The latest issue of the Jewish Journal features a studious cover story on the Spinka Hasidim money laundering indictment.
I’m checking around the blogosphere and the story has created no comment. In shul, nobody talked about it. The piece was so dull that Torah Jews would rather daven than gossip this Shabbat.
Why? Because for all its words and details and pictures, the story contained no compelling details (though it did correct me on the shul that the Spinka rebbe attended in L.A. after making bail) . It didn’t add anything important to our understanding of the scandal. Like most Journal articles, it meant well.
I was chatting with a friend on Shabbos about the Jewish weeklies. "One thing you’ve got to say for Jewish journalism is that it is professional and responsible," I said. "The Jewish Journal, criticize it all you want, it is a professional newspaper. It is laid out well. It is very careful with its facts. The Jewish press is the best of the ethnic and religious presses. It’s far ahead of the black press, for instance."
Amy Klein’s story seems very exciting on the cover and it promises all sorts of insidery details, it’s like going on a third date and you’re sure you’re going to get laid, but in the end everything is just so bleedingly obvious and unfulfilling that late at night you have to go elsewhere to satisfy your needs (like hirhurim).
If Amy Klein had used that space to discuss her love life, she would’ve garnered 100 times as much buzz.
UPDATE:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/
Here’s a stupid comment to Chaptzem: "The Jewish Journal is not a correct forum for frum news. It is a rag of a newspaper that caters to the larger community of non observant jews. It is an anti chasidic, anti orthodox paper. The writer of the article was brought up frum and now doesn’t observe. She has an agenda to pursue. She is happy to report any kind of negative publicity about the frum jews of Los Angeles."
Here’s a good comment to Chaptzem: "Don’t shoot the messenger….The Jewish Journal has an Orthodox writer on staff, an Orthodox weekly columnist, publishes a monthly Orthodox magazine, has several Orthodox rabbis writing parshot and publishes numerous stories on all facets of the community. Is it possible The Journal is doing its job reporting on a serious indictment? Yes. Has it reported on the wrongdoing of Reform and Conservative rabbis? Of course. If The Journal has a bias it seems to be a bias against sweeping issues under the rug…"
Here’s a stupid comment to Vosizneias: "In this country you are innocent until proven guilty."
That’s true in a court of law. That is not necessarily true outside of the courtroom.
Here’s another stupid comment: "The nasty venomous sarcasm written by a Jew and printed in a Jewish Journal is inexcusable they are definitely guilty of defaming a Jewish community as a whole, for sensationalism. Shame on them, and may HaShem pay them back in kind that the hand that wrote that article should be incapacitated. HaShem has his ways either by Stroke, Cancer, Amputation etc. Lekayaim Uvuarto Harah Mikirbechu Lemaan Yeidu…"
Why does the Journal bother with all these high-minded articles when all I and my friends want to know is who’s keeping Danielle Berrin warm during these frigid Los Angeles winters? Has the excitement of meeting celebrities and partying till all hours begun to pall, creating an ache in her soul for something more lasting, more meaningful, more transcendent, and more manly? Does she feel an itch for the divine as much as I do and is Temple Sinai truly satisfying this or is she feeling like a broken dreidl that the world revolves around?
I wonder if Danielle would like to see my Torah etchings? She has a yen for fine art, as demonstrated by this January 9, 2008 blog post:
Underneath our clothes, we’re all naked. We’ve seen ourselves naked maybe thousands of times – some of us pose and stare, some cringe and cower, others barely notice their own flesh. The point is we’ve seen ourselves nude–what’s familiar is rarely scintillating. But how many other people do we get to see fleshy and exposed? I mean really see: ogle, stare, study. (Family doesn’t count.) When can we comfortably glare at the angular lineaments of a woman’s back, or the elegant arrangement of muscles surrounding a man’s pelvis (yes I know, besides Brad Pitt in "Fight Club")? Objectification and fetishization aside, when do we get to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, like sitting on couches or jumping into a lake distinguished only by being in the raw, unveiled and threadbare?
From ancient Greece to the pages of Playboy, images of the bare-skinned form are timelessly in vogue, and painters, photographers and filmmakers have been capturing that bodily essence for our viewing pleasure. Since early October, the Getty has displayed a small collection of nude photographs representing 29 photographers and spanning 160 years as part of their "In Focus" photography program, which highlights works in their permanent collection.
Man Ray, Ed Weston and Thomas Eakins seduce with their distinctive styles while Alfred Stieglitz exposes the petals of Georgia O’Keefe. Some of the works are elaborately staged and set, and others are simple portraits. A few photos challenge the body politic and distort common perceptions about nakedness. Unimpressed with a photo of a woman’s behind, my friend sought to prove his own artistic skill with a bit of mimicry and snapped a close-up of his thumb pressed against his pointer finger. It only incurred the dismay of the curator who scolded him for using the flash.
Though not reason enough to venture to the castle on the hill (as if we need an excuse), it does make for an intriguing half-hour or so among the museum’s more traditional fare. From the painterly to the natural, the real to the ideal, and even the grotesque, the photos offer a glimpse into the permutations of fantasy and form that reveal the body and captivate the mind.
(Clockwise from top: Man Ray, "Le Violon d’Ingres," 1924; Edmund Teske, "Nude, Davenport, Iowa, Composite with Leaves," negatives 1941 and 1946, printed 1960s; Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli, "Untitled Torso," 2001. All images courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles.)
"The Nude" is on display through February 24, 2008. The Getty Museum, 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles. 10 a.m.- 6 p.m. (Tues-Thurs and Sun), 10 a.m.-9 p.m. (Fri and Sat). Free. $8 parking.
