On The Positive Side

A few positive stories worthy of note:

• With yesterday's surprising news of Kadima joining the Israeli government, the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu is now the largest unity government in Israeli history. That's really amazing. Jameel has a fantastic summary of who stands to gain and lose from this, and this was a great point:

  "Obama is a partisan president, while Bibi is the leader of the largest national unity coalition in the history of Israel. Netanyahu has the support of most of the country behind him for whatever he may need to do."

  Is it not often the case that those who lead with clarity and purpose and most of all, responsibility, tend to gain support, while those who constantly heap blame on others tend to divide? 
• A brilliant campaign on texting and driving: Force people to pass a road test while they text. (HT: Josh)
• A frum 11-year old girl in Baltimore is a finalist in the Google Doodle contest with a really impressive drawing (vote for her here). The school she's in added to the kiddush Hashem by balancing their stance on the Internet with her accomplishments, and combined forces with an understanding Google for a pair of assemblies in her honor which also stressed how each person has their own talents they can use to achieve in life. Really well done all around.
• (HT: Jonathan H.) A fantastic smackdown by R' Shteinman of school administrators looking to reject kids who aren't "the right type" for their school. He questions why this family isn't good enough for the school, he calls out the egotism of the parents who think less of other parents, and when the administrator refers to the person as important, then R' Shteinman calls him an even bigger ba'al ga'avah. It's troubling what pains the administrators go to to try and get a heter to reject the kids, and they don't quite seem to get that R' Shteinman's lines are partially directed at them, but it's an incredible video worth watching. He also notes that he and the Brisker Rav and others went to regular Talmud Torahs growing up, and wonders why that's not good enough for these parents who are concerned about the influence these children of open-minded parents will have on their own:

  "He's worried about his kids going off the derech? Kids in the good schools go off the derech too."

The Life of Julia

While reading Best of the Web Today, it was difficult not to be surprised and disappointed by what seemed to be a poor attempt to poke fun at Obama's policies via a girl named Julia.

Her story is told in an interactive feature titled "The Life of Julia". Julia, who has no face, is depicted at various ages from 3 through 67, enjoying the benefits of various Obama-backed welfare-state programs. As a toddler, she's in a head-start program. Skip ahead to 17, and she's enrolled at a Race to the Top high school. Her 20s are very active: She gets surgery and free birth control through ObamaCare regulations, files a lawsuit under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and pays off her student loans at a low interest rate. We get updates at age 31, 37 and 42--and then the narrative skips ahead 23 years when she enrolls in Medicare. Two years later, she's on Social Security, at which point she can die at any time. 

The entire paragraph seemed like a horrible parody made by Republicans to poke fun at Obama's policies by showing that a woman could basically live her whole life off the backs of taxpayers, so it was at first surprising to see that Taranto quotes a David Harsanyi raises an obvious objection to the story: "What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people's money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I'd say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have--outwardly, at least--shunned." Why is that an objection if that's exactly the point of the feature? Overall, it's not a great parody, anyway: The missing gaps, while still a minority of her life, don't fit into the cradle-to-grave government care narrative, and there's no discussion about the actual costs to taxpayers of all these policies, which would seem to be important to make the point cogent.

...and then I realized that I'd skimmed too quickly and missed a few key words:

on the Obama campaign website

I was so surprised by this that I had to double-check and click on the link to see. It would seem quite telling that an Obama campaign feature meant to praise his policies comes off as a caricature of his policies, wouldn't it? Yuval Levin (via CWY) even notes that Obama runs the risk that it will be mocked not just by the right, but by young men and women who won't be able to resist such an easy opportunity, undermining his campaign from within a core constituency of his. (Best line: "It’s like Portlandia earnestly offered up as a drama.")

Overall, it can't help but make a person wonder if this is as outlandish as it appears or simply a vote grab early on in the campaign among his base. It tries scaring women who aren't bright enough to understand both sides of the coin and who will believe the twisted misrepresentation of Romney's policies, it promotes the idea of government assistance at every stage of life, and the like. It is very difficult to believe that these ideas resonate with most Americans, who still believe government's role is to be a safety net, not a caregiver, even if they disagree on the size of the net. Then again, perhaps the President and his advisors are so completely out of touch with what Americans want (or don't care, and these are their views on what's right), as we've seen previously with ObamaCare [interestingly referred to as such on the feature] and many other policies.

Either way, it's an important feature to see: Obama's policies as presented by his campaign. If that's what you want, vote for Obama; if not, though, I would suggest voting against.

Picky, Picky: It Would Be Funny...

...if it weren't so serious.

Bad4Shidduchim has penned a beautiful, funny-yet-moving Open Letter to female singles in the frum world that everyone (single or married, male or female) should be sure to read in full. It's hard to choose an excerpt, it's so well put, but to expound on a couple points:

Dear Girlfriends,

You put up with a lot of criticism when dating. Even if you staunchly stand against nose jobs, it can’t help but get to you: all that disapprobation of how you dress, how you look, how you do your hair and carry yourself. What you say on a first date and what you shouldn’t have said. Some say you’re not modest enough. Some say you’re too modest—you’re not in high school anymore. Some say be yourself; some say don’t lay it on too thick at first. Whatever you do is somehow wrong, and that’s the reason you’re still single. [...]

Don’t let those other people get to you. They don’t know you well enough, and they’re too shallow themselves to delve beyond your surface. Those guys who complained about your hair, your makeup? Too busy keeping artificial scores to experience real life. The one who ditched you because he worried you weren’t pretty enough to show his friends? He’s the one who should be self-conscious, not you.

A friend of ours became infuriated when she read the now infamous controversial piece in The Jewish Press recently by Yitta Halberstam, prompting a fantastic email discussion on the subject of shidduchim in general, and thanks to a timely e-mail from a shadchan, a specific one about "picky boys".

Firstly, near the end of our long, back and forth discussion, she noted something which is extremely important: [slightly edited]

As much as I have a healthy self esteem, when I read these articles about looks, etc., or if I'm having a bad day with regards to my look, or if I gain some weight (helloooo, I'm a girl, it happens! I love chocolate), then I get really anxious. As much as I know I'm supposed to be appreciated for my internals - and even when I'm on the chubby side, I'm still attractive - it can get to you! And I'm generally healthy and really not predisposed to eating disorders, etc., but if I can get so affected, and I'm generally healthy, then what about others who are not!??! Geez.

Meanwhile, while we were having our discussion, someone had told her to contact a shadchan about a certain boy, but the shadchan told our friend nicely in an e-mail that the boy is "very picky" and while she thinks it's a good fit hashkafically and personality-wise, she had tried setting him up previously and would have to say no for now. Our friend followed up to note that she wasn't asking to be set up, but that while she was on the subject, it seemed that if everything else was okay, the only logical conclusion would be that looks were the issue - and while she is quite secure in her looks and anyone she dates (and she usually doesn't date via shadchan) seem to appreciate her looks just fine, she nevertheless feels uncomfortable even being set up by someone who would condone such behavior and facilitate on behalf of such a boy.

No caption necessary...

Reading between the lines of the shadchan's original e-mail, it seemed she was subtly hinting that she was doing just that, at least to some extent, and this was confirmed in her response to our friend - the shadchan feels stuck between a rock and a hard place. She laments the guys who she would like to set up but doesn't feel they are "ready" to date, and gets very upset at those who want "stunning" girls or are unreasonable in general. She decries the boys who want specific "looks" they like, states clearly that the majority of the girls are far superior to the guys in most ways, and notes that the boys' attitudes toward looks put shadchanim in a tough spot. She does, however, end up trying to set these boys up with girls similar to their demanded "look".

Our friend's reply nails the solution on the head:

Thank you very much for your response; I appreciate that this seems to be an all too common issue and you as a shadchan end up in the middle. I only wish (as I'm sure you and many others do) that we could find some way to express to certain guys (and girls I'm sure) that the huge focus and unhealthy perspectives related to looks (because I totally understand that attraction IS a big deal, within reason!) can be damaging not only to their ability to build and maintain strong relationships but that people will also become hesitant to set them up.

It is hard to fault a formal shadchan from doing the best they can with what they have in terms of setting people up, even if that means working around boys' picky whims to try and make matches. Would it be better if they simply said "I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable setting you up" - ? Certainly! But it serves little purpose to attack them for this, as they are simply trying to do a job, and the shadchan strongly felt that otherwise, these were genuinely nice boys who seem to have fallen into this trap. It's at least arguable for a professional to work with what they've got.

For the rest of us, however, this is absolutely something we can do. One of the major contributors to the so-called shidduch "crisis" is that rather than attempting to solve the core issues, people cater to them instead: Instead of telling boys to grow up, not be shallow, and give people a fair chance, we instead tell the girls to try and fit the shtus-like approach and do whatever they can to knock a guy's socks off when he picks her up. Instead of stopping girls from dating too young, which is creating an incredibly imbalanced pool, parents encourage daughters to date younger and younger so they have more of a chance of finding someone - not realizing that they're actually making it harder just by adding their daughters to create an absurdly high ration of girls to boys.

But certainly among people we've spoken to, behind the scenes things are different. Are guys still getting more dates than girls? Seemingly. But more and more, their friends and even their family sometimes simply don't feel comfortable setting them up, noting that they're too shallow, too immature, and too difficult. Girls who are dating are finding more and more that their dates have a serious lack of maturity, skewed value systems, and to some extent (not always) are taking the attitude that they aren't going to put up with it anymore. If a guy is demanding a ton of information or a set of pictures for a simple first date, they view him as too immature and not worth the time, and have the shadchan (if not the girl herself) basically pull back the suggestion. Essentially, these girls are saying that if a guy is actually a mensch, he'll act appropriately and they won't need to jump through all these hoops and play all these games to go out.

More importantly: They're right.

The girls who have taken the attitude of "if he's interested, great. If not, that's fine, too" have, it seems*, an easier time dealing with the dating world - and the guys who act similarly are having better experiences as well. By not allowing one side to cater to the whims of the other, the dating dynamic changes - no longer are relationships uneven, but they begin to take shape on even footing. The girls regain their self-esteem by not lowering themselves to chase dates, and for the guys who work at building such relationships despite not having every card in their hand it creates a sense of humility and hubris that seems to be disappearing otherwise. It's also reasonable to say that being forced to work at building, rather than simply choosing or being picked to be part of a relationship, allows couples to appreciate them that much more, which may help to stem the increasing spate of divorces in the frum community. (One can hope, anyway.)

While it is difficult to choose the atypical path, perhaps those young women who wish to build strong, lasting relationships should simply stop playing the game. Normally, a couple heads on a date knowing every bit of mundane information about the other person, plus any great story that their respective friends told them about one another. This effectively kills the date from the get go - there's less of a reason to listen to the person across the table other than to overanalyze all their little tics and comments and be incredibly self-conscious of one's own. For the most part, people have made a basic box set of judgments about the other person from the information provided., and all the date accomplishes is fill the box in a bit.

Perhaps instead**, young men and women should ask their friends and family to set them up based on the one or two core values which are integral to their being above every other (and be truly honest with themselves about what these are, or this will be a failure) or even nothing, and otherwise instruct their friends to say nothing about them - and to accept those matches which accept those terms. And perhaps those guys who are menschen - or maybe just sick of being told about countless girls who are exactly the same on paper - will get smart, take a chance, and say "Hey, you know what - I think that value is what I identify with", and give it a shot. Suddenly, the date isn't a boring give and take talking about everything the pair knows about one another, filling in a pre-defined box, but instead building a picture of a person almost from scratch, with one major foundation piece at its base.

And hey - if it doesn't work, there's always plastic surgery.




* Please note that this is from our selective experiences and obviously could be unrepresentative. That said, all four couples we helped introduce/set up who are married did so without any games, without any advance pictures of one another prior to meeting, and by handling their relationships basically entirely on their own as adults. I think I've been involved in less than 20 set-ups, most of which lasted at least a number of dates, which is about the best a person setting people up can expect - the rest is up to the daters themselves.


** I tested the above theory on one couple. For six months, the guy (who wanted a break from dating in general) refused to date a girl on just my say-so without any information. Finally, one day, he acquiesced, figuring what's the harm. They recently gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Sure, 1 is a horrible sample size, but 1/1 is still batting 1.000!

The Entertainers

Really good article over at one of The Economist's blogs (In general an interesting blog is you like to read about semantics and differences in language use.)

With regard to Rush Limbaugh:

The standard excuse people like Mr Limbaugh make in these circumstances can be encapsulated in a word: "entertainer". His political allies also offer him this cover. Whenever cornered on why he has fibbed, or gone too far, or not proposed constructive public policy himself, he'll fall back "my job is to provoke" and the like.

With regard to Job Stewart:

Jon Stewart is vastly different from Mr Limbaugh temperamentally, and far more sympathetic, and from the other side of the political spectrum. Yet the host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" tries a similar trick. He really is funny, and yes, he is paid by Comedy Central. But he is undeniably a national political figure. Every night, the show's take of the day's politics is eagerly consumed by millions. It is satire, but with an unmistakable political bite. [..]Here's the thing: Mr Stewart is also prone to constant criticism of journalists, doing more than just hinting that only he, Jon Stewart, tells the hard truths and asks the tough questions. He famously ripped the political-journalist class as a guest on one of its television programmes, Crossfire, in 2004. [..] But when Tucker Carlson, one of the hosts, challenged him by asking why Mr Stewart had failed to be tough in an interview with John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Mr Stewart retreated: "If you wanna compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome."

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Job Stewart. But after reading this opinion-piece, I wonder how much of it I enjoy because our political opinions align more than mine do with Rush Limbaugh's. However, the most interesting part of the piece was the recommendation of whenever you made something up, went too far, or just plain wrong, you can just call yourself an entertainer or the like. That if you say something controversial, you can just say "well I'm just playing devil's advocate" or "trying to encourage conversation and debate". I wonder where the role of blogging fall under this category and how bloggers are not afforded journalist legal confidentiality privileges.

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.