Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Larry King Ill?

Posted on November 4, 2007 by Luke Ford

Drudge is linking to the smokinggun.com – there is a lawsuit by Larry King regarding some insurance stuff. It sounds complicated and is. But what the media is missing from all this is the admission by Larry King that Larry King has a pretty serious illness.

It goes like this.

The lawsuit is about a typical "life settlement" scheme, basically a way to screw over the insurance companies. By the way, Larry’s lawsuit is the tip of this little insurance scheme iceberg, and yet again, the Wall Street sharpies have now endangered the life insurance market, just like they basically shafted the U.S. housing market.

Back to our story. See, when the insurance companies sell life insurance, one of the ways they make money is by the policy owners failing to pay premiums after a few years and the policy lapses. It is a known statistical occurrence that allows life insurance companies to sell policies on the cheap and drum up business.

As a rough example, if you were a man in your 70s, the life insurance companies will sell you $10,000,000 of life insurance for say something like $150,000-$200,000 a year, and let’s say you pay the premiums for 3 or 4 years – the insurance company gets half a million bucks and has yet to pay out a dime.

Now after a few years, you do not want the insurance – maybe you can’t afford it or maybe you just do not need it – and you let it lapse by not paying the premiums, the reason makes no difference. Well, you do not get your premiums back, the insurance company pockets it. Your bad and very good for the insurance company.

Well, say at the end of those 3 years, if you were in your late 70s and in bad health – that policy may have some value to someone who could maintain the policy – for instance, an investor might pay you a million bucks to buy that policy. After all, the investor just has to pay $150,000-$200,000 a year, and when you meet your maker, the investor gets $10,000,000 cash. That is not a bad return on investment. My numbers may be off, but this is called the "life settlement" market – basically it is a secondary market for "used" insurance policies, just like used cars, except the used policies are not the family chevy sold to gomez and sons, it is bought by very well heeled investors with a profit motive so strong that they are willing to play a little dead pool on old men. It costs the insurance company loads of money, because now they have to pay off this policy that would otherwise lapse.

So what the defendant in the King lawsuit did was get Larry King to sell the insurance he had and buy new insurance to enter into one of these buy and swap schemes, except that under the new scheme, they did not even have Larry hold the new insurance for 2-3 years (you are supposed to have this lead time because it is sort of against public policy to buy and resell insurance – and the insurance company can cancel the policy – to buy insurance if you intend to resell it – this is to avoid people using life insurance as a wagering item – which is exactly occurred here), The scheme here worked for reasons almost too complext to deal with, and because the insurance Larry purchased in 2004 is now three years old, not even the life insurance company can contest it even though the policy was used for wagering – state law gives an insurance company (i think) two or three years – at the most – to contest a policy – so that the policy on Larry’s life, absent an order of God or action of the legislature, will probably be collected.

Back to Larry, when Larry’s new big $10,000,000 policy changed hands (well, the beneficiary changed from Larry to a hedge fund) Larry King got a payoff of half a million bucks simply for his trouble of applying for life insurance.

Well, it worked. Larry made, by his own admission, a cool half mill on the insurance when the hedge fund became the beneficiary.

The only rub is that the $10,000,000 in insurance that benefited Larry’s estate is now owned by some hedge fund and when Larry dies, the $10,000,000 that his wife and kids would have gotten, will not be there.

Well, this rub is easily fixed and was probably explained to Larry, in that he could just get a new policy after the sale and his pocketing of a half mill. Basically, Larry was told he was making a risk free half mill, and he could just get new insurance to replace the old one.

So why is Larry unhappy? He made a half mill, and if as his lawsuit claims, he is pissed that he does not have insurance anymore, he could just take a medical and get a new policy.

Well, the lawsuit hints (and a little too obviously if you ask me, but I am not Marshall Grossman, king of the jewish litigators in Los Angeles) that there is a problem with Larry’s insurability – that maybe Larry cannot get insurance cause, well, his health sucks out loud.

I am not saying that Larry is having a conversation with Forest Lawn, but if I was Ryan Seacrest, I might be trading up to the CNN mike soon.

Posted in Gossip | Comments Off

The Britney Spears Of The Orthodox Union

Posted on November 3, 2007 by Luke Ford

Instead of davening mincha and ma’ariv and talking to people at the Sabbath’s third meal, I sat on my own and read Rabbi Eliyahu Safran’s new book, "Sometimes You Are What You Wear! An Argument For Modesty."

And there blazed across the cover was his name!

Why do those who write about modesty and humility always take care to prominently feature their name on their work?

Rabbi Safran is the Britney Spears of the Orthodox Union.

If you doubt me, check out the back cover. Not only is there a picture of this modesty author, there are reams of decidedly immodest self-praise (you can argue he did not write these self-descriptions but he surely approved them):

Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran serves as Vice President of Communications & Marketing of the Orthodox Union, the world’s largest and most respected kosher certification agency, where he has been serving as Senior Rabbinic Coordinator and New Companies rabbinic coordinator for the past 13 years. He has escorted hundreds of companies around the world including in Turkey, India, Egypt, Argentina and Greece through the complexities of kosher certification.. He is also the Editor in Chief of Behind the Union Symbol, the highly acclaimed OU magazine considered as the finest kosher trade journal.
Rabbi Safran is renowned as a charismatic scholar in residence visiting at schools and synagogues around the country, dynamic rabbi, educator, lecturer and author – having served in both rabbinic and educational leadership positions. Rabbi Dr. Safran was educated at Yeshiva University in New York where he received rabbinic ordination and a master’s of science degree. In addition to his degrees from Yeshiva University, Rabbi Safran also received a doctorate in Administration. He taught Jewish history and philosophy at Yeshiva University, and led a major Pittsburgh Orthodox congregation and served as principal of highly regarded schools in Pittsburgh, New York and New Jersey.
The scion of a distinguished rabbinic family – his late father was Chief Rabbi of Jasi, Romania and later Professor of Jewish Education at Yeshiva University and his grandfather was the rabbinic leader and Jewish legal authority of Romania, the author of major Jewish legal works.
Rabbi Safran is the author of several works, including Kos Eliyahu: Insights into the Haggadah and Passover which is now in its second printing. He is married to Klari Safran, internationally renowned designer and manufacturer of Clary’s Wigs. Together, they have nine children.

Rabbi Safran’s employer sent out this immodest press release:

OU KOSHER’S RABBI DR. SAFRAN’S NEW BOOK, SOMETIMES YOU ARE WHAT YOU WEAR: AN ARGUMENT FOR TZNIUT (MODESTY), TAKES ON STANDARDS OF (UN)DRESS THAT VIOLATE JEWISH AND HUMAN MORAL PRECEPTS
Profoundly distressed by what he sees as a breakdown in the morals of a sex-drenched society in which women’s dress – or lack of same — emphasizes bare skin over modesty, a leading Orthodox Union rabbi has written a searing and insightful book calling for a return to the values that have been emphasized for centuries in Jewish life.
These values are summed up in the word tzniut – modesty. And these values are not only for Jews.
Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran is the author of Sometimes You Are What You Wear: An Argument for Tzniut, newly released by Xlibris, a Philadelphia-based publisher. Rabbi Safran, Senior Rabbinic Coordinator and Vice President of Communications and Marketing of the Kosher Division of the Orthodox Union, usually spends his time dealing with companies around the world on the process of certifying their products as kosher, as well as directing a wide variety of OU educational programs for the Jewish community regarding kosher laws and practices. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the acclaimed quarterly magazine, Behind the Union Symbol, which explains all facets of OU certification for executives and staffs of companies that are OU certified and for thousands of others in the food industry.
However, as a long-time spiritual leader and educator in Jewish schools in Pittsburgh, New York and New Jersey, he inevitably saw the absence of modesty among today’s youth as a severe problem that had to be addressed for Jewish and non-Jewish audiences alike. The book is the anti-Paris Hilton, the anti-Britney Spears, the anti-Lindsay Lohan. Rather, it is a impassioned call for the wisdom of the ages to make itself felt in today’s world.
A Powerful Message
The book’s message is powerful yet sensitive, contemporary yet filled with the wisdom of the ages, and has already been lauded by spiritual leaders and social thinkers as a volume long-awaited in our confused society.
One of those spiritual leaders is Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, OU Executive Vice President.
“I am in the unique and privileged position to have known Rabbi Eliyahu Safran since his youth. I have been witness to his growth into a foremost rabbinical figure,” Rabbi Weinreb declared. “This new book on the topic of personal modesty is but the most recent of his vital contributions to our sacred literature — all based on impeccable sources, and all relevant to the contemporary reader. He is able to blend his stunning erudition with his keen insight into today’s society. Kol HaKavod (all glory), Reb Eliyahu,” Rabbi Weinreb said.
"Modest dress is an essential part of the atmosphere of NCSY," declared Rabbi Steven Burg, International Director of the OU’s youth program. "It is understood for young men and women alike in our programs that the way you dress can help to increase a person’s self-esteem. Rabbi Safran’s book should be must reading in all homes in which a teen lives, both for the young person and for parents, to reinforce the values that lead to proper dress and an increased positive self-image."
The Decaying Morality of Modern Man
Rabbi Safran associates today’s fashion phenomenon with the decaying morality of modern man, and calls on the ancient wisdom of tzniut as a remedy. “How we behave in the world – how we face ‘outward’ – is a question of ethics,” Rabbi Safran maintains. “How we behave in holiness – how we face ‘inward’ – is a question of morals.”
Rabbi Safran emphasizes the need to incorporate tzniut if we are to save our children from the superficiality, decadence and damaging influences of our modern, “progressive” society. The book opens with the simple question: “What can an Orthodox rabbi tell me about my children or my life?”
Plenty, it turns out. Rabbi Safran discuses the modern world, the power of spirituality, and the particularly powerful religious worldview of Judaism. He presents the traditional view of modesty in the context of Judaism’s unique way of looking at the world. Judaism seeks an appropriate balance between the physical and the spiritual, denying neither and recognizing that the beauty of God’s creative wisdom inhabits both.
He takes the position that the modern world has turned children into “commodities” that serve to benefit a corporate bottom line but not the children themselves. He declares that the superficiality of the modern world, with its emphasis on body image, has done a profound disservice to our youth, with the result being illicit sexual encounters, alcohol and drug abuse, and eating disorders among other psychological struggles.
Tzniut, on the other hand, teaches the reader not simply to “look,” but to “see with meaning.” It teaches how to focus upon some aspect of creation and not to see just its outer, most superficial quality, but instead its inner, more meaningful aspects. Discussing the concepts of “outside” and “inside,” Rabbi Safran maintains that physical appearance should be designed to call attention to one’s worth and nobility, to a good soul. “Beauty diminishes but a good name endures,” Rabbi Safran says, quoting Jewish writings. Tzniut is the way to achieve an enduring good name.
The 157-page book is priced at $19.99 for the trade paperback and $29.99 for the cloth hardback. The book is available from the publisher at xlibris.com or 888-795-4274. The books’s website is www.modestybook.com.

Is it kosher for the author of a book on modesty to describe himself as "a charismatic and dynamic rabbi, educator, lecturer an author"? It’s certainly not charismatic to call yourself charismatic.

I’ve read a ton of books on modesty (the best of the lot was by Gila Manolson (The Magic Touch). Fat lot of good it’s done me. I’m doomed to spend the rest of my life having really hot but ultimately meaningless sex (which tends to grow old after about 20 years).

I email Rabbi Safran:

Dear Rabbi Safran,
Thank you for your book. I read it today.
I’ve got some questions (for publication) which may seem rude but they’re real.
* If modesty is so great, why put your name on the cover? Why describe yourself as "charismatic" and all the other superlative self-praise on the back cover?
* Fame is one of the good things God promises Abraham… It must not be so bad.
* Many Jewish women have saved the Jewish people through immodest behavior (Esther, Lot’s daughters, Monica Lewinski)…
* Without the desire for distinction, recognition and self-assertion, people will only do the minimum to get by.
* Why do we need another book on modesty? There are a ton out there, many of them Jewish.
* Where does your book break new ground on this topic?
* Howard Stern – is he good for the Jews?

Rabbi Safran responds:

Women (many) who have read the book, found that it gave them a renewed sense of self, dignity and respect not conveyed in similar books on the subject…Issues relating to modesty cry out for more and continued intelligent discussion on the subject in all segments of society… thus the book. Hopefully you found the book’s positive messages, as well…

Posted in Eliyahu Safran, Modesty | Comments Off

How To Be A Moral Manwhore

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

Chelsea Summers writes in the December issue of Penthouse:

A manwhore may f— anything that moves, but a moral manwhore puts in a call the next day. A moral manwhore is a guy who has sex to please both himself and his partners, and he’s a man who takes responsibility for his actions…
If you know you’re just looking for sex without strings, then be direct and up front…
A moral manwhore makes sure that the woman he’s with has as good a time as he does.
You owe it to yourself — as well as to your partners — to figure out why you’re doing the women you’re doing, because not all motivations are healthy ones.
I’ve known guys who take their anger out on women by sleeping with anything that moves, or are kind of addicted to the first blush of love and the heady pheromone rush that goes along with it. Still others take brutal pleasure in the head game of making some chick fall in love with them, then heartlessly dumping her.
Pick the right girl: You need to figure out how to separate the sex-flexible from the relationship-rigid.
…[M]any women who are interested in you for sex and sex only will identify themselves as feminists.
It’s always gentlemanly to wear a condom.
Postcoital cuddling is part and parcel of moral manwhoring.

I love this article but I think it’s a delusion. You can’t be promiscuous and not hurt people, yourself and society.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off

‘Try not to think about Huma’s hands caressing Hillary’s body as her lips and tongue move gently down…’

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

Ewoks writes on Fark.com: "I almost wish at Hillary’s inauguration ceremony, Hillary would push Bill aside and give this aide a really hot passionate kiss while giving us all the bird with her finger just to freak out the haters and the wingnuts."

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off

Political Porn

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

David Remnick writes in The New Yorker July 4, 2005:

On the strength of name recognition and a solid freshman term in the Senate, Hillary Clinton appears to lead all other potential candidates for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008. But Senator Clinton cannot become President of the United States. The reason, as her latest pornographer, Edward Klein, makes plain, is the lesbian situation. It is entirely possible, Klein allows, that the junior senator from New York is not herself a Sapphic practitioner. But she imbibed the “culture of lesbianism” as an undergraduate at Wellesley College in the nineteen-sixties; she has certainly known a few lesbians in her time (many names are unearthed); she definitely read a Methodist magazine called motive that published, among others, Rita Mae Brown, the author of a “lesbian novel”; and once, at a White House reunion of her Wellesley classmates, she rubbed the “butch cut” hairdo of one Nancy Wanderer, remarking, lesbianically, “Maybe I’ll get a haircut like this and really shock everyone.”
Reading “The Truth About Hillary,” one can easily envision Klein’s wellappointed desk in mid-composition, an antique lamp casting a lambent beam on his files of political smut. The evidence of Senator Clinton’s moral turpitude (beginning, but not ending, with her contact with known lesbians) is girded by a historian’s sense of enterprise—interviews with disgruntled West Wing footmen, gratuitous political “analysts,” and the “clinical sexologist” Dr. Claudia Six. And the craft? Ask yourself whether Samuel Eliot Morison could reel off sentences on the order of “But Hillary’s celestial ambitions were thwarted by a catch-22.”
And so “The Truth About Hillary” has, despite critical demurral on both the left and the right, been launched into the upper reaches of the Amazon best-seller list, where it now does lonely battle with “1776,” “Freakonomics,” and advance orders for “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” Unlike the disgruntled G-men, disgraced pollsters, and spurned lounge chanteuses who usually write these books, Klein is said not to be an interested party. He is not an ideologue. He is an experienced freelancer, a former editor of the Times Magazine and a former foreign editor of Newsweek. He begins his story with a White House butler making his way across the West Sitting Room to an eat-in kitchen where “the Big Girl”—a staff nickname for the First Lady, we are informed—and the President take their breakfast. Then, in lieu of cornflakes, we are served a bowl of innuendo:
…[Dick] Morris defined the foul lines in January, 1998, when he said, on KABC talk radio, “What I’m about to say isn’t necessarily a fact. . . . But let’s assume, O.K., that his [Bill Clinton’s] sexual relationship with Hillary is not all it’s supposed to be. Let’s assume that some of the allegations about Hillary sometimes not necessarily being into regular sex with men might be true.”

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off

Hillary Watch

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

From Wondertrash:

This isn’t the first time that the Hillary lesbian angle has come up. It’s made the rounds of gossip message boards. (That particular message board also claims that George and Laura Bush are separated, because W has starting drinking, and become abusive.) There was a line in one episode of the Simpsons – a ‘flashforward’ episode – where they make reference to some one being elected as America’s first non lesbian female President. It’s generally considered to be a Hillary reference (ie if Hillary became the 1st woman pres). Also the A List claims that Hillary did actress Markie Post (Fall Guy & Night Court) in the Lincoln Bedroom. I think that it has been confirmed that Post was a guest in the White House. Even Bill Clinton has purportedly joked to close friends [p.41 of Flowers’ autobiography “Gennifer Flowers: Passion and Betrayal”] that "Hillary’s eaten more pussy than I have". As if that were even possible.

GQ magazine also had the story, but weer forced to sit on it when the Clinton people threatened to withhold interviews with former President Bill CLinton

More on the story

The fair Ms. Abedin has made it into Wikipedia, the first sign of burgeoning celebrity – although Wiki is considering deleting her, in wake of the contravery. Wike comments on her striking appearance, competency, and the ‘general confusion concerning her personal life’.

This story is picking up momentum even as I post. Check out Luke Ford. The Huffington Post is getting in on the act, by way of responding with it’s usual clever invective, like using the term ‘dipshit’ to describe Musto. Wait a minute. That’s not clever invective. It’s a cheap shot! Then again, Huffington blogger Susan Madrak seemed to get fixated on the term ‘body person’ as applied to Ms Abedin. It was the Observer that refered to Abedin as Hillary’s ‘body person’. Madrak thought it needed some clarification. The term means a No. 1 staffer. Maybe it was just Madrak’s attempt to discrdit the rumour by not directly addressing it(They’re also carrying another Hillary vs the Justice Dept. article). Another juicy tibit from LibertyPost. Website AtlasShrugged had something to say as well. An Ayn Rand reference – wonder what their poltical persuasion is? The Ostroy Report along with a photoshopped pic of Hillary as Rambo. Covert History is covering it as well.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off

And God said: let’s have some light, mate

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

From the Sydney Morning Herald, July 13, 2006:

THERE was this sheila who came across a snake-in-the-grass with all the cunning of a con man. The snake asked her why she didn’t just grab lunch off the tree in her garden.
God, she said, had told her she’d be dead meat if her fruit salad came from that tree, but the snake told her she wouldn’t die. So she took a good squiz and then a bite and passed the fruit on to her bloke. Right then and there, they’d realised what they’d done and felt starkers.
So begins the Biblical account of the fall of mankind retold using "strine", or Australian vernacular.
The first instalment of Kel Richards’s Aussie Bible was a runaway bestseller, selling 100,000 copies since its August 2003 release.The second instalment gives the "Aussie" treatment to the Book of Genesis, Proverbs, the Gospel of John and John’s first letter, translating the stories of Adam and Eve and the beginning of time using well-worn, laconic Australian vernacular.
As Richards, wordsmith, journalist and committed Christian, puts it, God was tinkering around in his workshop when "out of the blue, God knocked up the whole bang lot".

From comments on Fark.com:

For Bruce so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. No poofters.
– Bruce 3:16
"And Jesus broke the billawompus and and said ‘eat of this, for it’s my body that I have dingledinkumed for you’"
You call that a crown of a thorns?
*This* is a crown of thorns.
Put another Savior on the crucifix for ya, mate?
Jesus… it’s Australian for Salvation.
"I reckon you should let my people go"
"Theh ah some ‘oo think Chroist put ‘is digiridoo in a sheila named Mary Magdalene."
The dingo got my baby jebus!
Commandment no.1: No Poofters
/Mary is a good Sheila, Bruce, and not at all stuck up.
And Jesus said to his new disciple, "Are you not called Bruce? That’s going to cause a bit of confusion!"
Oeyy, take this beer, for its me blood. The blood of the new and everlasting deal. Brake a deal, face the wheel.
"but then a Kiwi drove by, in ‘is ute. ‘E picked up the sick bloke, and drove ‘im to the pub for a bit of brekkie and a throw-down. Now, who was more of a neighbour to the sick bloke? Too right, mate. You lot otter do that."
And the disciples gathered at the last barbeque. Bruce handed each a vegemite sandwich and said "Get this inta ya. Its me right leg which kicked 50 points against St Kilda last season." After which he brough forth an icy cold beer and said "Everyone take a skull, the esky’s full".
Lo, the disciples partied into the night singing Cold Chisel hymns, till the cops came.
"And the Lord said ‘Eat, for this is my body,’ and we all said ‘strewth, mate, this could use a bit of Vegemite.’"

Posted in Australia | Comments Off

CONFRONTED BY LAPD COP

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

ERSNews.com reports:

Luke Ford is a well known blogger and writer in Los Angeles. Luke tells ERS he was on his way to the library On Halloween to drop off some books he had checked out. He stumbled across what could be a crime scene, a dead guy with a white sheet over him and the LA Fire Department on scene. Some yellow tape was up, but the cops had yet to arrive. Luke had his cell phone with him and took some snapshots and cell phone video. A member of the LA Fire Department asked Luke not to take pictures. Luke moved on and headed home. At home, he got his video camera and returned to the scene. The LAPD was there and the area was sealed off with crime tape. Luke had a video camera and what transpired next can be seen here.
Why this LAPD cop saw fit to harass Luke Ford, we don’t know. What the video shows is an LAPD cop who seemly needs a little "media training." When confronted by the cop Luke follows his demands, although the officer had no right to be trying to get stop Luke from documenting the scene from a public street in a public place. Luke as you can hear on the tape was nothing less than friendly to the officer when he demanded to see some kind of ID from Ford. He wanted to see a "press pass," the one issued by the LAPD. Although Luke supplied an LA Press Club identification, which the officer noted was expired, Luke offered to provide him his business card but the officer wasn’t interested. The officer was extremely hostile and confrontational. In the end, Luke thought the better of it and left the scene.
ERS views this incident as a great example of how the LAPD operates on the streets of LA in recent years. We’ve had our own run-ins with them on occasion, both in the "official" mainstream media way and in what We’ll call the "new" media way. The LAPD seems to believe it can determine who ‘legitimate" media is and who isn’t. Note to LAPD, you can’t and you shouldn’t. An attitude of we’ll decide who the MEDIA is and who it Isn’t. That’s not the way it works in a country with a free press.
Last year ERS co-founder Eric Longabardi exposed the LAPD’s ineptness and indifference when it came to the ever burgeoning business of paparazzi on the streets of Los Angeles. People. who like Luke have nothing more than a camera and the ability to take a picture from a public place. ERS thinks the LAPD might be behooved to give its officers a little "media training" before sending them out in the City of Angels.

Posted in Eric Longabardi, Personal | Comments Off

Olmert’s Cancer and the Propriety of Linking Punishment With Sin

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

Elliot Resnick writes:

Rav Shlomo Aviner said that one may not state that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert developed cancer because of his present or future policies regarding Jerusalem, the settlements etc.
He said that man does not know the reasons of the Almighty and that, after all, everyone knows that bad things happen to good people and vice versa.
Furthermore, he said, by blaming Olmert’s illness on his policies one is committing the sin of distressing a fellow human being.
Finally, he recognizes that the motivation of linking Olmert’s illness to his policies may be noble, for it may inspire people to repent for their own misdeeds. However, he makes the astonishing claim (forgive my language) that "this generation will not repent out of fear. This generation will only repent out of love. This is all explained by our Master, Rav Kook…."
I have a hard time knowing where to begin.
Identifying sin where one sees punishment is so basic to Judaism that I find it difficult seeing people pretend that doing so is wicked. The Ohr HaChayim famously said that the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492 because they devoted too much time to the study of secular philosophy. During the Holocaust, many rabbis wrote letters in which they prefaced their description of current events with the phrase "ba’avonoseinu harabim — because of our many sins."
Many are the stories kids read growing up of the evil person who raises his hand to strike a tzaddik only to to discover his hand paralyzed in mid-air. Are we to suppose that his paralysis is unrelated to his sin of raising a hand to a holy man? Are we supposed to make no inference one way or the other?
Yes, bad things happen to good people, but that is a question (and an exception), not the rule.
Making a personal declaration to an ordinary person that he or she is suffering because of this or that sin seems cruel. However, Olmert is not an ordinary person; he is the prime minister of Israel, representing the Jewish nation to the whole world. Surely different rules apply.
Rav Aviner’s final assertion that people only repent out of love is staggering. Does he not know a whole array of people who repent for all sorts of reasons? Rebuke worked for thousands of years but mysteriously works no longer? Every mussar shmuess worthless? God’s tochacha (in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) no longer effective?
I do not know whether Olmert developed cancer because of his policies. The issue doesn’t terribly interest me.
I do know, however, that tampering with Yerushalayim is playing with fire, and that letting portions of God’s mountain (Har HaBayis) be destroyed by Muslim bulldozers probably does not ingratiate one with God either.
I also know that, Olmert aside, seeing God’s hand in current events is straight, traditional Judaism. If people wish to move away from this tradition, let them at least first acknowledge it. Don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

Posted in Elliot Resnick | Comments Off

Presidential Politics And Jewish Priorities

Posted on November 2, 2007 by Luke Ford

Jason Maoz writes:

With the possible exceptions of 1948 (when Truman kept a wary eye on the polls as he navigated the minefields of Palestinian partition) and 1976 (when fresh memories of Ford and Kissinger’s “reassessment” of American-Israeli relations, short-lived as it was, helped many in the Jewish community overcome their initial discomfort with the unfamiliar born-again Southerner Carter), Jews have repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to choosing a president, domestic issues clearly outrank concern for Israel.
It’s true, of course, that a relatively small number of Jews who might otherwise have been disposed toward Bob Dole in 1996 voted instead for Bill Clinton because they were uncertain of Dole’s commitment to Israel. And it’s equally true that some Jews who voted for George Bush in 1988 abandoned him in 1992 because of his Middle East policies. But one has to go all the way back to 1980 for the last presidential election in which the votes of an appreciable number of Jews were decided primarily by concern for Israel.
The one unchanging political rule of thumb in American Jewish life is simply this: It matters little whether a candidate is the incumbent or the challenger, whether his record on Israel is solid or not, whether Israel is at peace or at war. Ultimately the lion’s share of Jewish votes – anywhere from 65 to 90 percent – will go to the Democrat.
The average Jewish vote for Republican presidential candidates since 1948 has been just under 25 percent.
Despite the requisite lip service by Jewish leaders and elected officials, Israel has rarely emerged as a decisive issue for Jews at election time (segments of the Orthodox community excepted). The reason for that is the slavish (no other word will do) devotion of most Jewish voters to liberal ideology and the Democratic Party. The rest is commentary.

Posted in Jason Maoz, Politics | Comments Off