It was a sight Mar Vista doesn’t see every day — a guitar-studded procession of more than 100 Jewish revelers marching jubilantly down South Barrington Avenue with five Torah scrolls.
Members of Ohr HaTorah synagogue, which until this month held services at a church in West Los Angeles, donned sun hats and sneakers Aug. 8 to carry their Torahs south to the congregation’s new location — and first permanent home — on Venice Boulevard.
The walk was only 2.8 miles, but the journey was 15 years in the making.
"We finally have a place that feels like home," said Meirav Finley, who co-founded Ohr HaTorah with her husband, Rabbi Mordecai Finley. "We’ve been shlepping for 15 years, getting up at 5 a.m. and loading the prayer books. It’s time to focus our energy on other things."
The Finleys closed escrow on the new site Aug. 1, and renovation began within two days to ready the building for its first Friday night service less than a week later. On that Shabbat, the interior was still far from finished, but the bare walls and scant furnishings only amplified congregants’ joyous voices as they sang and danced around the Torah scrolls in the sanctuary.
Rabbi Finley said the decision to carry the Torahs on foot to the new facility wasn’t based on halachah (Jewish law). Instead, he said, it offered a symbolic parallel of the path the congregation had taken to reach a place of its own.
"It’s about the celebratory aspect," Finley said. "In a way, it symbolizes the journey of Ohr HaTorah. It’s also a way to honor the sifrei Torah, rather than just loading them into a car."
Finley said the move will let the synagogue expand spiritually focused classes and programs for its 300 member families.
"I think our infrastructure is ready to grow," he said. "We can certainly accommodate a greater number of people at services now."
Oh, sure, the sports fan in me likes what I’m seeing (Michael Phelps: pretty good, huh?). And yes, the pictures are gorgeous, from the steadicam flyovers of the Great Wall (all hail HD!) to the underwater shots at the swimming arena. But the journalist and human being in me isn’t quite so amused. It’s what NBC hasn’t, and probably won’t, show that gives me pause.
Political protests? Not on this channel; no sir. Beijing’s fearful pollution? Maybe, but only if a marathoner coughs up a lung or it spoils a beauty shot. Doping scandals? In passing, perhaps. Tibet? China’s role in Darfur? Now, wait just a second. . . The aftermath of the Sichuan earthquake? Why be unreasonable. . . Tiananmen? Mao’s barbarities? No, and hell no.
Okay, that’s not what the Olympics are about. The Olympics are basically a big international sports festival and global media event attached to a massive corporate marketing opportunity. I’ve got no problem with that. But they’re not not about those other things, either. Especially these Olympics, which are freighted with as much political baggage and extracurricular significance as any Olympiad since Moscow in 1980 — whether NBC wants to own up to it or not.
The closest NBC has come to addressing to any of these issues during primetime was during Bob Costas’s solid interview of President Bush on Sunday (this would be the interview in which Bush said, "First of all, I don’t see America having problems."). Costas also slipped in a couple of references during the Opening Ceremonies (he seemed particularly exercised about China’s denial of a visa to Joey Cheek, the Darfur activist and former American Olympian, but hasn’t said much about it since).
Apart from these glancing shots, however, NBC has succeeded in screening out anything unpleasant — that is, anything newsworthy — during its first five nights of coverage. Indeed, it has gone in precisely the opposite direction. NBC has depicted China as only the People’s Chamber of Commerce could, showing us a prosperous, harmonious and deeply beautiful nation, swathed in culture and garlanded by history.
I will never forget one of my early dates with Cary. We were walking Jerusalem’s streets. It was late, the silence was luminous. It was one of those moments when intimacy lets you enter for a moment. I asked Cary, ‘What do you pray for, in your heart of hearts, what do you most want to be?’ She became very quiet, I could tell she was deciding whether or not she was ready to offer up her truest, most vulnerable, answer to me. We walked on. She started a sentence, but faltered, silent. Finally, mustering a whisper, she told me, “When I pray for who I most want to be…” glancing over at me uncertainly, “I pray…to be God’s poetess, prophetess and priestess.” Her sincerity was so precious, so deep. I knew she felt silly, her most inside place exposed. I also knew then this was the woman I would marry.
Sadly as time went on I realized that it was not all that it seemed to be. But that is another story. Not for the blogs. I hope one day we will be able to work out how we hurt each other in our marriage and more significantly how we hurt each other after our marriage. One of the dangers of eros is the inability to face our own darkness. It is not all sweetness and light. Sometimes the desire to be a poetess is eros in pure form. And sometimes it is pseudo eros hiding a deep knowing fear that we are not the special one. And it was no less true that I was so caught up in my mission and my desire for the great partner, the great love, that I did not take care of Cary. She needed care and nourishing. I was distracted by the siren’s song. I betrayed her and in doing so betrayed Eros. That the betrayal was mutual and in the end, her mask dropped to reveal for a time not Kali but Kali in disheveled and distorted form, only makes me feel better when I am contracted.
Im tryin to hang in there.
Its tough. sitting shiva sux.
I think its just starting to hit me now though.
My anger is coming out pretty bad.
I want to post pix of my sis in the morgue but my bro
dosent want me to. I think it would be an in your
face gruesom wake up call that might cause a chane in the
attitude of this fucked up community.
I ask Leah who she’s mad at. She responds: "G-d, the world, the school that threw her out, my parents, myself
the whle fucking world. no one should have to bury a daughter. My mother buried two. My sister died when she was 10 months old in 1989."
Within the last few weeks, there have been three unfortunate incidents. Two had fatal outcomes. One, miraculously, did not. These episodes, their causes, and the ensuing response (or lack thereof), have prompted me to write this.
On Thursday, the 6th of Av, a daughter of a Crown Heights family died in her sleep. She overdosed on heroin. On Friday, the 7th of Av, a young man from a frum family in Baltimore was killed in a car accident. Both he and the driver were drunk. On Shabbos, the 23rd of Tammuz, a young man crashed into a bungalow colony and, thank G-d, escaped with minor injuries. He was drunk. The two boys were 16; the girl in her 20s.
Each of these incidents could have, and should have, been avoided. But they weren’t. Sadly, incidents like these will happen again, and again, and again. Unless we do something about it.
Over the last couple of years, the frum community has started to realize that they are not immune to the sicknesses which had previously only plagued the secular world. Diseases such as alcohol abuse, drug addiction, and depression, amongst others, are rearing their ugly heads among our own. The reaction from the majority of our community was (and is) to turn the other cheek, to chalk it up as a random occurrence, to believe that these issues will never affect them, their families, or their loved ones. There are those who are vocal, but unfortunately, they are far and few between.
The NJG: luke, check this out, people who regret having sex change therapy The NJG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyRQpIZFymc&feature=related The NJG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCZpQUDiQ4&feature=related The NJG: really interesting stuff The NJG: I’m totally against sex changes, because it IS mutiliation, and, also, it is most likely just a PHASE that certain men go through, like being gay is also a phase, for most of the younger gay guys The NJG: do you notice the onslaught of msm stories about how Obama is popular in areas that he wasn’t before? The NJG: Like the Newsweek article that said that Obama is going to take the south The NJG: which is absolute bullshit The NJG: and today the LA Times, did the same thing in Florida The NJG: this is stealth msm bs The NJG: bc they CAN"T change our minds The NJG: and they’re TRYING The NJG: by saying "oh it’s a trend! all the conservatives are now supporting Obama! Look" The NJG: and then like today’s LAT article, it’s ONE person who isn’t even SURE of it The NJG: ONE!!! The NJG: and the last name was Rodriguez The NJG: in florida
Rabbi Daniel Rabin loves to share memories of growing up Jewish in Johannesburg. He says the warmth, the close-knit community and the strong sense of tradition all typify the South African Jewish experience.
That’s exactly what Rabin wants to bring to L’Chaim Hebrew School, his new San Francisco institution for Jewish kids ages 5 to 13. The school is set to open officially Sept. 7.
“With a lot of [Hebrew] schools today, you have to be affiliated with a synagogue,” Rabin says. “But this is for anybody, to feed children knowledge they don’t get at home and school. We want to bring the South African style, which is very community-based, to San Francisco.”
L’Chaim will offer three basic programs. A two-hour Sunday school for kids ages 4 to 6, called First Step, introduces children to the holidays, prayer, Torah stories and elementary Hebrew. The regular Hebrew school, also two hours on Sundays, offers more advanced studies for ages 7 to 10. There is b’nai mitzvah training for kids 11 and up, much of it one-on-one tutoring.
Rabin runs the school with his wife, Sarah, a San Francisco native. Ordained at both Machon L’Horoah in Pretoria, South Africa, and Machon Ariel in Jerusalem, he comes to the Bay Area after a career in the kosher food industry, helping companies such as Kraft Foods with their kashrut compliance.
Yisroel Pensack emails JewishSF.com Editor Marc Klein:
Are Rabbi Rabin’s in-laws on welfare or receiving AFDC? Are the Rabins?
Does the house they all live in contain a shul?
What is Rabbi Rabin’s wife’s maiden name? What are the Rabin couple’s ages?
In view of Rabbi Rabin’s age, how can you write: "he comes to the Bay Area
after a career in the kosher food industry"? What is the shortest work
period required for a job or business to qualify as "a career" nowadays?
How has Rabbi Rabin supported his family since they’ve been living here in
SF? When did the Rabins relocate to SF, and why? Where and when was the
Rabins’ wedding held, and who paid for it? What hotel was it in? How many
people/guests attended their wedding? How much did their wedding cost?
Who, if anyone, pays Rabbi Rabin to be "working on outreach every day"? How
does he afford to feed himself, his wife and their two young children?
Who are some of the children pictured on the L’Chaim Hebrew School website?
What is theBarah Institute, and who’s behind it?
Are the Rabins Chabad-Lubavitch chassidim?
Did you and/or Dan Pine know these things or think of these questions when
you ran this puff piece?
Marc Klein responds: "I’m sure you know that he is Rabbi Pil’s son-in-law. We didn’t want to get into all that. I had length conversation with Rabbi Langer about this. I decided to handle it straight and to keep it short."
In April 2008, Los Angeles blogger and Internet muckraker Luke Ford posted an item claiming that one of Los Angeles’s major bloggers, Kevin Roderick who founded and writes LAObserved.com, may have fudged his claim of sharing two Pulitzer Prizes.
Roderick, a former LA Times editor has long claimed that he “shared” in the winning of two Pulitzer Prizes when he worked at the Los Angeles Times. Roderick’s bio on his web sites and that of other media outlets he contributes to, like LA talk radio station KCRW make that precise claim.
On his own LAObserved.com website Roderick states that … “He shared in two Pulitzer Prizes awarded for staff coverage of the Rodney King riots and the Northridge earthquake."
Turns out Roderick’s claims are false.
ERS News checked the claims made by Roderick of “sharing” in the winning of The Pulitzer. We contacted Columbia University, the administrator of the Pulitzer Prize awards. The awards are widely considered the most prestigious awards for print journalism in the world.
The facts, uncovered by ERS, show that Roderick’s claim to having been awarded or at the very least having “shared” in receiving a Pulitzer Prize are false and misleading.
The Enterprise Report obtained the Pulitzer award submissions made by the LA Times in 1993 and 1995, the two years that Roderick claims to have “shared” in the prizes. The submissions, submitted and signed by then LA Times editor Shelby Coffey are here for you to read.
The 1993 Pulitzer for “spot news reporting” was awarded to the LA Times for its coverage of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. The submission itself has a long list of stories and the specific names of reporters and photographers who contributed to the published articles that were given the Pulitzer award.
Kevin Roderick’s name does not appear anywhere on the submission that won the award.
The same holds true for the 1995 Pulitzer awarded to the Times for its coverage of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
The submission for the earthquake coverage award contains 12 different stories, with the specific names of over 25 bylined reporters and photographers who contributed to the articles submitted and awarded the Pulitzer. You can view the stories here:
Once again, Roderick’s name is nowhere to be found.
According to the rules of the Pulitzer Prize, when an award entry contains more than three named journalists, the award is given in the name of the “staff” of the publication.
The use of the term “staff” could be interpreted loosely to mean anybody who was working for the LA Times in 1993 and 1994 when the stories were published.
Therefore anybody, including former LA Times editor Roderick could make the claim to having “shared” in winning the Pulitzer Prize award.
ERS spoke with Sig Gissler, the administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes. He told ERS News that the intention of the awards is to acknowledge the actual journalists whose work is submitted in consideration for the award, by name in the category entered. It is not intended to allow anyone working for the publication at the time to claim that they are Pulitzer Prize winners. If that was not the case anybody working at the LA Times during that time period could make the same false claim of having “shared” in the winning of journalism’s most prestigious prize; any reporter or editor, or even to the person running the parking lot or the guard at the front door.
When questioned about the discrepancy in early 2008 after Luke Ford published his claim that Roderick had not actually won a Pulitzer Prize, Roderick told LA based blogger David Markland:
“Unlike the individual Pulitzers, on staff ones they give awards to all the writers and editors who had key roles on the stories — probably more than 50 in these cases. They don’t inscribe names on any Pulitzer trophies, I don’t think, but certainly not on staff ones. The plaques we all received for spot reporting in 1992 and 1994 are nice 5 x 7 inch lucite-type rectangles, with a replica of the front page embedded inside, and some wording about the prize at the bottom. I’m looking at my two right now — very dusty, but otherwise sort of nice looking. You can come over and see them anytime.”
Roderick also attacked Ford’s assertions when asked about his (Ford’s) motivation in publishing the allegations about his Pulitzer claims by saying
(Question by David Markland) .. “Do you know what Luke Ford’s motivation was for bringing this up now?”
"I have no idea what Luke Ford’s motivation is for posting something so unresearched and clearly erroneous.”
Turns out Luke Ford was 100% accurate about Kevin Roderick’s false claims of winning a Pulitzer Prize.
Roderick’s name is nowhere on the long list of stories, of LA Times journalists credited and bylined which were awarded the Pulitzer in 1993 and 1995 for Spot News Reporting.
Roderick even took his false claims a step further after being exposed by Blogger Ford. He implies that a plaque he and others received from the LA Times at the time was awarded by the Pulitzers.
The plaque Roderick is referring to when answering blogger Markland’s question, is NOT a Pulitzer Prize award. It is a plaque handed out by the paper itself. Another former LA Times reporter named Mack Reed, who worked at the LA Times during the same period, read Roderick’s claims about being a Pulitzer winner.
He had this to say about Roderick’s less than accurate claims.
Mack Reed (mackreed) April 4th, 2008 3:40 pm Hell, I worked on both those "Pulitzer" teams (riots and Northridge quake), and even have nice plexiglass paperweights issued by the Times to show for it. OTOH, I never list it on my resume because I was one of about 75 staffers who covered those ongoing events.
In an interview with LA website “LAist” shortly after the questions were raised about his claims of winning a Pulitzer Prize, Roderick admitted that the only thing he did to contribute to the award winning work done by dozens of other LA Times reporters and photographers credited with the award in 93 and 95 was the following:
“While I was an editor on the state desk, I participated in helping direct the coverage first of the L.A. riots in 1993 and then the Northridge earthquake in 1994. Those both won staff Pulitzer Prizes.”
Although The Pulitzer Prizes award a myriad of awards in variety of categories, some of which have changed over the years, they don’t award the prestigious journalistic prize for “directing coverage” or to news editing. So it seems one of LA’S leading bloggers has some questions to answer about his Pulitzer claims.
Does that mean that everyone who worked on these series (must be more than 50 people) shared in these Pulitzers? Does it mean his name is inscribed on the Pulitzers (awarded in 1993 and 1995, right?)? I don’t think you can claim a Pulitzer unless you were specifically awarded one.
Ford adds that he doesn’t believe Roderick’s name wasn’t on any of the winning articles bylines, and that he was only an editor. ” It seems like a stretch to say that you shared in a Pulitzer when your name wasn’t on any of the stories awarded.”
I have a friend who won an Emmy and I took him out to dinner. Maybe I should claim that I’ve won an Emmy?
I emailed Roderick a couple questions for comment. His response:
Unlike the individual Pulitzers, on staff ones they give awards to all the writers and editors who had key roles on the stories — probably more than 50 in these cases. They don’t inscribe names on any Pulitzer trophies, I don’t think, but certainly not on staff ones. The plaques we all received for spot reporting in 1992 and 1994 are nice 5 x 7 inch lucite-type rectangles, with a replica of the front page embedded inside, and some wording about the prize at the bottom. I’m looking at my two right now — very dusty, but otherwise sort of nice looking. You can come over and see them anytime.
Do you know what Luke Ford’s motivation was for bringing this up now?
I have no idea what Luke Ford’s motivation is for posting something so unresearched and clearly erroneous. Michael Higby never needs any reason to post untrue things about me… this must be number 200 or so so that one’s no surprise at all. I don’t trust the accuracy or the ethics of anything at Mayor Sam, and I don’t know anyone in L.A. politics who does.
Roderick also addressed Ford’s comments that questioned why Roderick called a Times reporter “a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter” while Ford was told the award was “for beat reporting, not investigative reporting.”
The stories that Philips did for his Pulitzer were investigative reporting. That’s his slot and his profile at the Times. There’s nothing about a Pulitzer for beat reporting that conflicts with “investigative reporter.” Eric Longabardi [who told this to Ford] knows this, but he’s actively mad that I don’t link to his website more often. I have dozens of screed emails from him to show for it, unfortunately.
*UPDATE: The confusion over Chuck Philips may be an issue of semantics – his Pulitzer was indeed for Beat Reporting, while there is a seperate category for Investigative Reporting (which went to the staff of the Miami Herald that year). His award winning beat reporting was for stories “on corruption in the entertainment industry, including a charity sham sponsored by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, illegal detoxification programs for wealthy celebrities, and a resurgence of radio payola,” which sounds like would have been investigative reporting to me. [Details]
Q. How many individuals may be named in a team entry? A. Only three individuals. If more are involved, the entry must be in the name of the newspaper staff of the newspaper.
In Jeremy Obersteins interview, Roderick says, “While I was an editor on the state desk, I participated in helping direct the coverage first of the L.A. riots in 1993 and then the Northridge earthquake in 1994. Those both won staff Pulitzer Prizes.”
Nova Southeastern University in Florida. "I’m extremely excited about this opportunity," Goodman told The Jewish Press, having spent his last season in the United States playing for the Premier Basketball League‘s Maryland Nighthawks. five years, again underperforming. Several knee injuries also plagued him throughout.
Tamir Goodman, the 26-year-old Orthodox Jewish basketball player who once seemed destined for stardom, is returning to Israel to play for the Maccabi Haifa Heat.
He signed during a two-day tryout at Nova Southeastern University in Florida. "I’m extremely excited about this opportunity," Goodman told The Jewish Press, having spent his last season in the United States playing for the Premier Basketball League’s Maryland Nighthawks.
Goodman became a media sensation in 1999 when the University of Maryland took note of his 35.4 points per game at Baltimore’s Talmudical Academy and offered him a scholarship despite his commitment never to play on Shabbat. Sports Illustrated dubbed him the "Jewish Jordan."
Tamir Goodman
However, soon afterward his career took a downturn. The University of Maryland ultimately could not accommodate Goodman’s Shabbat needs, and he signed with Towson University. After two disappointing seasons, Goodman moved to Israel where he played for four different teams over five years, againunderperforming.
Goodman, however, remains upbeat. "I feel like the most blessed person in the world. I’ve played in Division I basketball in the United States and in Israel without playing in Shabbos. I have two kids and coached 24,000 young people."
Much uncertainty remains in the wake of Israel’s High Rabbinical Court ruling in May that voided all conversions performed by Rabbi Chaim Druckman since 1999.
Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar promises the decision will not stand, while the RCA calls the ruling "entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice." Dozens of major Israeli religious Zionist rabbis also support Rabbi Druckman.
The case now stands in Israel’s Supreme Court.
Rabbi Druckman is the chairman of Bnei Akiva in Israel, rosh yeshiva of Or Etzion, a former Knesset member, and outgoing head of the Conversion Authority.
The Jewish Press recently spoke to Rabbi Druckman about the conversion controversy, the philosophy of Bnei Akiva, and where he thinks Israel is heading.
What is the current status of the converts in question?
They are Jews. Nobody can take their Jewishness away from them. This is the truth. But still, the psak din harms those who converted. There will definitely be different rabbinates that will not register them for weddings.
That’s a problem.
Yes. Practically we can help them go to those rabbinates that will register them, but still it’s no good.
Are we talking about hundreds of converts? Thousands?
Believe me, I don’t know the number. But it doesn’t matter because each and every one is a human being, not a number, so it doesn’t matter how many there are.
What was the main issue of contention between you and the beit din that opposed you?
I think the difference is that we think we have a responsibility for Am Yisrael. Those immigrants who came from Russia suffered for being Jewish. For about 70 years, the Russians took away from Jews everything which belonged to their being Jewish; they punished Jews and Jews suffered. Non-Jews who married Jews also suffered because the Russians considered them Jewish.
Therefore, when [these Russian non-Jews] come here, I think it’s a great mitzvah if they want to become Jewish to do everything to help them become an integral part of Am Yisrael.
But some of your critics maintain that to attain this goal you have lowered the standards for conversion.
No, no! We are not lowering any standards of conversion, it’s false, it’s not true! We are doing everything according to the halacha.
What is the future of conversions in Israel?
I really don’t know. Look, I hope that we will continue in the same way because if we won’t find a way to help [these Russian non-Jews] become Jewish there are going to be, unfortunately, mixed marriages. Their children will grow up, speak Hebrew, serve in the army, be a part of Medinat Yisrael and there will be a danger of mixed marriages.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
