A New Paradigm for Note-Passing

 
Imagine the following scenario: You work in a company where you get evaluated on your performance. You either work hard as you  can, have your personal struggles, and there are weaknesses in your performance. Then about 3 to 4 times a year, your manager sends your performance appraisal to another manager and they meet without you to discuss your performance. Afterwards both managers tell you how your performance has been, impose goals on you, and how you better improve your performance or else. Sounds crazy, right?

I was recently at a conference where someone who works in the People Analytics department at Google was talking about how they introduced an instantaneous feedback system. As an introduction, he talked about how in grade school you would get a report card in the mail, your parents would read it, and you would cover in fear after PTA. Then he described how note passing between classmates is a form of more instantaneous feedback and how they developed an internal platform to give employees instant feedback from their coworkers to help improve their performance.

From a performance management division it was kind of cool and it got me thinking about how we do performance reviews - in the classroom.

Well that's not even close to the way  teachers try to enhance performance of students in the classroom. They work hard (or not), get a report card, then the teacher and parents sit down and discuss the way that the child's performance is going to improve, what interventions or punishments to use, etc - all of this without the child's buy-in for the improvement or his/her input! There has been an effort by some to institute a character based report card as well, however there is opposition to it (from what I've heard, especially from Preparatory schools). I have also heard that some schools are starting to invite children to come to PTA meetings. I think that these are important steps to improving education.

In performance management, there are best practices to achieve higher levels of performance: The person being evaluated should rate themselves on a series of behaviors, skills, and knowledge. (Not just one performance dimension, but rather let's say 10 dimensions of their skills e.g.- motivation, knowledge, teamwork) Then the manager should rate them and they should sit down to discuss where the employee is doing well, where they are meeting expectations, and where they need improvement. The employee has the ability to explain their performance and then together they set goals and an action plan to achieve those goals. I am not an educator nor a child/school psychologist; I do however have knowledge of how performance management works. It works well to improve performance especially when the goal of the review is to develop the employee rather than decide whether they are getting a raise or promotion. I am not saying to do away completely with grades for subjects. I am saying that performance for subjects should be broken down by dimension; composition, vocabulary, grammar, etc. This will not only help students understand their weaknesses but their strengths as well.

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.]