Anti-Zionists Not Fooled

A clever piece in the Telegraph. What's hilarious/sad is how many people still didn't get it (see the comments after the piece). Excerpt:

Clever people the Jews… oops, I mean the Israelis. Look at the lengths to which they have gone to distract the world from their daily ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The latest trick is an Israeli field hospital, rushed into Haiti last Friday and erected in a soccer field.

The US, with all its resources, hasn’t yet managed to set up a field hospital in Haiti (undoubtedly the State Department is still drafting the crucial legal papers needed) but the Israelis, operating with their usual disregard to the niceties of law, slapped one up and have already delivered a baby there. The father, obviously paid off by the Mossad, rapturously declared that the baby would be named “Israel”.

According to Israeli government sources the hospital includes 10 tons of medical equipment, 40 doctors, 24 nurses, medics, paramedics, x-ray equipment and personnel, a pharmacy, an emergency room, two surgery rooms, an incubation ward, a children’s ward and a maternity ward.

Information from Israeli government sources should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt, but footage of this tent-city/hospital has now been seen on SKY, Fox and CNN, ABC and CBS and the video seems to confirm (Mossad video fabricators are tricky) at least that the facility is large, clean, and full of modern equipment. CBS’s piece called the hospital the “Rolls Royce of medicine in Haiti”.

Hat tip: SIL

Srugim - Season Two

Nice piece in The Jewish Week about the upcoming second season of Srugim:

“There’s something fascinating about seeing your own subculture, even if it’s the Israeli version, portrayed on screen,” said Washington Heights resident Shayna Weiss, 24.

When she’s not working on her doctorate in Israel studies at New York University, Weiss is an avid consumer of pop culture — and she calls most American screen depictions of Orthodox Jews “shallow” and “inaccurate.”

“You notice certain things are off — the way they say the blessings, where the kipa is,” she said. “Here, it was accurate; it’s my own life.”

Fellow Washington Heights resident Eliot Orenstein, 26, can relate. Much like some women used to bond over episodes of “Sex and the City,” Orenstein would chat about each episode with his friend, Yitz Goldstein.

Rather than looking for designer labels, Orenstein loves spotting moments of Orthodox authenticity — like the final scene of the pilot episode, which follows the characters home after Shabbat dinner.
“The last scene they show is Nati” — the handsome doctor — “sitting on the hallway floor, reading the newspaper, because the only light in their apartment was from the bathroom light they kept on for Shabbos,” Orenstein remembered.

“Anybody who’s Sabbath-observant has done that at some point by the bathroom light.”

That was my favorite part of Episode One, too. Good call. :)

Conan O'Brien hosting a Jewish Television show?....

Yes, it might be true.

So here is the story. I work for JLTV(Jewish Life Television). It's a full time Jewish channel on Time Warner Cable and DirecTV. When the whole Conan vs. Leno vs NBC battle started getting heated up, we sent out a press release that we are offering a hosting position for Conan in case he leaves NBC. So we didn't hear anything, till now....

(que the video)



Thats pretty awesome (for us at least).

So here is where you come in. Go to here and vote that you want him to come work for us. I know its tempting to vote for the porno roll, but try your best.

Thanks
HH
(aka, future boss of Conan)

A True Kiddush Hashem

Hat tip: Moshe

Israel sets up a sophisticated hospital in Haiti post-earthquake for medical relief.

Suicide Groom's Anguish

Hat tip: Benny

Oy:

A Brooklyn man who committed suicide two days into his honeymoon had confided to a friend's dad that he was molested by a prominent rabbi now facing charges of sexually abusing other boys.

The friend's father told The Post that Motty Borger, 24, accused ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Baruch Lebovits, 59, whose trial -- on 75 counts of sexual assault involving three boys -- starts Wednesday in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

Borger's videographer dad, Shmuel, founded the boys choir Amudei Sheish. The Borgers and Lebovits shared strong ties to the Munkatch Hasidic sect.

Borger attended the sect's school and summer camp and its synagogue in Borough Park. Lebovits, too, was a regular.

Borger confided his secret to his bride, Mali Gutman, the day after their Nov. 3, 2009, wedding in Williamsburg, a source close to the family said.

At 6:45 a.m. on Nov. 5, as his wife slept, Borger jumped from the seventh-floor balcony of their room at the Avenue Plaza Hotel, cops said.

Lebovits is accused of repeatedly sodomizing two boys and fondling another, sometimes in his car and even in a mikvah, a ritual bath, in a synagogue, from April 2000 to September 2004.

"It was really well known in the community," said a source close to the probe. "It was no secret."

The last quote may be the worst part of the whole thing.

OU Marriage Satisfaction Survey Results

Hat tip: AnonD007

The Orthodox Union has published the results of its marriage satisfaction survey (discussed previously here). I haven't yet had a chance to read through it thoroughly, as I'm at work, but I'm sure it will be very interesting. The video is after the jump.

Quote of the Day: Priorities

Princess D'Tiara:

Don't make people in your life a priority when they only make you an option.

Midnight Mathness

SJ: 3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 until infinity is...

Erachet: [Trying to think after having woken up in the middle of the night and being faced with math] Um...

SJ: .333333 etc. Which is also...?

Erachet: Um....a B?

SJ: [Looks at Erachet in utter bewilderment...]

Principles of Management

...because it always was my favorite class. (V'hamaven yavin)

Being in somewhat of a management position is a fascinating study of people in general and individuals in specific. What is particularly amazing is how easy it is to group people into types; someone remarked to me recently that there's a management philosophy that argues there are only four types of employees, and proceeded to list what they were. It was surprising how accurate those groupings were. A few notes I've made in the last few months on the job:

• The people who everyone assumes are most averse to criticism are typically the least averse. The ones who assume are typically the most.
• There is a dramatic split between those who take discussions related to work personally, and those who are able to completely separate themselves from the work in order to problem solve.
• It is amazing how much one person can set a company back by simply not following up on the tasks they're assigned, and more amazing that even after some of those responsibilities are taken away, they still just won't focus enough on what's left, losing out on great opportunities to prove themselves for some short-term fun.
• There's a surprising amount of hypocrisy among people who complain about how others around them act, and fail to see that they often act exactly the same way.
• People who fight through their differences turn into stronger workers than those who sugarcoat them, nod and pretend they don't exist, or otherwise avoid dealing with issues they have with one another.
  
• A well-placed line is a far more effective critique than a 10-minute talk.
• A well-placed comment and thank you is a far more appreciated compliment than a big pump-up talk and thank you.
• Management involves a lot of delegation; it does not and should not result in only delegation. Most of management work involves reading, studying, and preparing; the rest is rolling up your sleeves and actually working. Those who don't understand this or are unwilling to do it will never move up further and the people under them will end up passing them by.
• Another key to management is believing in the people below you, showing them as much, understanding their strengths and how to focus them, and directing them appropriately. It is surprising how many people focus on what the people below them can't do instead of on what they can.
  
• The best way to get something across is via a headfake. (V'hamaven yavin)
• There is always something to do. There's no such thing as waiting: Prepare for the next step, push what you can to the edge and show it's ready to go, show that you're prepared for all the steps ahead, and if all else fails, find another project to start on. Or of course, go help someone else on their project.
• People hate being sat on. Of course, those are the same people who don't work unless someone is sitting on them, however much they think the opposite is true. This is one of the most difficult things to show a person.
  
• Perhaps the most difficult part of management is when you're dealing with factors that are not meant for staff, but they are pressing (properly) to move forward or to do things a certain way but you have to hold them back anyway. Balancing doing what's right but still maintaining that trust and reliability is almost impossible, yet necessary. To some extent, you're forced to rely on their ability to look back later and understand why you did something a certain way even if now they're going to be upset and frustrated. This is especially true when you're trying to also keep everyone motivated and positive.
  
• Working with (and being forced to manage) friends and neighbors comes with a ridiculous set of difficulties, multiplying everything above by an incredible factor.
• Managing people who are substantially older and who have many years of experience comes with another set of difficulties, but it's surprisingly far less of an issue than one might expect. Perhaps this comes from some of the advantages of an older generation: They are more likely to work regardless of what they like or dislike, they are far less likely to be distracted with other things (especially online), and they are far more cognizant of what is and isn't appropriate. They also recognize better where their strengths and weaknesses lie and are happier to pass along responsibility they're not comfortable with to others while taking ownership of the areas where they are.
• There are some people who love to step up when things are rough or need to get done; there are others who love to step up when things are going well and take things to another level. But it's the people who step up when everything is just plain old normal who are the most valuable to a company: They make sure that things never get rough, and they create the opportunities for things to go well.
• One of the interesting aspects of management is demonstrating to people what their strengths and weaknesses are - not necessarily so much to work on the weaknesses as to focus on the strengths and utilize them appropriately. Better to have lots of people who are good at specific tasks than lots of people who are okay at everything.
• Basic psychology courses would probably be advantageous for people to take prior to managing. Advanced psychology courses could sometimes also be helpful. (V'hamaven yavin)

Those are the thoughts off the top of my head in the middle of two nights; feel free to add more.

Chilling Out

I just read this article in The Commentator written by a friend of my brother's and thought it was excellent. It does not say anything new, but it is a good reminder for both students and for anyone who attempts anything in life.

Excerpt:

...the number displayed on the screen was the score that I had received on my first mid-term, the one that would find itself plastered on my personal transcript:

88.

With this frightful realization, my heart sank. Oh, the horror of it! The shame! How did this happen? How had I allowed this to happen?

For days, I couldn’t put that horrid number - 88 - out of my mind. I thought about it as I tried to fall asleep at night. It irked me in the daytime too. Maybe Professor Luders had made a mistake? Maybe he didn’t count up the points right? Unlikely. Maybe he hated me? I grew paranoid with the myriad possibilities as to why I had been cursed with the scholastic tragedy that is a B. I was angry. I was upset. I wanted answers. Sure it was a B+. Some might even call that a “good grade”. But in my eyes, it was still just a B.

Why me?

I looked around YU at my fellow students, and many of them seemed to be equally mired in their own grade-induced hysteria. One of my good friends, after receiving a C on his English paper, related to me with utmost sincerity that “his life was over,” and that he’d “never get into law school now.” I felt for him. I could tell he meant it. But he sounded ridiculous. And I realized how ridiculous I too had sounded and acted in the aftermath of that 88.

And so, with the benefit of a little hindsight and some much-needed perspective, I arrived at the following conclusion:

Everyone needs to chill out about his grades.

Read the rest!

Discussing Discussions vs. Disgusting Discussions

With thanks to Binny, who made the point so well.

There is an oft-used tactic in modern debate which is extremely effective, yet quite obfuscating were one to consider not just its methods, but what exactly it's about. Confused yet?

...Exactly.

While many public debates are debates over the substantive issues at hand, there are issues where this is not the case; rather, the issue at hand is itself whether a discussion should even be held. In other words, the debate is about what the discussion would be, not what the discussion would be about.

In cases like this, the oft-used tactic is to paint those on side A of the issue as "intolerant", and those on side B as very "tolerant", because side B is open to "discussion" and side A is not. However, this is incredibly twisted: It is not that side A is not open to the idea of discussion, but that in a particular subject, that the "discussion" itself is the issue and they are against it. Side B, itself unwilling to accept this as a legitimate point of view, then tries to paint this as an intolerant approach and tries to sway those who might otherwise agree with side A by claiming their "intolerance" shows them to be "extremists". After all, they argue, "What's wrong with just having a discussion?"

This happens with so many issues, but the recent panel at YU on homosexuality in the Orthodox world is a perfect example. A number of people mentioned to me that after the hubbub began, a group was started on Facebook for people who "Support a YU that Engages the Issues". What these people so obviously miss is that those in YU who were against the panel did engage the issue - and felt strongly that what YU did was wrong. As is clear from the group's introduction*, the group is one that strongly supported the panel that occurred and wishes for more such panels to take place. What they are not accepting of is discussion as to whether or not such panels are appropriate in the first place. (One person who tried to question as much on the group was quickly shot down, labeled as a "bad guy", his views as "bigoted", and was told that those who support the group were "good guys" and "open-minded" - and that was all in the first comment!)

It is important to recognize, particularly in issues regarding morality, that often the debate is over whether a topic is itself even up for discussion. Both sides of such a debate are well aware that even having such a discussion is itself a shift of the lines of debate and one which often is used to blur the discussion itself completely. Again, using the YU panel as an example, by taking halacha out of the discussion it shifted the debate from "how should we work with someone who is struggling with homosexuality but wishes to be Orthodox" or even "to what extent should homosexuality be a public subject" to "how should we react to someone who has homosexual relationships" (as two of the panelists openly acknowledged having or craving such relationships). Without many people even being cognizant of it, this shifts the debate into one of how to accept and make someone feel accepted despite their actions instead of whether they should be accepted because of those actions.

Just to switch the example to another subject briefly to show this approach is not confined to this situation, this is similar to how one can shift the discussion of abortion with ease {note: in conversation, not in historical political discourse}. Instead of allowing that abortion is a wrong, sad event, but that there may be exceptions where it should be allowed (if not encouraged), people will note that abortion is a necessity in some types of cases and therefore should always be legal - just in case. This then shifts the debate to whether abortion should be allowed only in specific cases, or even for anyone who wishes to abort her child early on in a pregnancy for any number of a variety of arguable reasons. That then sometimes shifts the debate even further as to whether partial-birth abortion** should be allowed to those who wish it as well. The shift of debate through the argument of "discussion" is a brilliant but immoral maneuver.

Switching back, it is clear why so many in, around, and outside of YU were upset with what occurred, and more importantly for the future, how some completely missed the primary focus of those who spoke out against it. What is especially important moving forward - not just in this situation, but in any - is that people such as the ones who joined that Facebook group understand that oftentimes, "engaging an issue" occurs by deciding that an issue is inappropriate for the venue, the crowd, or the university it represents. That many people feel an issue should not be publicly discussed does not mean it is not being engaged; nor does the fact that it is not being engaged in the manner that so many have come to or have been taught to expect as the norm translate into any other approach being incorrect or intolerant. Tolerance is not a free-for-all where anything goes; it is a respect that others have differing points of view, even ones we don't agree with or much like at all. Most importantly, tolerance is not acceptance, but balancing how one reacts with how one feels about a person or subject versus how they act upon the same.


* Quote from the group: This is a group for alumni, students and others who care about Yeshiva University to express their support for events that allow for open, nonjudgmental and safe dialogue and discourse on issues of importance to Orthodox Judaism in the twenty-first century. In light of YU’s noble decision to hold a panel last week on “Being Gay in the Orthodox World,” this group actively encourages such people to email President Joel and others in the University Board/Administration to express support for such events, and to ensure that the university administration is aware that, despite some voices to the contrary, such discussions are welcome and vital to a vibrant YU campus and community."

** Wikipedia: The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[8] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal.

What About Daddy Time?

At Rea's on Shabbos:

Elianna badgering Serach during the meal non-stop...

Serach: OK, Elianna, here's some more food, but I want you to please stop talking and eat. I haven't had a chance to take a bite yet, and I need some Imma time for me right now, okay?

{starts to eat}

Elianna: That's OK. I need some Elianna time.

Cutoff to a Fresh View

We take this commercial break from the discussions below to discuss... accounting?

For some people, December 31st is meaningless. It's just another day that rolls into another and nothing really separates the two - perhaps having to remember to change what year they write on the rare check they write, or maybe it means a nice day off. Other than that, it's really not particularly important. But for some, December 31st means cutoff day: Trying to close out your books, making sure you've put everything in the right category, trying to get everything in as much order as possible so you're as prepared as you can be to put together your financial statements as accurately as possible and in a way that any auditor in the world would be satisfied. Sure, you can always correct an error, but the closer you can get it to perfect on the first try the better.

When I used to work as an auditor, our dream was a client that didn't do any transactions in the last few days of the year. Working from the other end, it's easy to see how impossible that is - but the experience has taught how important and helpful it will be for both us and them to have as few as possible and to have a great way of showing just what's floating at the end of the period. The other important lesson was to utilize the tools and skills we developed on the audit side for ourselves - both as a check and for analysis. It will always shock me at how underdeveloped most companies are when it comes to quick and easy analysis of data. In my old job, auditing complex hedge funds, we developed formula-driven templates and pivot tables to almost instantaneously be able to analyze any data we were looking at and to find any errors - and all in Excel. Now, we're almost done developing a system to track and analyze every single transaction we make in the company outside of QuickBooks, in addition to working with a great consulting group that is helping us to tweak QuickBooks to suit our needs, so we have a great side-by-side check - plus a much better way of analyzing data and developing reports than what QB can do. [For the nerds: Rating the most useful tools in Excel, pivot tables have got to come in right at the top, challenged closely by vlookups and the now unlimited IF functions. And I barely know Excel compared to what's really available there.] We'll be able to literally group or drill down by any category we want - by division, by type of expense, by date - and see the data we want to see instantly in as detailed a fashion as we'd like.

It's fascinating to be working in a company that in has a strong start-up feel, but at the same time is really running with a huge jump start. We started with a cushion that allowed us and is allowing us to quickly determine best practices and to invest in technology and expertise that, while perhaps not cheap in the short run, will provide us with huge savings in the long-term. We also have a mostly young, bright, energetic group, peppered with some people with more experience as appropriate, but with varying expertise across the board and some specific knowledge that puts us literally years ahead of where most start-ups would be six months in. Most companies don't start earning real revenues for 2-4 years; we have the potential to do that in the very near future. At the end of the day, no business survives unless it starts earning money, and to be in the position we're in this quickly is a blessing.

We've also been able to learn from the successes and mistakes the various people we have have made in the past - whether operational, marketing, or anything else. Our cushion let us 'overhire' early to move ahead faster and to avoid letting details slip through any cracks - both operationally and financially. Last quarter, we reconciled our books to within 3 cents - perhaps something only an accountant could appreciate, but something we were quite proud of.

When I was leaving my old job, my former boss told me simply: "Public accounting just isn't for you. You need to do something entrepreneurial, start your own company or something. I'm just not sure you'll be able to do it without having to put up with a few more years in a corporation like this." It took a year, but thank God, it appears that we've been quite fortunate. It would have been impossible to imagine 7-8 months ago when things looked quite bleak that the right set of circumstances would result in being in the position and situation we're in now. Now, it's amazing to look back and see just how much has happened in such a short period of time and to think just how much can happen over the next.

God definitely works in mysterious ways, and sometimes it takes that looking back a bit to appreciate just how amazing everything was to get us to where we are, to see what we couldn't before.

Tweet Your Prayers

Life in Israel blogged about this today, but I figured it deserved a shout out here as well



Seems that Twitter is useful after all. Alon Nir the founder of Tweet Your Prayers takes your tefillos and delivers them to the Kotel. Oh, and be sure they are less than 140 characters!

Movin' Groovin'

On Sunday, I received a call from one of my best friends in the world, Groovin'. We talked for about three minutes. Last night, I tried reaching him quickly after a Lander Alumni Council meeting to see if I could catch him, but it was too late. The next time I speak to him, he'll have fulfilled one of his lifelong dreams: Become an olah. {Shortly thereafter, he'll fulfill another one which the rest of us have joked about for a decade: Live in a caravan.}

I'm hoping to catch the Nefesh B'Nefesh video of his charter flight tonight, but I know already that I'm going to find it more than a little surreal. For some reason, it just doesn't click that he, his amazing wife, and their two beautiful little girls have somehow pulled this off and are really going through with this - even though we've all known for years that if there was going to be someone to do it first it would be him. I'll never forget a conversation we had during our first year in Israel, when I asked him if perhaps he was moving a little too fast; his response to me was simply, "I don't know, it's possible. But perhaps you're moving a little too slow?" Once again, Groovin' is calmly moving ahead in life, taking the next step confidently but carefully, knowing exactly what he's doing and what to do if he hits a point where he doesn't.

~~~

Growing up in Cleveland, I didn't actually know Groovin' all that well during our early years. He was in a different (more charedi) school until 7th grade, and when he came to the Hebrew Academy of Cleveland, he immediately took geek status with his long lanky frame and propensity to talk to himself in class. But by 8th grade, I was sitting behind him every morning on the window side of the classroom, with Deep Throat in front of him and L'il Jason to his left. By the middle of the year, we'd all settled on attending WITS for high school, and over the years, we all - along with DGEsq - became incredibly close. Groovin' and I roomed together in both our junior and senior years in WITS before moving on to OJ for our first year in Israel. Ironically, OJ was never originally in my plans; there had been another Clevelander two years ahead of us in WITS who had attended OJ a couple of years before, and one of my rabbeim surprisingly (to me) suggested that based on his success there, I would get a lot out of it as well. That strong and strong-willed young man who had grown up right near him was also extremely close to Groovin', and I'm sure that played a role in his coming to OJ as well.

After OJ, we both moved on to Lander. A couple of years later, I was married, and Groovin' was enjoying his times in Lander, in no rush to date. DeepThroat had come back to Lander to study, Li'l Jason was finishing up YU and had moved to Kew Gardens Hills, and DGEsq had gotten married and lived down the block. For the first time, all five of us lived within 3 minutes of one another, and it was awesome. A short while later, though, Groovin' "ruined" it, going out with our OJ predecessor's sister and of course, marrying her {on Super Bowl Sunday, no less!} and moving back to Cleveland. Groovin' then developed an incredible series of spreadsheets to help track all their expenses so they could start saving money and I believe he utilized that to start putting away for them to make aliyah. [As an aside, it was seeing the detail on those spreadsheets which helped spurn the Jewish Economics Survey, and Groovin's actuarial background has helped in its development. Of course, his spreadsheets were quickly made obsolete by Mint.com.]

Even with them moving, it's nice to be living in the 21st Century. Between Skype and Gmail and all the other technology we have today, odds are good that we'll be in better touch than we were even when they were living in Cleveland. It doesn't feel like they're moving to a place where we'll never see them; it's more of a feeling of "it's going to be a little harder to drop in on them than it used to be..."

I'm not sure why I'm writing this; perhaps I think that somehow this will make it click that he's really making aliyah as I'm doing this. It's odd - while it's impossible to imagine them making aliyah, it's also impossible to imagine them not making aliyah. This is such a core essence of who they are and what they're intended to do in this world. Groovin' and Classy and their girls are to a large extent the epitome of what NbN wants and what Israel needs: Bright, dedicated, reliable, amazing people who are starting out and who will help build the country in whatever way they can. That's just who they are.

If you're awake, take a few minutes and watch the NbN charter flight land. It's incredibly emotional even if you don't know a soul making the trip. In addition to Groovin's family, I believe we know at least one other family on this flight. Watch the people step off that plane and step onto the ground with that welcoming crowd... it's incredible to see. Who knows? Maybe you'll see Groovin'.

He's kind of hard to miss.

Fallout

One of the aspects of the homosexuality panel discussion that have been especially interesting is the comments I've been hearing from friends and others, including comments that are being passed along the grapevine. Friends and colleagues whom one wouldn't even expect to have read the previous post, let alone necessarily agree, have stated that they thought the comments and opinions expressed were especially good and right along the line of what they themselves felt on the subject - whether people from the "right" or "left" of the Orthodox spectrum. In addition, R' Twersky's and R' Reis' speeches tonight were excellent, and the general goings-on at YU are fascinating.

There are a few minor and major points that seemed especially interesting and which are worth mentioning:

• One YU Rosh Yeshiva apparently voiced what many have been thinking: Until now, the yeshiva world blasted YU, but didn't have much ammunition behind it. Now, they have something legitimate.
• One friend noted simply that her brother (a good friend of mine) who is planning on entering into social work had previously been considering attending Wurzweiler for graduate school. That just became extremely unlikely.
• A friend commented that she now somewhat regrets attending Stern, and questions how YU can consider itself a frum school.
  

One of the most interesting comments came from an alumnus who was furious at the event, and basically vowed not to send their children to YU in the future (as it does not live up to the ideals of Orthodoxy that they feel are important). When I asked what if it straightens itself out, they expressed serious doubt that this was possible, noting strongly: [sic]

...It can't straighten out. They are out of control!! It only gets worse from here. They do these radical things, make radical statements. And for what?? More money? They don't honestly care about these people who were on the panel. President Joel doesn't give two ***** about homosexuality in the frum community.

While that's surely an immediate overreaction that will temper with time, how much of perception here is reality? How much of a hit will YU actually take - perhaps not from alumni, but from current and future enrollment, from support? This presumably won't help their recruitment in Israeli yeshivos and seminaries, and it marginalizes their own graduate schools - certainly Wurzweiler - at least a little bit by making them viewed as far less Jewish and far more as just a Jew-heavy school. (Though this was true already to an extent, this certainly isn't going to help the cause.) How many roshei yeshiva will continue to stay in a university where many supposedly were already uncomfortable with some of what goes on? There are certainly other options out there for many of them.

It's important to remember that many, many people were already somewhat wishy-washy on YU and its direction over the past number of years, uncomfortable with what they viewed as a leftward-leaning direction. An event such as the one held last week only confirms and seals this perception for those people and allows them to cross off YU in their minds permanently. While certainly not for all, for many, YU was viewed as the strong, appropriate balance of Judaism and how one maintains and builds on their religiousity while balancing that with the secular world. Without that balance, for those people, YU loses its identity at best, and quite possibly crushes it - eliciting reactions like the ones above.

In the earlier post, I touched on the idea that R' Gil Student, in his post on the subject, may have somewhat overstated the idea that the Orthodox world will be swinging to the left after this panel. I think he has it partially wrong and partially correct: YU itself will likely continue a gradual shift back to the left, but Orthodoxy as a whole won't go with it - in large part because those who are uncomfortable with YU's direction will shift away from that world. It seems as if YU itself only realized just how much of its constituency it upset with this after the fact, and its own rabbonim are furious and extremely saddened.

As a friend in YU put it: After years of toeing on the brink, YU is now in a full-blown identity crisis. Instead of a world outside which often looked askance at its actions but a strong frum core from within who could defend its balance, it has now crossed the line where even its staunch supporters are now forced to question what they're supporting, exactly. R' Reiss and R' Twersky spoke strongly (and extremely well) tonight, and the excerpts that have been shared with me by people who attended seem to have nailed the issues perfectly. One lamented that at a few points in the panel, there was applause for what the panelists were saying. At no point, however, did anyone object to what was being said, including when a panelist alluded to homosexual acts.

My friend also made an interesting analogy, comparing it in a way to the Golden Calf. When making the egel, everyone who was there thought that it was not just okay, but important to do. Aharon HaKohein felt that it was a good idea, at least to some extent, if not completely. Only when a person steps back and takes a look from a bit of a broader point of view can they realize "What the heck are we doing!?" and understand that it sends the wrong message and doesn't accomplish much beyond a short-term good feeling.

A number of people have noticed one other important point: Before the event, a lot of people were indifferent to the event. But as the last week has passed and people have thought about the event and read the transcripts, read the commentary, they have found themselves more and more against the event having taken place. They don't understand what it was supposed to have accomplished, what it actually accomplished, and taking a step back, they're questioning why something like this should have happened on such a public stage - and nobody has a good answer, and that's forced people to shift from disappointment to disillusionment (if not outrage).

As discussed in the previous post, perhaps if there were a positive outcome that emanated from this panel, one could argue that it was necessary despite the negative aspects and implications that can be drawn from it. But without that, all it does is raise questions as to what YU stands for and where its priorities lie. This time, those questions aren't coming mostly from outside, but instead, they're being hotly debated from within its very core.

Homosexuality in the Orthodox Jewish World

PERSONAL REQUEST: Please do not read this post prior to reading the full transcript of the Yeshiva University panel Being Gay in the Orthodox World posted on Chana's blog. Please also read her To Deserve and To Sacrifice post and R' Gil Student's The Growing Problem of Post Orthodoxy post as some points that will be attempted to be made below will undoubtedly overlap with some of the points they made in their writings. If you have the time, I recommend skimming through some of the comments on those posts as well - there are some interesting discussions scattered throughout. Thank you in advance.

Last week, Yeshiva University's Wurzweiler graduate school for Social Work hosted a panel whose mission was to share with the public the incredible difficulties faced by homosexuals in the Orthodox community, as halacha (Jewish law) does not allow for them to act upon their desires. As might be expected, it's a strong flash point in the Orthodox world, and discussions have abounded wherever one might step foot, with very interesting and different discussions all over - at work, at home, at Shabbos meals with different crowds, at shul.

According to the organizers and panelists, the primary purposes of the event were to promote discussion [and/that would in turn] evoke sympathy and understanding in the Orthodox world as to the difficulties faced by gays and lesbians in the frum community. The stories themselves are fascinating and in some cases, surprising and eye-opening, and each of the four panelists' stories bring up different aspects of the trials a gay person goes through. There are a number of things that can strike a person upon reading the transcript, but perhaps the most interesting point that sticks out is one that demonstrates just how unnecessary the entire production showed itself to be at this point in history.

The issues regarding homosexuality in the Orthodox community are predominantly different than those faced in the overall American public. The battles are not over gay marriage or civil unions, and based on the statements of the panelists, they never should be: The cause is to help those who are committed to living an Orthodox lifestyle while struggling with a severe test, which by definition a gay marriage could not be. Instead, the issues are more similar to those perhaps of discrimination, or more likely those of social ostracism and other social and familial relationships.

What was particularly interesting, however, was the overall consistency of the responses put forth from all over, with the summary being along the lines of: "That must be incredibly difficult, and we feel horrible for their impossible plight. If they're not acting on it, that's amazing, and good for them - I can't possibly imagine how hard that must be; if they are, it's something that needs to be condemned, not condoned. But did this need to be made into a public issue at all?" This is similar to the letter put out by some of the YU Roshei Yeshiva the morning of the event and also the letter YU's President Richard Joel put out along with the RIETS menahel (principal), R' Yona Reiss, after the event:

[...] Of course, as was indicated in a message issued by our Roshei Yeshiva, those struggling with this issue require due sensitivity, although such sensitivity cannot be allowed to erode the Torah's unequivocal condemnation of such activity. Sadly, as we have discovered, public gatherings addressing these issues, even when well-intentioned, could send the wrong message and obscure the Torah's requirements of halakhic behavior and due modesty. [...] We are committed to providing halakhic guidance and sensitivity with respect to all challenges confronted by individuals within our broader community, including homosexual inclinations, in a discreet, dignified and appropriate fashion.

Perhaps, however, the point was most clearly made by one of the panelists himself, when discussing his friends' reactions:

I told one friend and he was cool with it, but he would say ‘you can’t tell so-and-so because he’s too religious.’ So I went for it, next person I told was him and he was even better about it. And he said, ‘But you can’t tell so-and-so’ where it became this game. If only everybody even today knows how okay with it the next person was- truthfully it really surprised me. My friends are amazing.

It seems that people assume there to be a huge swell of homophobia and lack of tolerance within the Orthodox community to homosexuals - but that in truth, this just is not the case. There is certainly a lack of tolerance to or acceptance of homosexual actions, and anything which seems to condone this will immediately be shunned by the frum world - an appropriate reaction even according to at least some if not all of the panelists and presenters. Such a reaction would likely be similar to the one people would have to those who would openly break Shabbos or otherwise act in a way that was clearly against a major precept of Torah observance; in fact, people who have turned away from observant Judaism can likely confirm this to be true. While there may be eventual acceptance of "this is who he/she is" when a person leaves Orthodox Judaism, no Orthodox person would likely condone actions that are against Orthodox beliefs and imply that they acceptable within the Orthodox camp.

Instead of homophobia, however, it seems that gays and lesbians within the Orthodox world, when it actually comes down to it, are met predominantly with acceptance and usually a quiet sympathy. The assumption of intolerance just does not seem to match the actual reactions people have when faced with the situation. Much like in the outside world, when it comes to practical differences the gay population has with the straight population, there's not really anything there. Much like in the outside world (hat tip: Charlie Hall in the comments on Hirhurim), there's a clear level of acceptance that is particularly there among the younger generation. And much like in the outside world, it's hard to say that additional discussion would advance anything more that is positive for gays and lesbians, particularly as that translates into the Orthodox Jewish world.

In the end, it comes back to what the panelists themselves hoped to accomplish with this event, and that's difficult to say. If it was about understanding and sympathy, it is unclear what was accomplished; it seems that this understanding and sympathy was already there, certainly among the crowd that was drawn to the event and almost assuredly in the crowds that have been discussing it. The panelists seemed to feel that most of the Rabbonim they approached about their struggles reacted surprisingly well, and that the same was true of their peers. Typically it was families who reacted the worst, at least initially, but this is not particularly surprising in a community which prides itself often on its future plans and progeny and suddenly learns that this will not be happening as they may have been imagining it. All in all, it seems doubtful that the panel will have made much of an impact in how people view gays and lesbians in those terms.*

Some of the arguments people have for turning this into a public issue revolve around comparing it to other issues that were taboo or ignored in the Orthodox world until people forced them on the public until they finally started dealing with them. The primary flaw in this argument, however, is that there's extremely little the public can actually do in this case. As opposed to agunos**, publicly discussing homosexuality will not be placing pressure on others to help right a wrong that was committed. As opposed to molestation, discussion will not create awareness of a problem in order to protect children. As opposed to abuse, a public event will not help those who are getting hurt find a place to escape to to avoid that hurt. With homosexuality, it is a private and personal issue which the public cannot well relate to and where the public is almost completely powerless to help beyond what they are already doing at this point in history.

Ten or twenty years ago, this panel would have helped bring about incredible change by speeding up the acceptance of individuals who are gay or lesbian by their friends and relatives by helping them understand what they go through at a time when people really didn't understand well enough what being gay or lesbian meant. In December 2009, however, there doesn't seem to be that fundamental unawareness in the Orthodox community. The creation of such a panel and the promotion of groups that promote additional tolerance seem unlikely to create more tolerance but far more likely to create an impression (whether intended by its creators or not) of an acceptance of homosexuality that perhaps goes beyond just sympathy and understanding. That there was so much confusion as to this point even at YU seems to show an obvious lack of clarity as to where the lines are drawn in Orthodoxy, despite the panel's best efforts to mark those lines. While perhaps R' Student's warning of an upcoming leftward shift are overstated, he is certainly not wrong in seeing how this event can be used as a catapult for such a shift. Moreover, there are undoubtedly those who will use this event as a springboard to accepting homosexuality to a greater level than it should be, despite the best intentions of the planners of this event and the pronouncements of those who appeared.

Ten or twenty years ago, this panel could have been incredibly important and made a positive impact on the Orthodox Jewish community. Now, its potential for change is far more toward paths that most of the panelists and presenters themselves would deem completely unacceptable in Orthodoxy - and that's a shame.

* To preemptively discuss, the argument of "discussion shows positive impact" is a somewhat ridiculous comment in a context such as this, as discussion having a positive impact is true when there is a desire for some type of change to occur. As there is no such change being sought here, it turns into a circular "discussion is good because it's discussion, and that's good" argument.

** The comparisons of homosexuality to issues such as agunos are actually disturbing and somewhat despicable, in that they cheapen the plight faced by the various victims in those situations. Agunos receive public support for two primary reasons: 1) They were hurt by members of the community who are abusing the halachic system to shackle them, and therefore the community feels a responsibility to show the person that the community as a whole cares for them. 2) Publicizing the issue hopefully helps to force the 'husband' to send a get to her that otherwise he would not have. Molestation was made into a public issue to instill greater fear and responsibility in our schools and others to help stop abuse from happening in the first place and to encourage victims to speak up and families to not view it as taboo to do so, in order to punish the perpetrators and protect others from becoming victims as well. To compare situations like these to homosexuality is absurd - there is no unwilling victim and there is no outside factor playing a role that the community can help with.

First Snow Of The Winter

(Because I know Ezzie won't since he has no time, even though he said he should post this.)

Erachet: When my brother and I were digging out our car from the snow, my brother threw a chunk of snow at me just to get in our requisite snow fight. So I threw snow back at him. It was fun but... ::Sigh:: That was my only snow fight all winter!

Ezzie: ::Incredulous stare:: ...This was our first snow of the winter!

The Grumble Factor

• How long will you wait for your luggage at the airport?

• How long would you wait for an elevator?

It seems that the powers to be have figured out how inefficient they can be without people complaining. Read this narrative and weep. Its long but worth it.

It seems that if the carousels are moving, people will wait 20 minutes longer without complaining, even if your bag isn't on the belt yet.

Snow!

I love snow! :)