So Much To Say...

...so little time, at least to do so properly. So let's just try some rapid-fire instead:

• It is incredibly difficult to consistently have to debate between being deflated by the horrible actions and words of so many in the Orthodox Jewish community and inspired by all those who decry and fight against those same actions and words. The problem, as always, is that the former group so often seems to be far bigger than the latter.
  
  A few posts on this should be coming soon.
• On a similar but different note, it's sad and amazing to see the constant changes in so many of our friends' lives (and our own). We've seen too many close friends and family go through unbearable pain, loss, hardship, or divorce; and we've thankfully seen far more build  and begin to build beautiful lives, whether professionally, locale, getting married, having kids, or the like. It's tough also to see some people in the same circles going through joy and pain at the same time, knowing that each one impacts the other as well, and it's hard to be there as much as we'd like to be for friends both in hard times and in good ones.
• The Supreme Court deliberations on ObamaCare were incredibly fascinating and worth reading in full (trust me, I did it - the link there is Tuesday's, which is likely the most important). I don't see how the individual mandate doesn't get struck down, and while less sure I'd imagine that the rest will get struck down with it (perhaps with a different group of assenting judges).
  
  As an added note, the President's statement today 'warning' the Supreme Court was ludicrous and a ridiculous overreach of power (at least in terms of words) [imagine if President Bush had said the same before a major SCOTUS decision], but more laughable was what he said about this being "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" - as CWY noted, every law is passed by a majority of a democratically elected Congress! The judges' role is to determine if those are Constitutional. Plus, it wasn't a strong majority at all, but a bare majority of 217-212 in the House with not a single Republican voting Yea. 
• If it does get struck down, it might be the best gift for Mitt Romney presuming he is the Republican nominee, taking away a difficult issue for him. He can turn the focus on the economy itself, an area where his record is substantially better than Obama's. 
• My current job places a very strong focus on Medicare and Medicaid, particularly the financial portions of each. It is mind-boggling to me to see just how poorly and behind the times government has been and will continue to be, and how much waste they cause despite truly noble intentions. The government simply has no ability to manage care either from a clinical perspective or a financial perspective, which means that everyone is damaged in the process.*
• The NBA season is over, with the Cavs doing a nice job of positioning for this coming draft, and the NFL Draft I'm trying to avoid getting too deep into at this point (trade to #6, take Claiborne!) because I'll probably end up driving myself insane. So... it's baseball time!
  
  My team this year (10-team rotisserie, 5x5 standard, 1,350ip max, standard lineup including C/1B/2B/3B/SS/4OF/CI/2Util/2SP/6P/5Bench) picked 5th: C Napoli; 1B Lind; 2B Kipnis; 3B Bautista; CI M.Young; SS A.Cabrera; OF A.Gordon, Hart, Joyce, Rios; Util Zobrist, V.Wells; Bench Bourgeoius, Hafner, Mayberry. SP Halladay, C.Lee, Weaver, Fister; CL Hanrahan, Valverde, Santos, Motte, Storen; RP Pestano. Overall a fantastic pitching staff and a much better lineup than I normally start with.
• Finally, if you are interested in seeing a great Cleveland Browns fan show his dedication to the team and his even stronger dedication to Judaism, though, this guy's "Fanography" is really fun to watch. I'm not being biased at all - my friends have all enjoyed and made a point to tell me how much they enjoyed. :-P

Enjoy!

* Not that I believe it necessary as this should be obvious, but please note that any opinions on this blog are my own and never that of my employers. 

Today's Pesach Miracle

(via R' Gil) Fantastic message in advance of Pesach from South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, featuring Shwekey's V'hi She'amda. 

Woman still taking Government assistance even after winning Lottery

...and she has no shame. Is anyone surprised? Government money is like heroin. It's not easy to willingly give it up when it goes against your personal interest.

here

Purim Sameach!

A couple funny takes on current events in Israel these days: A brilliant costume, and a series of "kids'" stories (below).[Hat tip: R' Gil and Jameel and others] Also worth reading and listening to, Netanyahu's speech at AIPAC, particularly the last couple of minutes, including his reading of a WWII letter by the US regarding not bombing Auschwitz, and a mention of Esther HaMalka.

Purim 2012

The Fanat in the Hat and Other Stories
Eli D. Clark
(with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

THE FANAT IN THE HAT

I sat there with Sally.
We sat on the bus.
We sat there together.
No one made a fuss.

Then who came aboard?
The Fanat in the Hat!
And he said to us,
“How can you sit like that?

“You know it is wrong
To sit next to each other.”
I said, “She’s my sister,
And I am her brother.”

He pointed at Sally,
“Go back there to sit.
If you stay in front,
I think I will spit.

“I do NOT want to see you
Go out or come in.
Your elbows are showing
And making men sin.”

“I paid for my seat
Just like you,” Sally cried.
“I can sit where I want!
It’s for me to decide!”

“Where do YOU think you are?
This is not Tel Aviv.”
The Fanat in the Hat said,
“Sit in back or you leave.”

“Now do as I say,
You loose woman, you.”
Then out from behind
Came Thug One and Thug Two.

They had beards, they had hats,
And they wore black and white.
Their fingers were curled
Into fists that were tight.

They were big, they were mean,
And they blocked our way.
They did NOT look like men
Who learn Torah all day.

They screamed at poor Sally.
“Prutzoh!” they shouted.
“We will take care of you.”
And we did not doubt it.

We looked up to heaven.
We looked left and right.
Should we try to run
Or stand up and fight?

We needed a plan,
A way to escape,
Before those two Thugs
Squashed us both like a grape.

Then Thug One and Thug Two
Shouted, “Oy! Help us please!”
The Fanat in the Hat
Just fell to his knees.

What made them shake
And what made them yelp?
What made those bullies
Cry out for help?

We looked and we saw
A giant black cat,
Walking erect
In a red and white hat.

The Cat in the Hat
Looked the Thugs in the eye.
“These things need to stop.
And I’ll tell you why.

“Scaring young women
Is not a good game.
Worse, it is causing
A Hillul Ha-Shem.

“Here is a new game
To play,” said the cat.
“The game is called boxing.
Are you good at that?”

The Thugs said, “We box.
When we finish with you,
You will lie on your back
For a week or for two.”

The cat pulled a box out
And opened the top.
We heard a big VOOM
That made everything stop.

The Fanat in the Hat
And the Thugs in their beards
Were sucked into the box.
They all disappeared.

The cat closed the lid
And sealed it with glue.
“Goodbye,” said the cat,
“And good riddance to you.”

The cat said to us,
“You can sit as before.
Those three nuts will not
Bother you any more.”

“Oh, they will,” Sally said,
“For good or for bad.
Those men in your box
Are my brothers and Dad.”

CLOP FROM POP

GOWN
BROWN
Her gown is brown.
Brown makes us frown.
The brown gown must leave town.
BLACK
BACK
If she wears black,
She can come back.

HOP
POP
Sukkah-hop.
Ate non-stop.
Drank some pop.
Ate a giant lollipop.
And a pound of lemon drops.
My Pop took a strop
And gave me a clop.

LATE
WAIT
My date is late.
I wait and wait.
The cake is great.
Oh, how I ate!
I am overweight.

DRINK
SINK
Do not drink
From the sink.
The water has bugs, I think.

WALL
ALL
The Western Wall
Is open to all,
Short and tall,
Except for a woman with gall
in a prayer shawl.

HEAR
CLEAR
We hear the shiur
From Rabbi Greer.
The shiur is clear.
After shiur
I drink a beer
And fall on my rear.

GET
YET
She will not get
Her get yet, I bet.
She first must offset
Her ex-husband’s debt.

FRED
RED
HEAD
See Fred.
See the redhead.
A pretty co-ed.
She is pre-med.
Very well-read.
Also well-bred.
Now they are wed.
Her pretty redhead
Has a sheitel instead.
Fred feels misled.

PAY
DAY
SAY
If you pay
In cash today,
I save tax. What do you say?
Okay?
Hooray, hooray!
Sorry, I cannot stay.
It is time for me to pray.

GREEN CHEESE AND HAM

Do you eat green cheese and ham?
I do not eat them, Sham-I-am.

Would you eat if no one saw?
I could not, would not break the law.

Would you eat them with O-U,
If the rabbi ate them too?
Would you eat them on a plate
After a 6 hour wait?

I do not eat green cheese and ham.
I do not eat them, Sham-I-am.

If a Jew turned on the gas?
If the dish was made of glass?
What if I would serve it cold
To kids below 13 years old?

We cannot eat green cheese and ham.
It’s in the Torah, Sham-I-am.

If the cheese is neufchâtel
Made from Cholov Yisroel?
If the workers making it
Come from the Chief Rabbinate?

I must not eat green cheese and ham.
I must not eat them, Sham-I-am.

But THIS ham is just a sham,
Made of soy, said Sham-I-am.

Then it is not really ham,
I will try them, Sham-I-am.
Say, I like green cheese and ham!
I do, I like them, Sham-I-am!

Tell me, please, cooked soya bean –
What is done to make it green?

What I do, said Sham-I-am,
Is add some peas and one fresh clam!

Copyright © 2012 by Eli D. Clark
All Rights Reserved

Purim in 1932 Tel Aviv

(via MPaths)

Really interesting to see this - from how it was built up to the hilarious name of Adloyada for the carnival (Ad d'lo yada is a term for how on Purim people should reach the point of not knowing the difference between Mordechai and Haman) to the growing concern about Nazi Germany to the national groups and companies that still exist today, 80 years later.

EZ Reads 3/5/12

A couple older posts and a newer article as I catch up on reading:

• A beautiful kiddush Hashem by the kids of Beren Academy, discussed in this post-loss recap.
• Nice video: We've gotta live together.
• Cool history of Israeli dogfights.

Levels of Contention

Thanks to the discussions in the comments on posts below this (thanks Vox!), I think I realized what I believe is a dynamic difference between Santorum's approach and the approach of others to the contraception issue, even as people tend to think they're one and the same.

Specifically with the contraception issue, the argument most religious groups made was that it was an encroachment on their religious freedoms, forcing them to perform an action which was morally wrong to them (or for some groups, like Jewish ones who have no issue with birth control, simply that it was encroaching on religion in general). In other words, they're implicitly agreeing that government can make certain regulations on behalf of the people as a whole, assuming they are acting in the interests of the people. [And there are other groups who disagree with that basic premise in general.] It just happens to be that in this case that public interest is trumped by the interests of religious freedom - something people on the left disagree with.

Santorum, however, is making a different argument: Whether or not one feels that government interests should trump religious ones, and perhaps even if one would agree to that, in this case the government is actually acting against the interests of the people it is trying to protect and assist. It is his belief that birth control actually harms women (and men and particularly children) because of the consequences of living in a society which has birth control readily available. This is not an argument about government intervention or government interference with religious freedoms in Santorum's eyes; it is an argument specifically as to the merits of the intervention which is being proposed.

Interesting.

[Note: I don't necessarily agree with the various opinions, just find them interesting.]

Birth Control = More Nonmarital Births, Less Control for Women?

In today's Best of the Web, James Taranto addressed a fascinating topic utilizing a statistical point of view, culling a lot of information from an (eye-opening) article by Charles Murray here.

It's really interesting to think how the addition of various factors plays such incredible roles in outcomes. When almost all women would demand the same from a man (promise of marriage in case of pregnancy) before consenting to sexual activity, they had the upper hand on an individual level. But once birth control came into play and that demand was no longer necessary, they actually lost their upper hand - now men could know that they could sleep with anyone without having to worry about a baby or marriage, lowering the standards of commitment in a relationship and compelling women to have sex to keep relationships. And once the standards were lowered and birth control became a woman's choice, then any resulting children were her choice as well - essentially absolving men of responsibility. 

For the specifics, read below...

From Taranto: 

The Food and Drug Administration approved the pill for contraceptive use in 1960. Over the next half-century, the marriage rate declined and the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed, Charles Murray notes in a recent Wall Street Journal essay adapted from his new book: (emphasis added)

In 1960, extremely high proportions of whites in both Belmont [Murray's metaphor for the upper middle class] and Fishtown [the working class] were married—94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. In the 1970s, those percentages declined about equally in both places. Then came the great divergence. In Belmont, marriage stabilized during the mid-1980s, standing at 83% in 2010. In Fishtown, however, marriage continued to slide; as of 2010, a minority (just 48%) were married. The gap in marriage between Belmont and Fishtown grew to 35 percentage points, from just 10. . . .

In 1960, just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education—women, that is, with a Fishtown education--were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among the college-educated women of Belmont, less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970.

Taranto links this up with a 1996 study:

Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that few women were willing to bear children outside of marriage. The only circumstance that would cause women to engage in sexual activity was a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise for they knew that in leaving one woman they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand. Even women who would be willing to bear children out-of-wedlock could demand a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.

The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

Advances in reproductive technology eroded the custom of shotgun marriage in another way. Before the sexual revolution, women had less freedom, but men were expected to assume responsibility for their welfare. Today women are more free to choose, but men have afforded themselves the comparable option. "If she is not willing to have an abortion or use contraception," the man can reason, "why should I sacrifice myself to get married?" By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.

Taking Responsibility

I was driving across the Whitestone Bridge last week, and traffic was slowing to a crawl for a moment thanks to some construction work on the Bridge. As my car is stopping, I suddenly get thrust forward then pulled back by my seatbelt as the car behind me thuds right into me. I breathe for a few seconds, then put the car in park, put on the flashers, and sit for about 30 seconds to assess how hard I was hit before moving - then, after determining I'm fine and that the hit was likely at about 20mph or less, I slowly get out of the car and walk toward the back. At first, seeing the lady behind me just sitting in her car is disconcerting - why isn't she getting out? But about a second or two later, after a sigh, she opens her door and comes over.

As I begin surveying the damage - there's clearly something cracked off on the back, but for the most part the car looks like it wasn't hit too badly - the lady says to me "Hey - I'm sorry. My foot slipped off the brake for a second. It was all my fault." While obviously still not thrilled with having been rear-ended, at least I knew that she wasn't going to deny what happened. After another minute or two of looking at the damage and realizing it wasn't too bad, she offered to pay for any damage. I noted that I'd have to take it to my mechanic, and asked for her number, then to be safe had her call me instead from her phone and give me her full name - all of which she acquiesced to, after a moment's hesitation.

A couple of days later, I texted her that I was at the mechanic, and once I found out the cost, I texted her that as well. At first, she didn't reply. After a few hours of waiting, I began getting nervous (though at least the damage was not extensive or expensive) - but then she texted back, sending she would send out the money shortly via Chase's QuickPay system as I'd requested. Okay, great... but then no money came that day, making me wonder once again. The next morning, though, she texted again apologizing for the delay, and sent the funds over, with the following message:

"Again, thank you so much for being cordial... thanks."

I replied simply that I'd received the funds, and more importantly, "Thanks for taking responsibility."

She then replied,

"No problem... when I'm wrong I'm wrong... just glad you were very nice about the whole situation."

To which I finished simply:

"It's easy when the person accepts responsibility. :) Thanks again!"

So much of our lives are dictated by responsibilities. Those who act responsibly are respected, admired, and appreciated. Those who act irresponsibly are disliked, avoided, and shunned. Those who take responsibility for their mistakes are forgiven; those who shirk responsibility are detested.

Why is it that so many parents and kids, siblings, friends, or spouses fight even after one has apologized? Because that apology doesn't come with full responsibility: "I'm sorry for X, but if you/he/she hadn't done Y/but you do Z/I just couldn't ABC..."

It is difficult to get upset, and certainly hard to remain upset, at someone who has taken responsibility for their actions. While certainly in the moment there might still be what to be frustrated with, and the first reaction might still be harsh and angry or hurt or upset, the most important point to keep in mind is that there is nothing more the person could do to undo their error. They've acknowledged their error, they have apologized sincerely, and they are accepting whatever responsibilities they need to to help remedy their mistake. Sadly, this sense of responsibility does not seem as strong in today's times, but perhaps this is an area that can change as time passes.

May we all take proper responsibility for our actions - good or bad.

On The Wisdom Of Old

A number of years ago, I spent three days in California interviewing with an organization which did religious outreach across various college campuses in Southern California. By the end of the three days my wife and I were offered the opportunity to move to Santa Barbara (which we turned down), then spent a number of months discussing options in Los Angeles before eventually we decided to go our separate ways.

As part of the process, I was asked to talk to various college students of all types and stripes. In particular, I remember a fascinating conversation I had with a religious theology major at UCLA about approaches to life, God, religion, etc. One of the most fascinating parts of the conversation was when I argued that it seems odd to automatically assume that a given approach should be given no credibility no matter how long-standing it is. If anything, the more long-standing a point is, the more thought one should give that approach before moving onto others - yes, it can and should be questioned, but to assume that nobody prior to one's self has asked any of these questions shows a certain sense of ego and complete lack of humility, which would seemingly preclude the ability to make proper judgments down the line. Instead, one should first make sure to fully understand where a line of thought started, how it developed throughout time, and how it reached the point it has before passing any judgment on it. What was most amazing about our conversation was that this approach had never once occurred to nor had it been presented to this obviously intelligent, educated student whom I couldn't have been more than a year or two older than, and he was really taken aback by this. 

This has been coming back to me recently as I watch various debates occur on a variety of topics, from politics to Judaism to life in general. Three good specific examples from the past couple weeks are particularly striking: Deborah Feldman's Unorthodox book; the battle waged over forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control; and a pathetic article written which suggested forgetting the Holocaust.

In the latter, the attention-seeking contrariness-driven Beacon, which was dismissed as a YU paper after its last stunt, somehow was still able to get some attention to itself by penning an absolutely horrible piece whining that Jews still use the Holocaust as a reasoning behind being for or against various policies. When I first saw the piece via email, I questioned if anyone was actually reading such drivel, and didn't think it was worth replying to, not even bothering to read a reply someone sent me later at first. But later that night, I decided to read the reply - and it was absolutely fantastic. In particular, this portion struck me as exactly the point: 

[...] Remembering the Holocaust is not only important for its own sake. It is important because memory is education, education is action, and action is necessary: for any people anywhere. The ultimate goal of Holocaust education, of course, is genocide prevention: a promise encapsulated in the rallying mantra of “Never Again,” that which we have at once chanted and yet betrayed repeatedly.
In a world without memory, we will simply lose our imagination to conceptualize peril. [...]

The same point was struck in the responses to the Obama administration's push regarding birth control without an exemption for religious organizations. Judaism is not against birth control, but the First Amendment is crucial to members of all religions regardless of the specifics of a given law. The Orthodox Union (among others) clearly noted this issue in their condemnation of the move - and yet supporters of the Obama administration on this issue believe this issue is something which should be forced upon religious organizations regardless. The Constitution, where freedom of religion was laid out originally in this country, is viewed as an old document written by people hundreds of years ago who didn't have the same social values as our enlightened, tech-driven generation. It is therefore not surprising that people would believe that it is trumped by certain important social values of today - except that however noble the intention, it ignores that the Constitution is not revered by many nor held as the basis of our laws because of its age. It is held in high esteem because of its wisdom - wisdom in how it approached, and most importantly, approaches, the future of this country. The reason there is a strict line between government and religions is so that there can never be a justification given for intruding on the religious freedoms of the people of this country. Once that line is crossed, there is no longer a concept of a religious freedom; there are only activities which the government accepts, and activities which it does not. Religion matters not at all; freedom matters not at all.

Finally, when reading reviews and descriptions of Deborah Feldman's book, in seems that in every aspect of life in one sect of Chassidim [at least among a large group], the approach to questions was simply "we don't ask". In fact, there was a review which I believe quoted one Chassidish woman as musing after a few such comments that "we don't do well with questions". But if we do not ask, we can never understand - and it is clear that Deborah Feldman did not understand much about how and why Judaism approaches life, a too common failing in the Jewish community. We cannot merely speak to traditions as the wisdom of old being passed down; we need to understand it so we can continue to pass it down as wisdom, and not some random archaic set of rules. 

It is too often forgotten today that older approaches to life, law, and even remembering the Holocaust are not simply lists of rules or mantras to be followed blindly. Instead, they are incredibly structured, developed, thought out concepts which are meant to last for centuries, if not all eternity. Our job is to delve into them in order to understand them, and only then begin to determine the appropriate approaches to the issues of our times, utilizing those concepts and the lessons from our histories.

Mesila in Baltimore Tonight!

Via SaraK, this is great:

Join Mesila tonight, Monday, Feb. 20th, and gain some hashkafic views as well as some practical starting points for the budgeting process.

The ad:

Maybe, Redux

After this recent post, I received a number of comments and emails, including from some family members, which were all quite nice and appreciated. They also led me to believe that my point in the post had been misunderstood, but that is all right - sometimes misunderstandings help remind us of so much.

In a surprisingly common occurrence, one family member e-mailed with something that I once said to them:

"...Remember years ago when you spoke about Hashem testing those He loves, and you said something to the effect of 'Well, He must not love me very much...'..."

Heh. The thought that came to mind shortly after reading this was "...squeezing a bit too hard with this hug, God!" Kidding aside, it is an important idea to remember - when life is easy, we tend not to appreciate it enough; and when it's too hard, we "appreciate" it too much. 

My point in the previous post was never to compare to others, but to what might have been for ourselves under difference circumstances (with various portions of others' lives serving as reminders of what we did not have - regardless of what we may have had that they did not). While a pointless exercise from a life standpoint, as one can never re-live their lives differently, and attempts to recapture 'missing' portions of life is futility, it does have its positives as well. Looking back can help remind someone of ideals and pursuits they feel to be important that perhaps they've lost sight of, and it often helps one appreciate just how much they have learned and grown from their own experiences, however difficult. 

Do I wish certain portions of our lives had played out far differently? Certainly. Would I trade what actually happened for a different life? Certainly not.

The story in the prior post truly says it best: 

Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away, and all the neighbors came around to commiserate that evening. "So sorry to hear your horse ran away. This is most unfortunate." The farmer said, "Maybe." The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and everybody came back in the evening and said "Oh, isn't that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!" And he said "Maybe." The next day his son tried to break one of these horses and ride it but he was thrown, and broke his leg, and they all said, "Oh dear, that's too bad," and he said, "Maybe." The following day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the people came around and said, "Isn't that great!" And he said, "Maybe."

Right now, I can also see how we could look at it all and say "Wow, that's terrible" - and that would be true. I can also see how in a few years, I'll look back at the previous years and see how without it all, we wouldn't be where we are, and how lucky we are that it happened as it all did, and how we could all remark "Isn't it great?!" - and that, too, is true.

We need the rough times to appreciate the good ones; and we need the good ones to survive the rough ones. This does not mean that we cannot or should not lament the rough nor enjoy the good. Instead, we should lament, yet learn; rejoice, and appreciate.

Remember

Guest post by AnonT

Less then a year ago, the world mourned as Leiby Kletzky was found, brutally murdered and butchered. Jews as a nation and the world mourned. Jews everywhere stood together, were unified in trying to understand this travesty, in trying to bring comfort to a shocked and bereaved family. This past summer, two young boys were tragically killed as they drove home from the mountains. And just months ago, Jews around the world, regardless of affiliation, spent 25 hours standing, praying and fasting on Yom Kippur.

Yet today, I open up the news and see Jews against Jews. I see children petrified and other children being used in horrific ways. I see comparisons of Jews, by Jews, to the vile evil that were/are the Nazis. It is enough to make you sick.

It is unfortunate, but I have been told for many years that it is imperative that we don’t Judaism by its practitioners but by the religion itself. While I accept this, it any wonder that so many Jews are leaving Judaism? Is it a wonder that those of us who are sticking it out with Judasim are disillusioned? When we Jews tear ourselves apart, when we fight with each other, when we tear each other down, when we lose sight of what our life is supposed to be about, the value of God, Torah and mitzvoth, are eradicated right before our eyes.

What does it take to make us Jews remember that we are all one? What will it take to ensure we remain united, even in our disagreements? Our enemies seem to have no problem remembering that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. When 6 million jews were murdered in Europe less than 100 years ago, there was no discrimination. When Jews were burnt on the auto de fay in the Inquisition, a Jew was a Jew. When pogroms occurred, blood libels, tach ve’tat, it did not matter! We were all Jews. When bombings go off on buses, in restaurants, in wedding halls and in dance clubs, a Jew is a Jew.

Almost 10 years ago to this day, Daniel Pearl was beheaded and it was because, as he said himself, "My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, USA. I come from, uh, on my father's side the family is Zionist. My father's Jewish, my mother's Jewish, I'm Jewish. My family follows Judaism.” His captors did not care if he was from NY or California, if he was Reform, Conservative, or Chassidic. He was a Jew. His mother was a Jew. He was Jewish. That was enough. Do we forget? Do we forget the murder of the young Israeli in Europe a few years ago? I don’t remember his name, or what country he was in. But I remember the picture of him, in his happy days, sitting on a fence. And I know that he is no longer alive. Killed because he was a Jew.

Yaakov and Eisav were given brachot, the essential foundation of our nation. The brachot said that while one nation was up, the other nation would be forced serve the other. We are pulling ourselves down, and in doing so, we are forcing ourselves to serve those who have sought to kill us in every generation, at every chance they can get.

We are told countless times in our religion, zachor, remember! And if we weren’t told to remember, then the way of the world is to remember in order to understand history, and refrain from making mistakes again. We just had Chanukah, have we forgotten so recently the destruction of what we had? Purim is so soon, have we forgotten that we as a nation were so almost annihilated? Do we need MORE calamities and deaths and near destructions of our entire nation, to learn the lesson achdut!?!?!?!?

What else has to happen? How many more people, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends have to weep because their loved one, OUR brother or sister, are killed? How much more pain and suffering do we as a nation have to endure!?!?

I don’t know how to stop the conflict in Israel. I don’t know how to stop sinat chinam. I don’t know any of these answers. But I do know, that if we remember, recall and never forget, we, as a nation will find an answer. Let's make sure that each and every Jew that was murdered, for just that, being a Jew, has not died in vain. Let's make sure every Daniel, every Leiby is remembered.

Patience in Building

'Tis a very rare occasion in life which does not warrant patience. From relationships (contrary to the belief of some) to marriage to raising children to career opportunities, having patience is key to being more successful.

Lately, people in certain circles cannot help but keep reading about a particular subject and people's reactions to and opinions on it, and it has been truly irksome. The lack of patience, particularly toward people and an approach in an area of life in which people are almost completely unfamiliar is astounding. More frustrating than that is how incredibly repetitively self-destructive this lack of patience has proven to be in the past, and to see people calling to do it again makes one wonder if people are simply deserving of the fate they are receiving: 'Fool me once...' Instead, here is the key: Stop looking at what everyone else is doing, and realize that to be successful, you have to build what works best for you.

In the case of the Cleveland Browns, this is an incredibly important lesson. (What, not what you thought this was going to be about?) I've been a Browns fan my entire life, with my first football memory (of course) The Fumble, and my first game a season-opening 13-3 win over the Pittsburgh Steelers (woo!). For much of my life, the Browns have tried to be copycats in a copycat league... except what everyone neglects to realize is that the copycats are never the ones who are ultimately the champions. It is only the trend-setters who are able to succeed in their schemes, and everyone else is merely a weak copy.

In the last couple of years, it looked like the Browns were finally going to give a front office a chance to build from the foundation up. That they too quickly undermined Eric Mangini's approach is academic at this point; now, they are building toward a Mike Holmgren-style team, with some adjustments from lessons learned over many years. It is mind-boggling to call for Coach Pat Shurmur to be fired after a single year on the job, a year in which with no real training camp, nearly no offensive talent, incredible gaffes, and countless injuries in a difficult division he still managed to keep nearly every game close with a team that always strongly supported him. To even discuss firing Shurmur smacks of an impatience that will never allow success unless it occurs via miracle (insert Tebow joke here).

Instead, let's take a step back and look at how the Browns are being built, particularly giving credence to the front office as if they're actually telling the truth (gasp!) when they discuss how they plan to build the team: Via the draft, with strategic free agency signings only once the core is established to push the team over the top. Currently, the Browns have three picks in the first 37 of the 2012 draft (#s 4, 22, and 37). They also have a very strong young core on defense, and a relatively good offensive line, certainly on the left side.

Perhaps the most interesting overlooked aspect of the team is how it is structured defensively. The Browns' defense is structured primarily to stop intermediate and long passes and short-yardage runs. Perhaps more importantly, the Browns' defense is built to play with a lead. It is a pass-rushing line, including the defensive tackles, and a defense which does not utilize many blitzes except an occasional safety blitz with a clear lane (think forcing the QB to throw quickly) and linebackers covering short zones. The linebackers are zone coverage players who even on short-yardage run situations start 4-5 yards back and rush forward into gaps. And the corners, especially Joe Haden, are trusted to cover their man on their own in the short time the line is designed to give the opposing QB to throw. Only one team (Pittsburgh) gave up less passes of 20 or more yards. Only seven gave up less of 40+ yards, and Browns fans will recall that most of those eight long gains were actually short passes that had missed tackles. In essence, the Browns' defense is built as a hybrid of the Steelers (stable design), Jets/Eagles (corners first), Giants (pass rush), and Niners (goal line) defenses, with stud players in the pass rush and secondary, allowing otherwise slightly above average LBs to truly excel.

It is worth noting that based on the above, it would actually be interesting to see if the Browns take LSU's stud cornerback Morris Claiborne if he's available at the 4th pick. If he is as good as advertised, it would give the Browns two "#1" CBs, allowing TJ Ward to give even greater focus to what he does best, which is supporting the run defense. (It would also give the Browns incredible depth in the secondary, with at least Claiborne, Haden, Patterson, Skrine, Ward, Young, Adams, and Hagg.) Even if they don't feel a need to get Claiborne, there will certainly be excellent cover corners available in the early second round for them. This - especially coupled with a RDE - could make the Browns' defense a truly dominant one, and for many years to come, as nearly everyone in the starting lineup would be in their early-mid 20s. It would also make it easier for the Browns to bring projects in in future years to learn the defense, similar to how the Steelers have been able to stick nearly anyone into their scheme thanks to the support around them as they learned and improved.

That leaves the big question: How can such a team have a lead to play with? Here, too, the Browns' direction may show an answer. One of the interesting notes when looking at successful lines is that they often have Pro-Bowl caliber players at two or three spots, allowing the other linemen to excel. The Browns have a future Hall of Famer at LT in Joe Thomas, and a Pro Bowler at C in Alex Mack. Unsurprisingly, a 6th round rookie had a reasonably good year working in between the two of them, while the other side of the line struggled mightily. It would be interesting to see if the Browns - assuming they don't pick Claiborne - either take Matt Kalil if he's still available, or actually choose to trade down a few spots to a team desperate for Griffin III and pick up Iowa's Riley Reiff and put him at RT, adding another 2nd round pick or similar in the process. Between Kalil/Reiff and the return of Pro Bowler Eric Steinbach, the Browns could have a line that is incredibly dominant and also mostly rather young (outside of Steinbach). More impressively, it would be a nice innovation to approach a West Coast Offense with the mindset of having All-Pro level tackles on each side and another at center, and even another at guard. Having that extra time until wide receivers can find the proper seams and having that kind of line to run behind has helped spur many a champion.

In addition, the Browns made the clear decision to not pursue free agent WRs last season, choosing instead to spend their extra money on locking up many other key players into long-term deals and keeping a lot of money available for this year and next. This year's free agent WR list is stacked, and while it's unclear if the Browns plan on pursuing any of the really big names, they certainly have more quality options than existed last year. Even bringing in one above average WR would dramatically alter the Browns' abilities on the offensive side, with Greg Little in his second season and Jordan Norwood showing the ability to stretch the field as a 3rd or 4th option.

Running back is a bit more of a question mark - while re-signing Peyton Hillis and the return of Brandon Jackson would basically solve it, it is possible the Browns feel they don't need a RB such as Hillis, particularly with his durability issues both seasons. There are plenty of RBs with similar or better "pedigrees" available for less, and in the West Coast Offense the Browns are running, it's possible they'll go without Hillis. That said, I think that they'll try to re-sign Hillis to an incentive-laden contract and that he'll come back to take it.

Finally, this approach, starting with a strong offensive line, should allow Colt McCoy to truly succeed. McCoy showed the ability to throw very well given enough time, and in fact has been far better than many great QBs from history over the same period of their careers, throwing for more TDs than INTs, more yards, and a much higher completion percentage (despite a team which led the league in drops). Even if he shows he cannot, the Browns would still be in a strong position to bring in a rookie QB the following year (Matt Barkley?) into a stacked team with a great line.

All in all, it is quite possible that the following scenario will occur for the Browns: They will draft a top tackle, a strong right defensive end, and an elite cover cornerback in the first two rounds of the draft, and pick up a decent but not spectacular WR on the free agent market for relatively cheap (such as an Early Doucet). They will then be a upper-middle of the pack team, with a standout defense and a middling offense led by a great line which shows flashes, but which ultimately both wins and loses a number of close games in a pretty difficult schedule against similar level teams (facing the NFC East and AFC West), winning about half their division games as well. They will then head into the 2013 season with a couple of small holes discovered during the year and easily solved through free agency (prediction: LB, DL depth) and one gaping hole at WR, and will have the opportunity - much as Atlanta did - to trade up to grab the WR they desire in the draft, and they will do so. The biggest difference is that the Browns will be starting with a much better defense than Atlanta, and this may be the difference between being a playoff loser and a team that can make a run at a Super Bowl... or a few.

It just takes a little time, that's all.

Maybe

Via the cuz: 

Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away, and all the neighbors came around to commiserate that evening. "So sorry to hear your horse ran away. This is most unfortunate." The farmer said, "Maybe." The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and everybody came back in the evening and said "Oh, isn't that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!" And he said "Maybe." The next day his son tried to break one of these horses and ride it but he was thrown, and broke his leg, and they all said, "Oh dear, that's too bad," and he said, "Maybe." The following day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the people came around and said, "Isn't that great!" And he said, "Maybe."

The last couple of years have been interesting ones for us, as many readers of this blog are well aware. 2010 started wonderfully, took not one but a number of sharp turns for the worst, before finally ending on a bad note. 2011 started on a bad note, the bad news piled on... and then everything started to change for the better, culminating in a bit of awesome near the end. 

I have always felt that everything happens for a reason - and that much of the time, it will be years before we can possibly understand what that reason was. 

At the moment, while there are still clouds that lurk over us from the past that it will take years to fully get away from, life seems overall rather bright and sunny - certainly, our lives (finally) seem to be headed in the right direction. It saddens me somewhat to know that I cannot fully shake the worry that yet another unforeseen occurrence, some new twist, will ruin it all, that I cannot simply enjoy life as it occurs and be completely optimistic about the future - that no matter what, I am compelled to feel only that "maybe" the positives will last. But despite this, I am optimistic overall, and hope that this path ahead of us is not just another "maybe" along the way. 

It is difficult to think about our lives and notice that others have had generally easier lives in many ways. Certainly nobody knows what truly goes on 'behind closed doors', nor does anybody know what everyone else's troubles are. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to have a general idea of what trials and tribulations people have or have not faced in their lives. It is not out of jealousy nor out of hate that I cannot help but wonder how life might have been had our lives been as easy-going as others have experienced. That said, I can't imagine having lived without learning all the lessons I have learned over these years. 

But I certainly wouldn't mind some easy time...

The Economics of Dating

From Forbes.com

Money matters because dating is a way of sizing someone up and assessing the value of their company.  Every decision on a date can be broken down on an economic level.  Which place did you choose, what clothes are you wearing, which beer did you order, what words did you use to describe your job, your living situation, your family?
Serial daters just want another person in their lives, one might say, at any cost.  And it’s true.  Dating does cost something.  Patience, time, vulnerability, and dollars and cents.  Long distance relationships have larger opportunity costs.  Plane or bus tickets might have been used to pay for a nicer apartment.
Fairy tales have an even steeper price.  Girls my age grew up on Disney movies and some attribute unrealistic expectations to them, but they should remember that Ariel sold her voice and Belle traded her freedom—Prince Charmings don’t come cheap and neither do plain, ordinary significant others.  Some might say that it’s all worth it.  It’s certainly good for the economy: every failed movie date provides capital to make yet another independent romantic dramedy.  Yet, I often hear people complaining about the complexity of dating and it might be because they aren’t thinking about it economically.

 Its interesting to think about dating that way. I hardly ever went to a restaurant on earlier dates because I did not think it was worth the money, especially since I paid for my own dates. But I think the final line of the article makes a lot of sense; people should not put a dollar sign on everything, but should not disregard the fact that they should look at how one chooses a partner from an economical standpoint (how much love, patience, and attention you are able to spread out over a dating period).

Unorthodox

(Hat tip: Mirie) This fundraising project on Kickstarter looks interesting:

Unorthodox is a feature documentary that follows three teenagers from the modern Orthodox community as they spend a post-high school year studying in Israel. Tzipi, an intellectually gifted young woman, travels with intentions of clarifying her problems with Orthodox interpretations of Jewish law. Jake, a musician, wants to follow the religion but doesn’t see how he can reconcile his faith with his professional ambitions. Chaim, a half-Dominican bad-boy, undertakes his year of study without thinking about the possibilities of religious growth; he goes to Israel because tuition is paid for by his rabbis. In addition to documentary cinematography shot in the US and Israel, Tzipi, Chaim and Jake film themselves throughout the year with video diaries, offering an incredibly vivid and intimate glimpse into their lives. Narration throughout the film weaves Anna’s own story—of leaving the modern Orthodox community—with that of the three subjects, lending a very personal glimpse into the world of Orthodox Judaism.

They're looking to gather many small donations to complete the project, which is most of the way there already (all filming was completed, etc.). If you're interested in seeing this, read about it and donate!

Speaking of unorthodox, Chana sums up the YU Beacon story best: Writing a (poor) weak erotica-style piece with some confusing details about a girl's first-or-not time having sex with a guy she is-or-isn't in a serious relationship with is about attention-seeking, not about discussing an issue seriously. If they wished to discuss the issue of pre-marital sex among Orthodox people seriously, they could have done so by actually discussing it as a serious piece [much as Chana did with other aspects of the subject, as she notes]. Yes, there would still be much objection to this - a reasonable argument could be made for or against YU's school newspapers being the proper forum for such discussions - but at least it would be defensible [I should disclose that I did not think even Chana's were all necessary/appropriate, but they were at least defensible]. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear this was about attention, leaking it to national media is rather immature as well: Deal with the fallout within the context you wrote a piece, don't seek media to try and force and/or embarrass your university. Kudos to YU and its students for standing strongly against this, and it seems that the general consensus even from media was "...that was crappy writing."

And finally, singer/rapper Matisyahu shaved his beard. He's also still Orthodox, not "Un-Orthodox" (and looks really tired). So... who cares?

And Then There Were Three

Welcome to the world, Ariella Shalvah Goldish! Born 8 pounds, 12 ounces (3,970 grams it said, not that anyone knows what that means) at Mt. Sinai hospital yesterday afternoon.

Elianna and Kayla are incredibly excited to be big sisters! Serach and Ariella are doing great, bH.

House Over Health = ...Hero?

(HT: Josh Yuter)

A lady named Spike Ward penned an op-ed yesterday in the LA Times discussing how she was formerly against ObamaCare, but now that she has cancer, she has changed her mind. In her words:

The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.

Now, she has discovered that ObamaCare has a provision which allows her to get insurance, and this may now help save her life.

From the comments on her op-ed and on Facebook, etc., it seems as if many people are hailing this as a proof that ObamaCare is wonderful. While certainly it is wonderful for Mrs. Ward that she can now be treated without going broke, isn't this absurd? Mr. and Mrs. Ward made a conscious decision to choose their house over their health insurance, and contrary to her statement that "We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost", they in fact won: They got to keep their house, and their health insurance tab is now being picked up by the rest of the country (somewhat indirectly, as she is paying premiums, but that is not the point).

Contrast that with the decisions made by millions of people each day who consciously choose to keep their health insurance intact and sacrifice in other ways: Nobody is picking up the tab for their foreclosed (or sold at a loss) homes or their cars. They don't get to keep everything they had and then have the rest of the country cover anything they can't afford anymore. It is a horrible testament to this country that someone's irresponsible and selfish "gamble" is being guaranteed by the federal government* and that that burden is being carried by people who made responsible decisions.

* Note that this is no different than the bank bailouts in that sense, except that at least the argument there was (however much I may disagree) that despite their irresponsibility, a bailout was necessary to avoid others being hurt as well. Here, the only beneficiary is Mrs. Ward and her family, who get to keep their house and have her healthcare paid for by everyone else.