The 'War' on Leaven

Passover is the time of year that Orthodox Jewry goes completely berserk. Even the Day of Atonement, ostensibly the holiest day of the year, preceded by the New Year and the Ten Days of Repentance, does not engender the kind of hue, cry, concern, or effort that is placed into preparing for Passover. For at least one entire month, Orthodox Jewry fills the waking hours devising plans to eradicate any hint of leaven from their person, home, and office. I think I know why Passover is so intense.

Passover is a really a woman’s holiday. Now I don’t mean that the entire focus is on the woman, but rather it is the woman who generally performs the real hard-core preparations for the coming festival. Passover involves lots and lots of scrubbing, painting, scraping, cleansing, and even redecorating, which usually falls under the domain and administration of the Orthodox Jewish woman throughout the year. Passover, however, is her time to shine; her excuse to demand obedience and all must prostrate themselves to her domestic will and whim, as Jewish Law requires each and every member of her household to be 100% leaven free for those eight days a year. No exceptions. There can be no conscientious objection or desertion from the fight.

Passover is a golden opportunity to reign over her household in exactly the same dictatorial manner she would prefer to rule with all year long. Drawers are opened and emptied, pockets turned out and lint removed, shelves are repapered, rooms are repainted, the doorknobs are polished until every inch of her home becomes secure from the ever-present threat of leaven. The home becomes a spotless and shiny little boot-camp where the inmates, under the warden’s watchful eye, dutifully refrain from dropping any food anywhere at anytime. Entire rooms become cordoned off, and family members and guests must check themselves at each door before entering or leaving the table lest they may be in possession of the hated contraband. If only our airport security was this thorough! (Thankfully, there is no cavity search.)

Then of course, in the course of battle, every surface that has been already scrubbed within an inch of its material existence gets covered in layers of paper, plastic, aluminum foil, masking tape, duct tape, tablecloths, cardboard, and sometimes even plywood, just in case a stray molecule of breadcrumb somehow survived the harrowing weeks of chemical warfare and hand-to-hand combat, standing ready to jump into some unsuspecting leaven-free Jewish mouth once Passover finally begins. Leaven is a very sneaky and resilient substance it seems. It is not enough to destroy the enemy, we must radically alter the very landscape which bred him. (Pun intended!)

This is ultimately why Passover is the busiest time of the Jewish year. The paranoia over having possibly missed one atom of a leavened substance drives the Orthodox Jewish household in a month-long frenzy of cleaning. I’m surprised that biohazard suits and latex gloves aren’t issued for the cleanup effort. I have seen people comb through their carpeting with a tweezers and a magnifying glass in search of crumbs. In our fight against leaven, no child will be left behind. All must use what they have to fight it!

(Currently, many communities sentence those prosecuted for minor offenses to ‘community service’, which usually involves picking up trash alongside the highway. If we want a punishment that will serve as a deterrent to future misbehaviors, perhaps we should, subject them to Passover cleaning in an Orthodox Jewish home. No doubt some will never stray from the law again.)

Lastly, the leaven which may have somehow narrowly escaped the ever vigilant Passover Inquisition has to be ‘sold’ to a gentile, even though it may not even exist. Call me lazy, but I honestly never understood why one couldn’t just ‘sell’ it from the beginning and not drive the whole world into schizophrenia for an entire month. It’s not as if we are keeping entire loaves of bread hanging around anyhow during Passover. Then again, I am one of those who 'support the leavened insurgency'.

Good cleaning is not enough it seems. The sterilization process appears a bit over the top and perhaps too harsh, but no. It is her way. She is merely exercising her executive powers. Who is going to stop her? Dad? The religiously driven campaign to root out and destroy each and every rogue crumb of breadcrust remains the best opportunity for the ‘Foundation of the Home’ to run roughshod over everyone that crosses her path. Passover is when she gets her way. Resistance is futile. She is the commander in chief in the ‘War on Leaven’.

Power corrupts? Absolutely. But I wouldn’t advise arguing with her right now. She’s a little busy. Now grab a broom and get moving!

דער אייניקל

Born: 03-18-06, Adar 18, 5766, Shabbos Parshas Ki Sisa, in Yerushalayim. Let's hope he turns out better than his Zeide did!

Texas Arresting People in Bars for Being Drunk

Wed Mar 22, 6:05 PM ET

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday. The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

(That’s right. If you are drinking in a bar and you get drunk in that bar, you will be arrested. Why? Because you might do something stupid or dangerous later on while intoxicated. There are no other crimes going on that require our attention. Times must be good. On the other hand, it is gun happy shoot-em-up Texas, and as we all know, alcohol, firearms, and Texans don't mix well.)

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said. The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

(Except that bars and dance clubs are PRIVATE property. Not that a little thing like the 4^th Amendment ever stops the fascist jackboots from marching in. Apparently, it is not legal to do anything in a bar for which the bar was intended? The state does have rights in there because bars and clubs require inspection and certification. They use that same power to ban smoking in bars as well. I wonder what the real intent is.)

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said. "There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

(Maybe Texans are as wild as they are stupid. Walking drunk is dangerous, but only to the drunk. Forgive me for asking, but exactly how many Texans use 2^nd story window ledges as diving boards? This sting operation seems like just another attempt by government to save us from ourselves. What’s next? Policing the lactose intolerant because of farting on elevators and too many toilets flushing? If Ms. Beck is concerned about the 'cost' to the state, does she consider what it costs to field 36 officers? Oh wait. That's right. These cops are raising their own salaries through the fines they impose.)

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

(Texans boast that everything is bigger in Texas. The reason is now obvious. They have no intellectual depth perception. Stupidity is the biggest thing Texas has going for it, which explain why GW Bush feels so much at home in Crawford. Please, can we give it back to Mexico now?)

A few problems arise:

1) Define drunk. Does one have to be slobbering falling off the bar stool drunk, or is being anywhere near or above the legal limit for driving considered drunk enough? I have plenty of experience with drinking and drunks and the vast majority are not a danger as long as they aren't bicycling (never do that) or driving. If the inebriated customer has sober friends with him to keep him in check, would he or she also face arrest?

2) How is the determination made? Does the officer make an ‘educated guess’ or does he pull a breathalyzer out of his holster on the spot? I'm wary of allowing law enforcement to make snap judgments as they always 'err on the side of caution' which, in English, means they will write you a ticket or arrest you anyhow and you can sort it out later in front of the judge.

3) How are they going to fine the drunk person? Take away his driver’s license? He wasn’t driving! Are they now going to be ordered into counseling? Is it just 'drunk in public' or something more? Are they also going to fine the bar owner, since he isn't allowed to serve someone obviously drunk? But what if his standard and the state standard of 'drunk' differ?

I hope somebody makes the proper and full legal challenge to this insanity. It feels like prohibition all over again, but with higher penalties and fines. I suspect this is just another way for law enforcement to raise money. Maybe drunk driving is way down in Texas and the police miss all the revenue they were getting from it. This is the kind of madness that ensues when law enforcement agencies begin to think up creative ways to generate funding. The people always pay. One can see bars and night clubs losing patrons and ultimately closing down, taking all of the licensing and tax revenue already generated out of the system.

How do we stop the police from coming into the bars and harassing law abiding patrons? Short of fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court, we could solve the problem with one innovative solution. Bars should charge a $15.00 cover. The person who takes the money at the door gives a receipt coupon to the customer which substitutes for cash inside the bar. Since police cannot drink alcohol while on duty, the coupons would be essentially worthless to them. Even if they were to pay the cover charge to get in, they would be immediately spotted as non-drinking and their cover would be blown instantly.

Ms. Beck's use of the word 'infiltrate' was instructive. First, it shows her ignorance of what goes on in bars. One does not have to be James Bond to walk into a bar and casually greet the patrons. Secondly, it indicates a religious intolerance; as if what average hard-working citizens do after a long day of work in a place that has a state issued license to operate is somehow so evil that it requires so much policing. Then again, it is probably just all about the money.

I'm just going of my gut reaction to the story and my experience. Maybe someone out there knows more.

Kol Tuv (L'chayim! Hic!)

המוציא לחם עם הארץ

Disclaimer: I like Josh Goldman’s blog a lot. No, there isn’t any political diatribe or deep philosophical discussion. There aren’t any heated debates over abortion and such things. Josh is, in my estimation, a very sincere and nice person. My comments here relate to a comment that Josh made on a certain subject, perhaps unknowingly, that point to a larger issue of how we view a certain segment of the American workforce. I am sure that Josh does not intend to malign this group, but his language is consistent with those who do.

Josh writes: “Every few months it seems that some factory worker wins some $300 million lottery.” Josh did not say “a factory worker”, he said “some factory worker” which, in common usage sounds a lot like “some shvartza” or “some goy”. Using the word ‘some’ implies a general, negative connotation toward the subjects in question. The word ‘some’ is a plural after all. Now before you jump down my throat over this and get all defensive, let me state my case.

Three things are valued in the Jewish world; wealth, intelligence, and good looks. Hard work is not a Jewish value. Jewish parents do not aspire to see their children becoming auto mechanics, dry wall installers, or factory workers and mine did not want that for me either. Whose parents do? Every parent wants better for the children than they had for themselves. No? Have you ever heard a Jewish parent kvell with nachas when his son earned his certification to do brake jobs? Not hardly. Anyone ever brag about it? (If that boy ends up opening a chain of brake shops, well that’s a different story.)

Many, many Jews (certainly not all) tend look down their noses at working class people. We Jews have become a mercantile and professionally based urban culture, and along with that bump in prestige and salary follows the usual disdain for anything of lesser status. There is nothing wrong with being smarter and making more money. By all means, use what you have to get ahead. Yet, when working class people are basically treated like servants or serfs by people who should know better, it bothers me to no end.

Maybe my question is a stupid question, but wasn’t my zeide o’h, my tatte o’h, and probably 90% of our European ancestors blue collar workers and farm laborers? Was there something so evil about carpentry, animal husbandry, or textile work that was so offensive to Jewish values that the holiest Jewish communities who thrived off such labor perhaps deserved punishment for allowing it? When exactly did we decide that hard work and a few grease stains was something to be looked down upon? One could argue that in the shtetl, there wasn’t much choice in the matter, so people did what they had to in order to survive. I get that. But why crap on those who do those jobs? We should be thankful enough that someone is there to do them.

I grew up around tools and workshops. My father was a blue collar man as was my zeide before him. Was there shame is being a working man? If something broke in our home, there was no scrambling around to find a Haitian or Russian immigrant to fix it. There was no haggling over price, and no waiting for the guy to show up. Today, I can repair my own car, rewire my own electrical, hang my own drywall, re-shingle my own roof, and perform many other tasks that would leave the average chosid and kollel yungermanchik completely baffled. Some of the families I knew growing up didn’t even have a screw driver in the house and I’m amazed they didn’t have to call a sheygitz every time a light bulb needed changing. I remember repairing a broken light fixture in yeshiva and the Mashgiach looking at me as if I was completely crazy for doing so. I saved the yeshiva $200 that day. He ended thanking me. I should have just billed him.

We should not take the blue collar worker, skilled or not, lightly. You want to ‘flick’ your own chickens? Go right ahead. My bubbe o’h did it. Can you mold steel that created the chassis your car sits on? Be my guest. Every time you hire a ‘goya’ to clean your home or to care for your elderly, infirmed grandparent, keep in mind that this person is saving you the trouble of doing it yourself, and they likely will be doing a better job anyhow. I’m not asking that anyone pay them huge sums of money for the jobs they do; there is a market that determines that value. I’m asking that we not take for granted those who do the 1000s of jobs that happen behind the scenes that offer us more leisure, so much so that we have become not just insensitive and unaware, but incompetent at it as well. The worst part is that we have become helpless regarding things that we shouldn’t be.

I am a grey collar worker. If you don’t know what that means I’ll tell you. It means that I am in management but not entirely. I utilize my brain to problem solve and organize. I am also not afraid to put my back into it and generally work alongside the people I manage. I don’t ask anyone to do anything I won’t do or haven’t done myself. My job is not rocket science, but you’d be amazed at how much overall knowledge and experience is needed and involved for seemingly simple tasks to run smoothly. That knowledge comes in very handy when machines break down, employees don’t show up, or things don’t go as planned. They are the ‘tricks of the trade’ and all trades have them. Sure it’s something you could know, but at present, it’s still something that you don’t know, and in that it has immense value. It’s not anything miraculous, just a cumulative know-how.

The saying goes “Out of sight, out of mind” and in this matter, that’s very, very true. It’s easy to take a thing for granted that job we haven’t done or don’t see being done on a daily basis. A fancy chandelier and big house is nice, but manufacturing, installing, and repairing those things requires skill, and it wouldn’t be hanging in your dining room if it weren’t for ‘some’ unseen non-descript factory worker or manual laborer who put his time and effort into making that happen for you.

We might pronounce with great kavana and simcha the brocho “Homotzei lechem min ha’aretz”, but that means only that we thank HaShem for making the grain grow and become accessible. Getting it from “ha’aretz” to “lechem” is another thing entirely. Perhaps it would be proper to at least add, albeit silently, “Homotzei lechem am ha’aretz.” That glazed chalah passed through many working hands before it reached the Shabbos tisch.

Kol Tuv

(Am Ha’aretz means “people of the land” and is used as a derogatory term by Orthodox Jews to describe those who are unversed in Talmudic Law. I do not use it that context. Am Ha’aretz are the ‘salt of the Earth’ in my opinion; hard working and honest people of all kinds.)

Twisted Ethics & Time Travel

“Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.” (George Bernard Shaw, 1856 – 1950)

On Censure: from http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/03162006.asp#092640

David Frum in the National Review writes:

“As for the censure motion itself, well it is not unprecedented. A Whig majority in the House of Representatives censured President Polk in 1848, claiming that the war with Mexico was "unconstitutionally and unnecessarily begun." President Polk shook it off, as have the millions of future citizens of California, Texas, Arizona and the southwest who owe their homes and security to him.

Still the Polk motion has served one purpose in American history: It reminds us that every great American accomplishment was controversial in its day. And someday we trust American posterity will look back at these days and say: It was tough going there for a while - but those Americans of the 21st century never lost their nerve.”

Let me say that I support Senator Russ Feingold’s motion for the censure of President George W. Bush 100%. Censure, in my opinion, isn’t really enough. If a private citizen gets caught illegally eavesdropping on conservations, the penalty usually involves hard jail-time. If the President does it, no matter what the excuse, the penalty should be no less harsh. We are a nation of laws, not a country shackled to the capricious whims of a government agent or rogue executive. The president has broken the law and done so flagrantly. It’s time for him to go.

I’d like to address Frum’s article here and show you just how much bullshit he managed to pack into those two short paragraphs. Enjoy the ride. It takes just a little bit of functioning grey-matter to pick apart this nonsense. (Fortunately, it’s all I can spare anyhow.)

Frum suggests that President Polk was right to have shrugged off the censure in 1848, because by ignoring that censure the United States expanded it’s territory and, thanks to Polk, millions of Americans in out southwest have a place to live.

1) It is never proper for the President to ‘shrug’ off the will of Congress offhandedly. Congress represents the people and is there to place a check on the power of the executive branch. Mr. Polk should have known this little bit of information as it was in the employee handbook he swore to uphold while in office. Mr. Frum believes the executive branch should remain unfettered by laws or the people (unless a Liberal gets elected.)

2) The fact that the people currently living in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico don’t care that President Polk carried out an illegal war is meaningless now. They can’t turn back history to undo what has been done over a century ago even if they wanted to. Unless Mr. Frum has a time machine, it’s a complete non-issue. I can’t believe he would even think to consider putting forward something that incredibly stupid.

3) Frum skips over the matter that the Mexican War was, in fact, an unconstitutional war which was not supported by the populace at large, especially in New England. Henry David Thoreau went to jail for not paying taxes to a government he felt was behaving in an unconstitutional manner. The Quaker movement, very large and influential in the 1800’s also opposed the war. Fact remains, the war was an act of aggression and was not conducted or conceived in any constitutional way. Polk got away with it, that’s all. One cannot claim the commission of crime is justified by lack of prosecution.

4) Frum suggests that the ends justify the means in saying that the war then is justified by the situation now, some 150 years later. This twisted logic is akin to asking humanity to thank Hitler and Stalin for easing the population problems that would have faced Europe had they not murdered 45 million people between them. Simply because the results have some beneficial, unintended side effect many years down the road by no means should imply a justification for the original actions themselves. Mr. Frum needs to take an ethics class.

5) Frum rightly states that great accomplishments, throughout history, come with a certain amount of controversy. Society and governments tend toward the status quo and any proposed changes, which affect the livelihoods or norms of a given society, will inevitably face some opposition. However, he makes two serious errors. First, he says “American” accomplishment, as if other nations don’t experience the same phenomena. Secondly, he assumes that an endeavor’s ‘greatness’ is measured by the level of controversy it engenders. (Legalization of marijuana and Gay Marriage also generate tremendous controversy, and by Mr. Frum’s logic, they must also be ‘great accomplishments’, though I suspect Mr. Frum doesn’t support either cause.)

In the end, Mr. Frum dons the mantle of prophecy and assures us that future generations will thank George Bush for expanding the powers of the executive branch, embroiling us in a global conflict, gutting our social programs, raising our national debt, and audaciously violating the law of the land. Mr. Frum has already failed miserably in his analysis of past events. If that is any indicator of his ability to divine the future, I will confidently be putting my money down on the other horse.

(It is no small coincidence that the Mexican War and the Bush War both originated in Texas. It must be something in the manure. Can we give it back to Mexico now?)

“Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.” (Voltaire, 1694 - 1778)

Suspicion Over Easy

While sitting at my favorite greasy spoon this morning and having my usual three eggs and hash browns, I overheard a conversation going on at the table directly behind me. Four women were locked in a heated discussion regarding the husband of one of the participants. It seems that after ten years of happy marriage, this man has suddenly started working out, grooming better, and buying new clothes. Though nothing else about his day to day routine altered even one bit; he was home every night, treated his wife the same as always, and there was no change in his work schedule, this man’s wife was nevertheless convinced that her husband was cheating on her or was planning to do so. Her friends naturally supported this theory, lack of evidence notwithstanding. I suspect that poor man is going to get a ‘talking to’ when she gets home, providing she speaks to him at all.

Now I don’t blame her for being a little suspicious over her husband’s new-found habits. It is common knowledge that when a man, at 40-something years old, begins to alter his appearance that something sinister might be motivating that change. Then again, maybe not. I am a creature of habit, and though I go through periods where I may try a new haircut or maybe buy a new dress shirt, it isn’t ever reason for suspicion. A man when he reaches his 40’s is likely to start reminiscing about his youth, his hair, and his libido. Seeing those things slip away isn’t any comfort at all and takes all the fun right out of aging.

There are lots of reasons this man is making changes. Maybe the guy just wants to look good and feel healthier. Maybe he has a friend who had a heart attack at forty and he doesn’t want the same thing to happen to him. Maybe he started working out, lost some weight and needs to buy some new clothes. Maybe he has seen too many advertisements chocked full of great looking guys with six-pack abs and full heads of thick dark hairs and he’s just a little jealous of all the attention they get. Maybe he is finally admitting that treating himself to a manicure is nice and it doesn’t mean he’s gay. Maybe he’s hoping that his wife notices and it turns up the ‘heat’ in their relationship.

The double standard of it all is what bothers me. Every one of these women worry about their weight, their hair color, their hair style, their clothing, their nails, and how they appear to other men and women on a daily, if not hourly basis, and if we were to accuse them of plotting some infidelity, they would protest vehemently and then attack us for attacking them! So why is it that women can engage in these behaviors day in and day out without garnering any suspicion, but men who do it, even once, all of the sudden become criminals? Sheesh.

I think this woman is just insecure. Maybe she needs to start working out, too, and she figures she never will and she doesn’t want him to either. She got used to her husband being a little overweight and wearing the same old dirty t-shirt every day. She’s probably been complaining about that stupid t-shirt for ten years and likely begged him a hundred times to throw it out and, when he finally submits, she gets all worried that he’s cheating on her. Damned if we do. Damned if we don’t. Men cannot get a break.

My advice to this woman is the following:

“Go directly home. Tell your husband how good he looks and how much you like the changes. Then fuck his brains out. Stop listening to your dumb-ass friends and do not allow this drama to escalate into a divorce until you have solid, irrefutable evidence that he is doing something wrong.”

Amar Rav Buddha : Ad D'Lo Yada

אמר רבא מיחייב איניש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי

We drink on Purim to celebrate the victory over our enemies in the Babylonian government. In ancient times, a raucous feast with drinking and dancing was common after such a victory. We Jews were no different. We may have thanked our God for helping us out, but our joy and celebration would have been no less rambunctious. Maybe we didn’t ‘sacrifice’ virgins or engage in sexual debauchery, but we likely did drink and celebrate to the fullest. I just don’t see how drinking accomplishes the stated goal.

The Talmud in Megillah 7a state “This says Rava: One is required to celebrate on Purim to the point at which the distinction between ‘cursed be Haman’ and ‘blessed be Mordechai’ is obscured.” So which part is to become obscured, the cursed and the blessed, Haman and Mordechai, or both? And how exactly are we to obliterate this distinction? In general we assume that alcohol consumption would be the means by which we lose our ability to discern. It’s just that I can’t imagine myself getting drunk or high enough to ever not know who my enemy is, especially one who is sworn by his lineage to eradicate my people. At some point, I would likely just fall asleep or pass out, and that point my ability or inability is moot, since I’m not in any position whatsoever to engage in cursing, blessing, or distinguishing moral values.

It seems reasonable therefore to assume the Rava wants us to be awake and aware yet still unable to make this distinction nonetheless, but how does that happen? How drunk would a Jew have to be before he or she started praising Yoshke or saluting Shitler? It makes no sense at all.

I don’t have expertise in a lot of things, but among the few I do is drinking and its side effects. I have also worked in bars and night clubs doing security work and, I can assure you, I have studied the drinking human thoroughly enough to form an educated opinion. There wasn’t a night that went by that I wasn’t constantly aware of “Nichnas Yayin, Yatza Sod” and how many people so easily revealed their ‘sod’ under the influence. The mask they wear in sobriety falls off quickly. I saw seemingly meek persons turn violent, happy people turn sad, lonely souls become social butterflies, and crazy people appear to calm, but I have never seen enemies become friends. That line between love and hate isn’t washed away by a few shots of vodka.

If so, then how does Rava expect us to erase all preconceived notions of friends, enemies, blessings, and curses? What sort of mind-altered state are we to fall into with or without the aid of drinking that would erase our sense of judgment? (There aren’t too many instances where drinking is required at all, let alone required to any extreme, so it seems reasonable to assume, much to the dismay of Chasidim, that the requirement of “ad d’lo yada” may not involve alcoholic beverages.)

It appears that Rava is asking the impossible.

It reminds me of a famous Zen conundrum. There is a saying in Buddhism that goes “If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him.” Does it mean to literally kill the Buddha, or only if we see him in road, but not the grocery store? Imagine yourself being indoctrinated to seek the path of Buddhist Enlightenment, to adore the Buddha and his teachings, and then suddenly have to kill him should he cross your path?

Pose our question the same way. The Torah tells us “timcheh es zecher Amalek”. We also have the story of Shaul HaMelech and the infant prince, and we have the saga of Purim and the treachery of Haman and his sons. So after all that, even at the height of our celebration over his destruction, Rava thinks that we can somehow forget that Haman is cursed and Mordechai is blessed! Talk about ‘killing’ the Buddha! That is a radical paradigm shift.

I thought of four possible answers (last one best):

1) What separates ‘between’ Haman and Mordechai? Fear. Rava is telling us to rejoice openly and fully and not to fear any longer, as we are under the Hasgacha of the Ribono Shel Olam, we can eat and drink in shalom v’shalva. Baruch Mordechai is as automatic as is Arur Haman.

2) “Arur Haman” and “Baruch Mordechai” mean the same exact thing. We can’t have one without the other. Haman is cursed by Mordechai being blessed! Our success is the best revenge possible. We cannot forget that Haman is cursed, but we can remember that his curse is linked to our blessing. An eternal case of “In your face!”

3) Haman is merely a tool of the Ribono Shel Olam. Mordechai reminds us to do mitzvos and learn Torah. Funny thing is that so does Haman in an indirect way. Haman stands as an example to us of what not to be. He serves the same purpose as his nemesis.

4) Last, but not least, is the Zen-like answer to our problem. This is not about Mordechai or Haman, but about curses and blessings. We are trained to think that a curse is bad and a blessing is good, but Rava says that’s not necessarily so. Our notions of good and bad should not be so rigid because the ultimate arbiter of those values is the Ribono Shel Olam. That which appears as a blessing now may very well end up a curse later on. When we believe that we see our “Buddha”, it is time to kill him; to remove our conventional ideas and maintain our spiritual vigilance, even in the post-triumph celebration.

Simchas Purim is a statement of our recognition that we don’t have all the answers and that the things we deem good or bad are not always so. When we see our “Buddha” in the road, when we believe we know blessings and curses, and we should remind ourselves that it isn’t so. The “Buddha” we kill is our complacency that comes from the false belief that we somehow now have achieved all we must and know all that we can. In this, our Seudas Purim is not a simply another victory feast akin to the sort of parties thrown by other nations after battle. It is, at its core, and reminder to remain vigilant to the principles that made this victory possible.

Kol Tuv

When Pink Makes Me Blue : A Rant and a Half

Q: What makes men chase women they have no intention of marrying?

A: The same urge that makes dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving.

http://shadchun.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-makes-men-chase-women-they-have.html

The question is only a question if marriage is the goal. In most scenarios, the man (or woman) is only interested in having a good time and then maybe sex. Marriage is not the only reason to date. I realize the question was posed by a frumme yid, so one has to consider the source. Let’s stick to marriage.

The assumption is made that a religious Jewish woman won’t hunt or chase a potential mate. My experience betrays this. Women, and I include shikzas, too, are not innocent bystanders or passive players in this game of love and marriage. Many know exactly what they want before they meet it and, unlike the big game hunter, they won’t settle for a two-pointer. Women are just more subtle. The man carries a gun and stalks around the forest in disguise as a something innocuous and safe, perhaps a tree or shrub to fool his prey. The woman, on the other hand, lays a perfect trap that only catches a very specific kind of prey. She only shows up later to pick up her ‘kill.’

Men, on the other hand, aren’t as discriminating. Unless there are rules about what they are allowed to shoot, they might just fire upon anything that happens by, be it a doe, fawn, or fellow hunter. A lot of guys can’t tell the difference between a good woman and a bad one, in particular those raised in religious Jewish homes. In my childhood, the good and the bad were separated only by their sectarian affiliation, and even that didn’t really matter. As one Rabbi so eloquently put it, “They’re all pink inside.” To say that a girl or a boy is quality material depends a good deal upon impressions based on the child’s molding themselves to the norms of the community, but has no bearing on their real personalities. It is assumed if they follow the rules, then they must not be crazy.

Now I was told that my ex-wife was of good midos, chinuch, and yichus. Question should have been asked “According to whom?” First of all, too many people refrain from loshen hara when it counts, and if there is something not so good to say about a potential shidduch, the time to say it is before the chasuna and not afterwards. Secondly, her family couldn’t be counted on to tell the truth because they were obviously biased. The bias has a few possible causes; they are ignorant of her faults, they don’t see her faults as faults per se, or they fully acknowledge her faults and cannot wait to find a sucker willing to marry their darling little machsheyfa so they can show the world she’s not such a crazy bitch after all. That accomplishment vindicates them from suspicion of being lousy parents. Thirdly, how well would the shadchan or Rov know her? Exactly how many hours did they spend with this woman to know?

I suspect a lot of shidduchim come about through the very discriminate application loshen hara or rechilus. You hear a story about Yossele being a little ‘vihld’ or Chanele having an ‘episode’ and all of the sudden you have a shidduch in the making. Screw up enough and you can be guaranteed that your spouse will be crazier than you are. If you are known to make trouble, more trouble will be arranged to make your entire life an abject hell. It is rare that a shidduch is made in order to ‘straighten out’ another by marriage to a better person. That is if one can define ‘better.’

Theorem of Orthodox Jewish marriage:

Problem child + Problem child = Good marriage (der Aybeshter zol helfen)

Problem child x Problem child = Problems skip a generation (say lots of tehillim just in case)

Problem child – Problem child = It must be his fault! Always his fault!

I’m actually still quite mad about the choice of shidduchim I was offered. What does that say about how my mishpocho viewed me that they would allow their son to marry such a machsheyfa? Didn’t anyone know the mechutanim and their meshugassin? What were they thinking? Did they think that I was going to straighten her out? Or was it the other way around? Was my father so afraid that I was going to elope with some Puerto Rican chica from my English Lit. course that he rushed to accept any shidduch offered?

Many shidduchim rely on the reputation of the family the person comes from. I was raised pretty much as an only child so I missed out on the phenomena of having brothers and sisters around. Fact is, that men and women are treated differently everywhere, including religious Jewish women. Some parents and communities have very different perceptions and norms for women than they do men, in addition to the natural affinity and over protectiveness that is showered upon girls. Even goyishe parents do this.

This problem of reputations becomes compounded by the simple fact that you can’t tell personality by parents, money, by intelligence, good looks, or where they went to school as to the real personality of the person. Having the above mentioned things will make life easier for anyone, but it’s no guarantee of sanity. Lots of people are chameleons; they change colors quickly going from home to office to shul. A big tzadik in public could very well be a child abuser at home. The shmendrik with the worn out tallis gadol and the frumpy wife might just be producing offspring that are tremendously affectionate and caring people.

Unfortunately, I was raised with few women in my childhood, and the few there were, despite their overwhelming love and influence, were aged and none survived into my adolescent years. I didn’t have the coaching or the knowledge to make a good choice for myself. I had to rely on others, and they let me down. Big time. All I knew was that women, in the words of the Rov, were all ‘pink’ inside. If I only knew now what I didn’t know then.

I’ve always wondered how he knew that?

Smoke 'Em If Ya Got 'Em

(This post comes in response to the stupidity posted by Jewish Philosopher. Surely, the ‘philosopher’ thinks very highly of himself, but that self-delusion requires a lot of maintenance in terms of control and manipulation of one’s environs. I wish him luck. He’s going to need it.)

Years ago, I remember seeing advertisements for Virginia Slims (skinny cigarettes for women) that read "You've come a long way, baby!" Apparently, the cigarettes that men smoked were just too cumbersome for female fingers to handle. The objective was to convey the message that women should no longer restrict themselves to old-fashioned ideas about themselves. Like cultural norms and lung cancer, many things progress over time and, to me anyhow, it seems silly to stubbornly cling to old ideas when newer discovery renders them obsolete.

The critics of Evolution persist in hacking upon Charles Darwin, but conveniently skip over the 150 years of discovery, observation, and experimentation that occurred since his era. Darwin does not have to be 100% correct to be generally right; in the same manner that Freud, though many of his pet theories have been rejected or changed over time, opened the world to the scientific exploration of the psyche and its inner workings. As we do not rebuff all inquiry into human consciousness and behaviorism due to a theoretical mistake on Freud’s part, we should also not reject out of hand the entire study of Evolution based solely upon the ideas of Darwinism.

Darwin's "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was innovative in two ways. It summarized that organisms have descended with modification from a common ancestor, and advocated natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring; that part is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that it is often referred to as the fact of evolution. The mechanism (what factors drove it) is still under investigation.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient. Fitness in terms of power, size, and virility do play a part in an individual organism’s short terms ‘success’, but many species, once becoming too ‘successful’, become much too successful for their own good and end up in the dust heap of extinction. ‘Fitness’ is a situational concern. (Mankind needs to ponder this thought.)

Essentially, the Modern Synthesis introduced the connection between two important discoveries; the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (selection). It also represents a unification of several branches of biology that previously had little in common, particularly genetics, cytology (cells), botany (plants), paleontology, geology, mathematics, chemistry, anthropology, and physics. The study of Evolution is now interdisciplinary, with these seemingly non-related branches of scientific inquiry confirming and refining the results.

As in cigarettes and women's liberation, Evolutionary Theory has "come a long way, baby!”

Got a light?

11 Rules For A Popular Blog

1. Use a catchy and provocative name that either piques interest or induces vomiting. A harsh, insulting name will instigate trouble and create traffic, exponentially boosting your popularity.
2. Write exclusively on contentious subjects that people love arguing about. Be sure to make it personal. Calling names keeps the readers involved.
3. Limit your topics to mundane things. People love talking endlessly about their day, no matter how repetitious or boring it may be. Whatever you do, do not challenge them to think outside their ‘boxes’.
4. Be real, but not too real. People hate being reminded of their own realities when it leads to greater self-awareness.
5. Seem enigmatic. People love mysteries like that.
6. Be a whistleblower. The world is always curious about those who have left a faith, government agency, or strict religious cult. They want to know your dirty little secrets.
7. Be hateful or racist. Picking fights is a good way to get attention.
8. Copy and paste a lot. The more the better. No one cares what you think anyhow, so why mess with work that’s already finished? Saves a lot of time from doing rough drafts and proof-reading, too.
9. Don’t waste time on diction or grammar. People generally are forgiving of the illiterate, and the content will also escape scrutiny (as long as it doesn’t violate any of the aforementioned rules, 1-7)
10. Forget about being artistic. Nobody cares. “A picture may be worth a thousand words”, but no one reads more than 200 at a time, especially if they are ‘big’.
11. Do not intellectualize. Too much thought is dangerous for most people. Thinking also leads one to use more than 200 words per posting and, if you want your blog to be popular, that is a huge no-no. (See rule 10)
    

Rare Insanity Causes Freedom!

“Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844 - 1900)

War is the ultimate threat to individualism and freedom. In war, you are killed not for who you are, but rather for what you represent. There is nothing about war that secures the rights of individuals to do or say anything, because in war, there are no individuals. Whether you are sending the bullet or receiving it, you don’t count as you, only what you are perceived by a complete stranger as being to him. I cannot think of being held in less regard for my individual self in any situation than would occur in the mass chaos of war. That you are a father, a child, a musician, or a priest is nothing. A loving mother is no more than a statistic, and her dead or dying child merely a foot note in the annals of wartime atrocity. The man who threw the grenade receives honors, and the dead aren’t even allowed to tell him their names.

War is the psychotic mass-mobilization of nameless and faceless war-drones converging to a point from all directions, trained and commanded to murder, kill, and destroy the other nameless, faceless war-drones that oppose them. Each soldier has to wipe clean from his mind that this ‘enemy’ is a human being: fraught with fears, hopes, denials, and a biological drive to survive and sometimes, just like you and I, by any means necessary. After all, they have a ‘job’ to do and this ‘job’ takes precedent over your life. As they say, “Nothing personal. It’s just business.” It seems the soldier has to also forget that he, too, is an individual, and while in uniform and under strict orders, must shake off any pangs of conscience he or she might feel toward those they were told were their enemies.

So this is what it comes down to, eh? War is just another job? It is no small coincidence then that in wartime, civil liberties and individualism are seen as dangerous to a society. For war to be successful, the I, the me, and the you, must be purged from our memory banks, for the slightest bit of conscience would destroy all endeavor to destroy the endeavors of others seeking to destroy our own. The cycle continues unabated.

Peace is only thing a true individualist can abide. Individualism is not about being free to make any amount money you desire, or to behave in any way you wish regardless of consequence to others. Real individualism is freedom from being forgotten and disregarded by the masses in their hysteria over one sort of threat or another. Individualism is the personal touch of society and government. It demands limits on that overwhelming force or the masses, regarding your being as “endowed with inalienable rights” and privileges that accompany your natural existence, no matter how your individual tastes may differ from any margin, large or small, of the majority.

Individualism becomes defined by the civil liberties we enact to protect our selfhood. Civil rights are the boundaries placed on overwhelming ‘impersonal business’ practice, and those guaranteed liberties permit us to continue as individuals and matter in our personal being. I don’t care what the rest of the nation craves or abhors, I still matter. And so do you.

Next time someone tells you that war is about ‘freedom’ or ‘preserving rights’, call him or her out as the soul-less sacks of shit they really are. There are very few wars in history that were fought for noble causes and, in each of those, the men who went to war did so with the greatest caution and deliberation. It is no small thing to take another man’s life from him. In society, the individual who willfully kills another individual is treated as a pariah and imprisoned. If that same killer were to be wearing a uniform and marching under a flag, his murdering becomes miraculously transformed into an act of heroism and personal self-sacrifice. The only thing, sacrificed, however, was the conscience of the nation that ordered this man to set aside his own humanity.

Can you imagine a world where all soldiers refuse to fight? Such blissful and rare insanity! Such wonder!

“Irony is something that happens. Hypocrisy is something produced. Insanity is usually the result.” (SL Aronovitz, 1960 – not quite dead yet, but working on it)

Pavlov's Dogs of Peace?

“The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…. The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: “It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war.

Then the few will shout even louder…. Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it…

Next, the statesmen will invent cheap lies…and each man will be glad of these lies and will study them because they soothe his conscience; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just and he will thank God for a better sleep he enjoys by his self-deception.” (Mark Twain)

It is interesting how many people knowingly fall into the trap that Mr. Clemens warns us is set for the collective psyche of our nation. I watch the flag-wavers, warmongers, nationalists, militarists, and their ilk, and I wonder how it is they don’t know they are being manipulated by forces they can’t imagine exist. A few college level psychology courses and a seminar in marketing strategy would explain everything to them quite nicely.

Yet, even if we would show these barbarians the error of their ways, they would likely continue to bark and howl for war. The voices for ‘nationalized’ murder in uniform are always the loudest, always the shrillest cry of them all. It prevails not because it rings true to the majority, rather it rings, as a cash register rings, loudly in the ears of the industries and interests who make their wealth swimming in the war-blood of others.

Pavlov was a genius. He made me realize many years ago that the dog-human comparison was relatively absolute. Wave a flag, hang a wanted poster of a brown-skinned man with facial hair and a funny name, create all kinds of scenarios that might occur should we not march to war, and sit back to witness the war-dogs salivating at the opportunity to send another man to his death. Profit! Patriotism! Posterity!

There are, however, two sorts of dogs. There are dogs that hurl themselves against the fence, gnashing and growling at passersby big and small. These dogs are territorial, aggressive, and they operate out of fear. There are other dogs that, as you approach the fence, they place their paws atop the rail, give you a big sniff and kiss, and follow you quietly along the fence-line until you’re out of their sight. The latter is calm, friendly, secure, and though no less territorial, he has the temperament to create friends from possible enemies through a soft, happy approach. This dog was neither born nor raised to be in fear.

We have human beings among us that live in so much fear that if there is nothing to actually fear, they will certainly create something to fill that void. It is not that I believe there is nothing to fear at all anywhere, but that if we are constantly preoccupied with making war on conjured, imaginary enemies, then how would we have time and energy to recognize and deal with the real ones?

The man in false fear cannot be corrected. His fear or response to that fear cannot withstand any criticism because that fearing is vital to his psychological makeup. When you dissent from warmongering and bloodshed, even with rational and deliberate consideration, your critique is perceived as a personal attack. Why? Because it is very, very personal. Fear is so dominant that it becomes that person’s true identity.

If you happen to pass my home on a jog, walk, or stroll, please come up to fence and let me sniff you a little, get a pat on the head, and then I’ll follow you a short distance to say good-bye. The fence is just there to keep the other sort of dogs out.

Peace is secure. Peace is warm. Peace is kind. Peace is quiet. Peace is simple. Peace is painless.

I need a nap and maybe a fresh bowl of water. A tummy rub would be nice, too. I drool just thinking about it!

Kol Tuv