduction in child allowances, in the summer of 2003. The cuts mainly affected the allowances for new births. The National Insurance Institute allowances for each new baby is only NIS 150 per month.

The largest drop in fertility rates was recorded in the Arab sector in the southern district - in other words, among the Bedouin, where the fertility rate dropped from 9 children per woman in 2003 to 7.6 children in 2005.

So it turns out the biggest population drop is among the Bedouin in the Negev, who historically have been fairly pro-Israel. But such distinctions are too much work for Mr. Rosenblum, apparently. An Arab's an Arab, right?

Not Cool

Fox News just wasted five minutes of my life talking about who the sexiest President of the past 40 years was:

Polls said:

Clinton- 51%
Reagan- 27%
Bush- 7%

Ow. That's really gross. None of those guys are particularly good-looking, and they haven't aged very well. And I wonder how many men bothered to respond to this poll. Seems a tad skewed, gender-wise.

Anyway, Reagan? He didn't get into office until he was 69, and spent his whole term looking like a damn shar-pei. I guess there's still hope for McCain.

And then they made it worse by asking how much sex different political supporters are getting. Thompson supporters were the highest with 14% saying they were having sex every day. Well, if you assume that most Thompson supporters are, like Thompson, decrepit ancients with 20-something blond trophy wives, that might not be such a stretch.

Best part- Bimbo of the hour said she liked JFK best, until it was pointed out to her that that was, in fact, 47 years ago. To be fair, though, it's not like they're paying her to do math.

It's Been a Long Road...

Getting from There To Here,

It's Been a Long Time...

Since I had a beer...

Oh, sorry. I was having a moment. Yeah. Anyway.

Time to waste time (and space!) again. Recent keyword search time:

- "Yid". I resent that.

- "Zayde." When "Pop-Pop" just doesn't cut it anymore.

- "Hugh Downes." I heard he's being kept alive by Dick Clark's people just so he can play with someone his own age.

- "Lazer Brody Friar Yid." We laugh, we cry. Well, no, actually, he writes, I laugh, then I cry.

- "Sex Yid." Hot.

- "Yid Blog." Remember back before the Internet, where to get similar quality you had to go dig up a Heeb Scroll? Thank god for progress.

- "Yeshiva World." Coming soon to the Travel Channel.

- "Spinka Rebbe Arrested." Why should Rubashkin have all the fun.

- "Trephenation." It just makes sense.

- "Abir Sofer." Can't talk about it. I took an oath.

- "Abir arts Friar." What did I just say?

- "Don't be a Friar." Hey!

- "Chuck Norris homophobe." Now, now, there's no evidence of that. Weird, yes. Crazy, quite possibly. Looking exactly the same as he did twenty-five years ago, quite eerily. But homophobe? The jury's still out.

- "Israel Eichler." From the "political stooge of the Belzer rebbe" Eichlers, not the, "can I interest you in a 180-dollar siddur" Eichlers.

- "Photos Chabad telethon 2007." Get out. Just go.

- "Gay Breslov." Look, what two quasi-dead rebbes do in their spare time isn't my business, I'm just saying, you might want to give that tomb some privacy now and then.

- "Chabad." Too easy.

- "Naming one's kid Esav." For a practical joke that will last a lifetime... Hey, and maybe name his brother Adolf, while you're at it.

- "Friar Yid." Drumroll, please.

- "Jewish names rabbi off limits?" Indeed, most sages caution against naming your kid "Rabbi." "Johnny Reb," however, is perfectly acceptable.

- "John Francis book on the tallit prayer shawls." I hate, hate, hate, this man. Newsflash, dude. It's a scarf. It most certainly is not a set of "wings." You're either thinking of pilots or maxi-pad commercials.

- "John Francis prayer shawls." Get one free with your one-time gift of your soul!

- "Indians are the coolest." Ah, but according to the illustrious Rabbi Brody, Indians are really just Jews anyway, so really, Jews are the coolest. Nah, Nah, point for us.

- "The New Sanhedrin of Israel." You know you're in trouble when you're trying to resurrect a quasi-governmental body last attempted by Napoleon.

- "Shithead name Israel." Actually, it's pronounce "She-teed." And along with Osnat and Nimrod, it's by far one of the coolest Hebrew names. Or at least the most hilarious to say.

- "It's been too long Jew." New Chuck Norris movie?

- "Israeli friar." We're a small covert group. We mostly subsist on a diet of roots and WorldNetDaily. Which, as you can imagine, isn't very healthy.

- "Songs of Betar Irgun Lehi." Surprisingly limited. There just aren't that many words that rhyme with "Mighty Jabotinsky."

- "Jewish sexuality existentialist eroticism tikkun-bar." This sounds like one hell of a bar.

- "Shatnez checking in Riverdale." Let me tell you, watch out, guys. You do NOT want to piss Shatnez off.

- "Greek gematria Clinton calculator." Because when you want Gematria done right, it has to be Greek.

- "Obama gematria." That's it, someone get me a gun.

Sad, Yes...

But you know, I have a little bit of trouble swallowing this latest news from World Net Daily:

Nine people are dead and dozens of churches and hundreds of Christians' homes have been torched during a surge of Hindu violence in India, according to reports from organizations working there.
Compass Direct News reports that the deaths and damage have been reported since Christmas Eve, when members of the extremist World Hindu Council launched their assaults on the faithful belonging to Christianity.
...The nation's Human Rights Commission this week reported nine deaths from the attacks, close to 90 churches burned, about 600 homes either torched or vandalized, and about 5,000 people forced to flee.
Swami Laxmananda Saraswati, a leader of the World Hindu Council (VHP), told local reporters that the violence was triggered by Hindus who converted to Christianity.
...The violence apparently erupted first in Kandhamal as members of the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in one small village were preparing for their Christmas celebration.
A Hindu mob, upset with Christianity's beliefs and the apparent choice by some Hindus to follow Christianity, attacked the Christians and their shops, the Compass Direct agency reported.
The blame, the report said, rests with Saraswati, who has opposed Christians and their work in India for more than a decade...
Even within the United States, there have been attacks, although verbal instead of physical. As WND reported, the Hindu American Foundation has attacked Christian organizations ranging from the Southern Baptists' missions board and Gospel for Asia to Olive Tree Ministries, which aims to teach Christians about their beliefs.

It's not that I don't believe that there are Hindu mobs killing Christians. There seem to be some real issues with religious tolerance in that part of the world.

It's just, well, considering who the Hindus usually target, I'm sort of surprised that WND only seems to hear about it when the victims happen to be wearing crosses.

Also, call it a crazy hunch, but I have a feeling it will be a cold day in Hell before WND tells it readers about stuff like this. Or this.

The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels.
Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar said state police had uncovered details of the alleged link after questioning a church leader.
Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested late on Monday with a large quantity of explosives.
Mr Sarkar said that allegations about the close links between the state's Baptist Church and the rebel National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) have long been made by political parties and police.
Now for the first time, he said, hard evidence supporting the allegations had been found.

Baptists, huh? How interesting.

Lazer Strikes Again

There is a custom among the Breslover Hasidim to commune daily with the Almighty by yourself, preferably alone in a field somewhere. Well, I don't really have access to a field, so I have to make do with this box-screen. And, absent the almighty, I spend my time responding to weird crap. So it is with great pleasure that I report a new installment from everyone's favorite Breslover, Rabbi Lazer "Say What?" Brody, this time brought to my attention by a very good friend of the blog, Sam at Xyre.

One of Lazer's readers writes in to say that she and her husband are both semi-recent Baalei Teshuvah and have a new baby. However, "Since I was younger, I have felt that I would like to have a relationship with another woman."

Uh oh. This could get ugly. What say thee, Rabbi?

Well first, Lazer informs us, in that ever-so-helpful GI Joe style of his, that coming to a rabbi is half the battle. You see gentle reader, "various crap about negative energy clouding the soul and stuff. Rabbi Nachman, blah-blah, Nachman blah-blah, funny hats." Anyway, the important thing is that she came to a random Internet personality first, as opposed to say, anyone remotely qualified to give her any kind of educated advice. Off to a good start.

Furthermore, "Jewish astrology bullcrap blah-blah Nachman blah, extra special powerful prayers blah-blah, Jupiter is in the East but we call him Yonkel so as to not practice idol worship. Blah."

Lazer concludes with a 10-point plan for no more gayitude. I know I could just let you read it for yourselves, but I've found that sometimes Lazer can be a little technical, especially for those who don't know much about the inner workings of Orthodox Judaism. As a recent graduate of a half-day make-your-own yarmulke-from-body-hair seminar, I feel like I'm in a unique position to translate. Here goes:

1. Do that Breslover meditation thing. Ask God to help you overcome your "stupid temptation fantasy" which is coming direct from the Devil-Judaism-Doesn't-Quite-Have. And which has apparently been haunting you for a long time, even before you had a husband for the Yetzer Hara (Evil Side) to tempt you away from. Oh, so tricky.

2. Don't consume any secular media. Only read holy books. Incidentally, I have eight new ones I pulled out of my butt last night. Plus a new DVD. Just saying.

3. Read a bunch of passages from this book. It will help, I swear. If those random paragraphs don't change your brain chemistry to make you like dudes again, try a phone book.

4. Spend a lot of time guilt-tripping yourself by remembering how disappointed God and your husband will be if you switch teams.

5. Remember that all negative thoughts come from the Yetzer Hara (convenient, no?) Gays and lesbians (I think he means openly gays and lesbians here) have apparently "quit fighting the spiritual battle to rescue their souls, and have utterly surrendered to the Yetzer." Utterly? That seems a bit reductive. What if they don't actually act on their desires and just watch a lot of gay porn? For someone schooled in the oh-so-nuanced and nitpicky Talmudic tradition, Lazer seems to be acting downright Baptist in black-and-white his approach to moral matters.

6. Wanting to suck face with girls is JUST LIKE wanting a bacon cheeseburger. And apparently, just like his reader doesn't "contemplate eating pork or cheeseburgers all day long, you don't have to think about other women." Because he knows all that from her email, right? To be fair, Lazer does recognize that this may be easier said then done, especially if you're an idiot who says random things with little basis in reality: "This will be difficult for you at first, because your entire mission on this earth could very well be to lick the battle with homosexual or other lewd tendencies." Unfortunately, Lazer uses the verb "lick" here, demonstrating that he really needs to read his articles out loud before posting them.

7. Try to be "super-modest," also known as ugly. Wearing a really unattractive wig is an excellent start. You might also try a burqa, or maybe one of these.

8. Buy some Breslov stuff. No, seriously. In case you weren't paying enough attention on point number 2. Don't worry, the authors on both of these books are long-dead, so it's not like the money will be going to anyone living. Oh, except for the BreslovWorld publishers.

9. You like the ladies because you don't love God enough. Work on that.

And number 10, and I swear I'm not making this up...

Wash your hands.

Lazer claims that these 10-steps will not only cure this woman's "lewd urges," he also says it should work within 40 DAYS! Wow, that's almost as good as Kevin Trudeau's miracle cures. Well I certainly home this woman tries these and lets us know how it all works out.

Full list available here in all its brain-melting glory.

Hat-tip: Xyre.

Lame

Jonah Goldberg is a dillhole. Need proof? Check out his new blog, designed to pimp his new book.

Yeah, nothing says class or intellectual integrity like breaking out a Hitler mustache.

I'll have what he's having.

You, sir, are a moron. Or maybe just really, really, stoned.

I believe that Fred Thompson has been more consistent on the issues than most of his peers. Thompson has always been strong on national security. He has spoken against sanctuary cities and has been a strong supporter for enforcing our immigration laws. The former senator from Tennessee has consistently supported a balanced budget amendment and understands the importance of cutting government waste. He also recognizes how important it is to support traditional marriage. I can't see him catering to the extreme homosexual lobby.

Are you kidding? When was the last time Thompson was even remotely involved with any political process or cause? He's been spending most of his time nursing stage bourbons on the Law and Order set. This guy's just swallowing everything Thompson's spoon-feeding him, including lip service to every pseudo-conservative cause under the sun.

Fred Thompson appears to be a man who is not too consumed with himself and who doesn't take himself too seriously. Perhaps this is why some in the media got upset with him when he said he didn't have to have the job of president. Instead, he said he cares deeply about the country -- and that's why he's running. This only underscores his reason for running for America's top job.

You know why Thompson doesn't take himself too seriously? Maybe because he knows no one else does, either.

As a successful actor, businessman, and a public servant representing the people of Tennessee, he certainly doesn't need the recognition. But still, he believes that he can do more for our country as the chief executive.

I believe Thompson can meet that challenge. That's why I think he would be a great nominee for the GOP ticket -- against any candidate the Democrats offer up.

Let me assure you, sir. Nothing would please me more. Please do get out that vote.

I love this

Breslov to Chabad: We can be Crazy, Too

In what can only be a bid to stay on Jbloggers' radar screens, one of the weirder Hasidic sects is back in the news.

It all started with a stupid political promise.

During his tenure as mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert paid a condolence call to a family of followers of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. Olmert asked courteously if there was anything he could do for the mourners.

Fortunately, they asked only this: that if he should ever become prime minister, he would act to bring Rabbi Nachman's remains from the city of Uman, in Ukraine, for reburial in Jerusalem.

Olmert promised.

Moron.

The Prime Minister's Office was recently involved in bringing the remains of the family of Theodor Herzl to Israel. It was a good story. With the country's 60th anniversary of independence approaching, Olmert wants something even more beautiful, and what could be more beautiful, more Jewish, more stately and more appropriate for Independence Day than interring the remains of Rabbi Nachman on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem? Everyone will be happy at this funeral, and happiness, after all, is one of the main tenets of Rabbi Nachman's doctrine.

Hey, I've got a great idea; why don't we dig up every famous rabbi ever and bury them all on the Mount of Olives? I think there's still some room over in that left corner. Quick, did any of them have kids? Oh really? Sweet. Funny, I thought part of the old Zionist line was that Israel was the new, living country for Jews and Poland and Ukraine were the graveyards.

The Bratslav Hasidim are indeed a community of happiness, although when we speak of "Bratslav Hasidim," it is necessary to be precise: they are not all cut from the same cloth. Israelis are mostly familiar with those who dance at traffic lights with boom boxes and paint the mysterious sequence "Na - Nach - Nachman" on walls. They are the ones who want Rabbi Nachman's remains to be interred in Jerusalem.

Alongside the populist branch are those identified with the World Breslov [Bratslav] Center; they do not want Olmert to interrupt their rebbe's rest. He was buried in Uman at his explicit instructions. His tomb projects magic that is liable, heaven forbid, to dissipate if it is moved; and anyway, who authorized the government of the Zionist state to seize control of his heritage?

Oh yeah. You have to protect that tomb-magic. It's at least at valuable as gold, and with the economy the way it is, it can only increase in value. In time, we might even be able to create cars that run on tomb-magic. And as an added bonus, you won't need airbags or seatbelts.

Rabbi Nachman's tomb attracts about 30,000 Hasidim a year, most of them from Israel and the United States. With their numbers rising all the time, the Hasidim decided to expand the synagogue adjacent to the tomb. That was about 10 years ago. In Ukraine these things are done - how to put it? - the way they are in the Jerusalem Municipality, more or less: by a fusion of big capital and government. The Hasidim found a contractor who is also a member of parliament, Petro Kuzmenko by name. He is a member of the party whose leader is now the country's prime minister. A goy with a Jewish partner.

Agreement was reached on a project that was to cost $5 million. In return for the plans, the Bratslavers agreed to pay $195,000; they gave $95,000 as a down payment. The Ukrainian parliamentarian sent plans, but the Hasidim were dissatisfied and said they would pay no more.

However, it then emerged that in their naivete they had signed a contract obliging them to pay $1,000 for every day of payment arrears, and before they could say Na - Nach - Nachman the debt had swelled to $3 million, and the holy tomb was liable to become the goy's personal property.

What's that line about God helping those who help themselves? Here's a radical idea, guys: take all that money you're pissing away on an empty building and create some viable charities for your followers in Israel, or, God forbid, the Ukraine.

But it's not all bad. The Breslovers have the Israeli government on their side, and luckily, somebody knew somebody who knew somebody, and before you know it, they're chatting up the Ukrainian President!

In the meantime, Corinaldi made contact with someone who knows someone in the bureau of President Yushchenko. Yushchenko himself called the goy parliamentarian. He is not from his party, but still, a call from the president is something. Afterward, attorney Corinaldi got a call from Yushchenko's bureau asking if he would be so kind as to make time to meet with the president during his visit to Jerusalem. To the meeting, in the King David Hotel, the lawyer brought Rabbi Daniel Dayan, a Hollywood actor who became religiously observant and is a senior Bratslav figure. Dayan did what Jews always did when they went to talk to the paritz: He gave Yushchenko a fine silver goblet. Mrs. Yushchenko, who is also of American origin, acted as interpreter. Both of them were properly impressed.

You know, I really don't understand this whole humble Court Jew, give the lord a fancy present, dynamic.

Anyway, the Ukranians are now going to protect the tomb, which is good for the Hasidim (and Uman's economy). The bad news: it doesn't look like the Nachman's making aliyah anytime soon.

Haaretz concludes with this charming little anecdote about an exchange between former Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek and then PM Menachem Begin over how to honor Israel's 30th anniversary:

Less than a year after Begin's election, which ousted Labor after 29 years, Kollek was still finding it hard to come to terms with the change. He therefore suggested that the prime minister ask the Pope to lend Israel Michelangel's sculpture of Moses, which would be placed at the site of the Western Wall.

The Prime Minister's Office, not realizing at first that Kollek was making fun of Begin, made cautious overtures to the religious public about whether the statue, with the horns on its forehead, would offend their sensibilities. Why should they be upset, Kollek said in a message to Begin; after all I did not suggest asking for the statue of David, who is not circumcised. Kollek was a rare bird among the country's founding fathers: He had a sense of humor.

Awesome.

When it Comes to Obama, Conservatives Want to be Sensitive

I think I've seen this movie before. In fact I'm sure of it. Once again, some lunk-head is trying to smear Obama because he's almost a Muslim. Sort of. Some doof named Warner Todd Huston offers this insightful bit of commentary:

Daniel Pipes did a little research on the question of Barack Hussein Obama's youthful status as a Muslim. Is he one? Was he one? Was he a practicing Muslim, an indifferent one, not one at all? To Americans, this question seems rather ridiculous. Most would wonder why anyone would care? But, the answer to the question isn't one that affects Americans. It may not even bother American Muslims. However, it may mean quite a lot to Muslims outside our borders. And, it might not be a good thing, at that, making our relations with the Muslim world even more difficult than it now is.

More difficult than with Bush? How is that possible? Have you SEEN Bush?

...few voting Americans would find this childhood obedience to his Indonesian step-father of much concern. He was a kid, after all. Of course a young Barack would occasionally accompany his step-father who was a practicing Muslim to prayers... even if just once. Who could be in the least surprised?

This fact, on its face and in normal times, should be of no concern and should be meaningless in the minds of the electorate. It's merely of general interest, but not in any way a decisive factor in whether one should vote for the man.

But these are not normal times.

I guess Huston has been following Guilliani's campaign. Whatever works, I guess.

To a serious Muslim, once a person accepts the practices of Islam they are a Muslim. Such a person doesn't ever have to become a seriously practicing Muslim. Just accepting the mantle, no matter how brief, solidifies that person as a Muslim permanently. Further, there is no such thing as a "lapsed" Muslim, or one who quit the religion. As far as Islam is concerned you are a Muslim quite regardless if you change your mind or if you never really became a practicing Muslim and just dabbled in the creed.

This raises a troubling situation for Muslims, especially ones of radical bent, where it concerns how they will view a president Barack Obama and, as a matter of consequence, how they will deal with the U.S.A.

So this should disqualify Obama from being electable? Why don't we disqualify Hillary since she doesn't wear the hijab? Or Huckabee? I can't imagine Al Qaeda will be terribly disposed towards a Baptist Minister. The one exception might be Romney; I don't think jihadists really know from the Mormons.

The idea that suddenly conservatives think America should elect its leaders strategically based on who is least likely to piss off radical Mslims isn't just hilarious, it's positively schizophrenic. Practically every Republican is running on a platform of Kicking ass and taking names, especially names that start with "Mohamm" or "Huss."

So, the main question becomes: is it wise to elect as president a man who, regardless of his policies or ideas, is marked for immediate death by peoples with whom we are in delicate negotiations, people with whom we are often in a shooting war?

Is this a smart thing to do?

More like, is this argument even close to being intellectually honest? Aside from Kucinich and Paul, every candidate is trying to appear strong on national defense, and the idea that any of them would be invited to a coffee klatch with Al-Zawahiri is just plain stupid. Gulliani? McCain? I'm sure Al-Sadr would just love to sit down and kibbitz with those two. Yup, the only issue that matters to radical Muslims these days is, "Are you now or were you ever a Muslim-in-Name-only?"

Now, let me say here that I am not interested in bending over backwards to assuage the insane beliefs of Islam nor am I advocating that we check with foreigners before we decide for whom we must vote. However, it IS a factor in our decision, none-the-less. It is something we must think about carefully before we cast that vote.

So you'll be voting for Kucinich or Paul, then? Better yet, why don't we just ask the jihdadists who they want us to vote for? (Incidentally, this is an ironic little reversal from the last election, when we were constantly being told that Bin Laden wanted everyone to vote for Kerry.)

Those who vote for Barack Hussein Obama must be ready to accept that the very fact that he is our president WILL cause peoples with whom we need to dialog to leave the table, not giving us even a first hearing.

And, since Obama is claiming that he will be first and foremost a diplomat, the fact that he is a murtadd to those with whom he imagines he will negotiate, we may find that he is shut out from their negotiations before he even gets started.

So, is it really wise to elect as president a man who has such negatives in the eyes of the entire Muslim world? It is certainly something to think about.

You dishonest political stooge scumbag.

In case you were looking for other reasons not to vote for Obama, Dennis Prager's come up with some. As usual, they aren't very good, but the important thing is that Dennis took the time to scribble them on a napkin.

Dennis starts off, as he so often does, with a loosely-defined and unsourced strawman:

We are repeatedly told by the news media that there is a deep, almost palpable, yearning among Americans for unity. And Sen. Barack Obama's repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party's nomination...

I can only speak for myself, but I'm really not so interested in unity as I am in a reduction of partisan bullshit.

I do not doubt Mr. Obama's sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.

First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity – whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) – do not tell the whole truth.

Yeah, personally I don't want unity. I'm not really a big fan of "people," and I tend to be suspicious when I wind up being part of a popular movement or cause. That's actually the only reason I'm voting this year. I couldn't take another year of being part of the "in-crowd" of voter apathy. Posers.

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: "I want everyone to unite – behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues to achieve this unity. So to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine."

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side's values.

Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world's center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq?

Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.

And what is the "unity" position on same-sex marriage? Either one supports it or one supports keeping marriage defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. The only way to unite Americans on this issue – and I don't know what is more seminal to civilization than its definition of marriage – is to convince all, or at least most, Americans to embrace one of the two positions.

These are all legitimate points, though I don't seem to remember Prager mentioning them during the past seven years of "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Must be my politically-convenient amnesia. Or his.

Oh, and I like how Dennis bashes the concept of unity while ignoring the fact that every single one of his columns argues for an explicitly "my way or the highway" mode of thinking- made all the more irritating because he likes to couch his personal opinions in moral terms. But I guess it's all cool as long as you don't give lip service to stupid crap like unity.

It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama's "unity" supporters engage in – they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country's national language.

Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1) A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2) A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3) A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as "divisive."

Well, actually, the issue here is that you're talking about two different models of unity there, Dennis. At this point people that support multiculturalism do so because they don't think the melting pot model is necessarily viable or preferable. And for those keeping score, no, this doesn't have to invalidate the notion of America as being "united." One of the ideas of multiculturalism is that unity can be achieved through diversity- by recognizing and valuing, for instance, that Americans come from all over the world, as opposed to pretending we're all WASPS.

But Dennis isn't just mad at Obama. He's also got an axe to grind with organized religion trying to present itself as unifying. Can't say I disagree.

For example, one regularly hears calls by many Christians for Christian unity. But how exactly will this be achieved? Will Catholics stop believing in their catechism and embrace Protestant theology, or will Protestants begin to regard the pope Christ's vicar on Earth?

Is this Dennis' way of telling Jews to just suck up the Christ-Killer thing?

Ironically, one reason America became the freest country in the world was thanks to its being founded by disunited Christians – all those Protestant denominations had to figure out a way to live together and make a nation.

Uh... yeah. Sure. America happened because all the Protestants wanted to create a unified nation-state. As opposed to, say, surviving the winter. That was a fun trip to revisionist social studies land.

For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush's policies "divisive" simply because they don't agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama's positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama's left-wing political positions any less "divisive" than President Bush's right-wing positions?

The issue isn't necessarily with the policies but rather with implementation and attitude. Bush's attitude, as popularly understood by his political opponents, is essentially, "If you disagree with me, go to Hell. Also, Bin Laden loves you." Bush's contempt for an independent media and refusal to accept criticism or alternate points of view from folks in government are prime examples, as are the trickle-down effects of, for instance, the politicization of the Justice Department under Gonzales. The argument might not be that Obama's policies don't have the potential to be divisive (at least as divisive as any government policy tends to be), but rather that he will simply be less of an asshole about pushing things through to get his way.

Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.

Wait, Dennis Prager is advocating tolerance? Hilarious. And again, I love that the only thing he can come up with as far as "fundamental unifying values" is the preamble of the Constitution. Geez. Take a creative writing class or something.

And in the end, he seems to undercut his central point. If there's nothing wrong with being divisive, then the only issue with Obama is that he's being dishonest and politically opportunistic- which is a far different issue.