Jennifer Siegel writes for the Forward:
Yesterday saw the announcement that Tevi David Troy, an Orthodox Jew who currently serves as the Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, will be nominated as the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Troy previously served as the White House Liaison to the Jewish community.
The White House’s announcement was quickly answered by glowing press releases from the Orthodox Union and the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Martin van Creveld writes in the Forward:
The Winograd report ignores the plain fact that the war ended in a victory of sorts; how else to explain why the Israeli-Lebanese border will soon have enjoyed its longest period of quiet in 40 years? To be sure, there were failings in the handling of the war, but they should not be allowed to obscure the main point: Hezbollah’s will to renew the fight has been broken for the time being, and as Olmert promised the situation in the north is now completely different.
Shlomo Greenwald blogs for The Jewish Press:
It is just me, or does it seem like The New York Times has been running more than a handful of articles about the Orthodox Jewish community lately–from a 24-hour shul in Boro Park to billboards in Williamsburg to a haven for frum Jews with doubts–often in the City section.
Still, it’s rare to see in the Times or any other mainstream newspaper, for that matter, such a detailed quote from the Mishnah, as this one from one of the Times’s metro columnists, Clyde Haberman, on Tuesday:
"But first comes the question of New Yorkers’ will to act. That was the point of the mayor’s traipse through history. And whether or not he meant to, he borrowed from Hillel the Elder, a Jewish sage of 2,000 years ago. “If I am not for myself, who will be?” Hillel said. “If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” Mr. Bloomberg’s formulation went this way: “If we don’t act now, when? And if we don’t act, who will?” That echo across two millenniums earned him the biggest applause of the day."
(That column was about the mayor’s new driving into Manhattan proposals.)
If the New York Times doesn’t quote Hillel, who will?
For decades college campuses have been filled with left-wing professors attempting to influence their students to follow the paths of liberalism, socialism and in some cases even communism. Over the years they have been successful and the consequence is a generation of secular Jews who don’t know much about yiddishkeit. Read about one man’s goal to change all that with Campus Kiruv.
Otto Stern, Victor Hess, Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Franz Kafka – all geniuses, all Jews. " From 1870 to 1950, Jewish leadership in such fields as literature, music, visual arts, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and philosophy was from four to fourteen times the Jewish proportion of the population in Europe and North America." What’s the secret behind Jewish genius? Is it simply that "The Jews are God’s chosen people?
One of the hardest challenges for someone in authority is knowing when to criticize and when to stay silent. Whether its a parent dealing with a child, a teacher with a student or an employer with an employer, sometimes its what you don’t say that is most important.
And then cement candlesticks, a day at Darchei Binah and Jewish hip-hop.
Jason Maoz emails:
Luke,
In an interview with Salon.com, novelist Michael Chabon ("The Yiddish Policemen’s Union," "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay") provides a textbook case of the deep alienation and historical illiteracy that has long been de rigueur for members of the literary left (and those who aspire thereto).
Asked why he’s such a fan of Barack Obama, Chabon describes the senator as "being fully conscious of both what’s great and what’s terrible about America and American history. The ills, the evils, the massacres, the injustices that have been done, and at the same time a sense of pride and faith and optimism that’s coupled with a totally clear-eyed sense of the grimness that’s there as well."
Note the litany of horrors from this ungrateful nitwit: "ills," "evils," "massacres," "injustices" — all offset not by mention of anything concrete, not by mention of the nation’s myriad positive accomplishments, of its having provided unprecedented freedom and opportunity and sustenance to billions of people at home and abroad, but by an airy, non-descriptive "sense of pride and faith and optimism" (in precisely what is far from clear, given Chabon’s apparently hellish view of the country and its history).
And then, as though he senses some Salon readers might fear he isn’t being negative enough in his assessment of this evil, forsaken land (we elected the Fearsome Dictator Bush, after all), he polishes his progressive bona fides by proclaiming — with all the arrogant certainty liberals seem capable of mustering only when they find fault with America — "the grimness that’s there as well."
Whenever, in a moment of weakness, I find myself myself wondering whether it would really be the end of the world if a Democrat were elected president — you know the arguments: Bush hasn’t governed as a true conservative anyway, he’s botched Iraq at least as badly as any Democrat would have, fat-cat Congressional Republicans need to be taught more of a lesson, etc. — I need only think of someone like Michael Chabon to snap myself out of such foolishness.
Dennis Prager said April 27: "Why was there no attack of the murderer at Virginia Tech? If they had simply run at him, there would’ve been fewer deaths and he would’ve been stopped."
"We need to think about how we stop evil. We are not preoccupied with that. We are preoccupied with getting rid of guns, global warming…
"Have we made a mindset in America that you will always be taken care of?
"Those who are pro-gun want to take care of themselves while those people who are anti-gun want to be protected."
"Others will take care of you… Others will take care of your health, security, housing, job, salary… Then it doesn’t even occur to ask how could they have better gotten the gunman? The only questions asked are how can we do better with the mentally ill, was this forseeable, and how do we get rid of guns?"
"The moment you say, ‘How can I take care of me?’ you are a conservative."
Sunday. 1 p.m. Journalism panel. Miles Corwin moderates Mark Fainaru-Wada, Nick Schou, Alicia C. Shepard and Lance Williams. Audio
Alicia: "I was able to sit down with them for the magazine piece (2003). Woodward will try to talk you out of an interview. He’ll say that he’s not that interesting. He’s just a reporter. Thankfully, I wore him down and he let me come to his house and his maid answered the door and you sit in the parlor and he will talk to you. He’ll engage. Bernstein, on the other hand, is all for it. He wants to be interviewed. He just can’t stop what he’s doing long enough to do an interview. They would not cooperate with the book."
"The most famous line from the movie was ‘Follow the money.’ Daniel Schorr of NPR wanted to know where that line came from… He looked through All The President’s Men and couldn’t find it. He called Woodward who spent the evening looking for it. He couldn’t find it. It turned out the line was made up by William Goldman, the screenwriter."
"If Bob Woodward thought Deep Throat had said that, his memory wasn’t so clear."
"Woodward told a couple of people to not speak to me."
"Bob Woodward is a control freak. It’s why he is successful."
I read Shepard’s book straight through Thursday. The latest book on the topic it is also the definitive work.
Her books contains numerous quotes of letters from regular folk to Woodward and Bernstein but why anyone should care about these opinions is not clear.
Shepard seems to buy into the myth that Woodward and Bernstein toppled a president.
As Edward Jay Epstein wrote in Commentary magazine in July 1974:
The natural tendency of journalists to magnify the role of the press in great scandals is perhaps best illustrated by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward’s autobiographical account of how they "revealed" the Watergate scandals. The dust jacket and national advertisements, very much in the bravado spirit of the book itself, declare: "All America knows about Watergate. Here, for the first time, is the story of how we know…. In what must be the most devastating political detective story of the century, the two young Washington Post reporters whose brilliant investigative journalism smashed the Watergate scandal wide open tell the whole behind-the-scenes drama the way it happened." In keeping with the mythic view of journalism, however, the book never describes the "behind-the-scenes" investigations which actually "smashed the Watergate scandal wide open"-namely the investigations conducted by the FBI, the federal prosecutors, the grand jury, and the Congressional committees. The work of almost all those institutions, which unearthed and developed all the actual evidence and disclosures of Watergate, is systematically ignored or minimized by Bernstein and Woodward. Instead, they simply focus on those parts of the prosecutors’ case, the grand-jury investigation, and the FBI reports that were leaked to them.
The result is that no one interested in "how we know" about Watergate will find out from their book, or any of the other widely circulated mythopoeics about Watergate. Yet the non-journalistic version of how Watergate was uncovered is not exactly a secret-,the government prosecutors (Earl Silbert, Seymour Glanzer, and Donald E. Campbell) are more than willing to give a documented account of the investigation to anyone who desires it. According to one of the prosecutors, however, "No one really wants to know." Thus the government’s investigation of itself has become a missing link in the story of the Watergate scandal, and the actual role that journalists played remains ill understood.
On p. 54, Hitchens writes, "Orthodox Jews conduct Congress by means of a hole in the sheet…" This is, as even most idiots know, a total fabrication. As a lie, it’s not as bad as the blood libel, but it’s not so far from the old tales of sexual perversion in Catholic monasteries and convents — it’s a lie meant to discredit a whole people by making them seem sexually bizarre and far outside decent society.
This urban legend was in the galleys of the book, but I figured that there’s no way it would appear in the final version. I figured someone along the way — a copy-editor, his Jewish editor, his Jewish publicist (a friend of mine and a great guy) — somebody would say, "Hitch, where did you read this? It’s total bullshit." But nobody did. Nor did anybody at Slate, where one imagines the book was read in galleys before somebody decided to excerpt it. In an industry filled with Jews (and plenty of smart Christians and Muslims and Hindus and atheists, too), who will catch this colossal error? Over the next couple weeks, let’s watch the book reviews to see.
My friend Lewis emails Hitchens:
Here’s what concerns me, and I write these words as someone who is a full agnostic. But before I begin, please allow me this one indulgence: I’m ecstatic that you answer my emails; it’s very gracious of you, and I will wage jihad for you. Just give me the signal! No, give me the names: Prager (pretty please), Horowitz, Eve Ensler (in monologue form) — God almighty, give me the order!
By criticizing circumcision – and you do more than simply criticize it; Andrew Sullivan also abhors the practice, but alas, for different reasons – you may be furthering, unintentionally, an effort that helps (how shall I put this) people who are not the most supportive of our Hebrew friends. If a cornerstone of Judaism is barbaric, and if said practice is routinely cited as proof of "the Jews’" depravity, don’t you think your criticism – and I know your motivations differ markedly from bigots and fools – will nonetheless strengthen the side you naturally detest? Does this mean you shouldn’t condemn what you find condemnable? Of course not. But you don’t qualify your criticism, reminding the reader that, religious considerations notwithstanding, there is a credible case to be made, one proffered by doctors themselves, that circumcision actually has legitimate medicinal benefits. Or, to paraphrase Robin Williams: When in doubt, go for the dick joke.
Also, you cite Meir Kahane . . . as proof of what? That he was a racist? No surprise there. That he was anti-Arab? Not exactly shocking. Was he representative of Israeli public opinion? No. If your most hateful opponents offered Pat Buchanan or Noam Chomsky (or Gore Vidal!) as proof of America’s shameful political class . . . would you find these examples even remotely persuasive or representative of either "American fascism" or "American communism"? C’mon!
Finally, you fully know that Judaism does not believe in proselytizing. You disdain the Orthodox? Who cares! Orthodox Jews don’t care about your religious beliefs. If anything, the vast majority of Orthodox Jews, in the United States and Europe, want to be left alone. I have no desire to live as an Orthodox Jew. But the Orthodox, even if they consider my beliefs contemptible, illogical, sad, laughable or ignorant, will not harm me. Or, to invoke Uncle Miltie (Friedman): Orthodox Jews, the adults anyway, are "free to choose." An Orthodox Jew can leave a community without fear of reprisal. Will he or she be shunned? Perhaps. Physically harmed? Highly, highly unlikely. I can’t say the same for the religion of peace.
Bottom line, God may not be great, but your copy generally is. Now, if only you’d realize that Horowitz is a schmuck. Peace.
….I’ll see you in hell. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Think of it this way: Why would the Devil punish his likeminded ideologues? Does Satan look at this veritable murderers’ row and say: You’ve done bad, and I must punish you. Hell, no (so to speak)! We’ll at least be in middle management. The one shame is this: Prager will enjoy God’s love while we burn, or at least sizzle. If we repent, we can at least get his radio show in the great beyond. Then again, that would be hellish.
p.s. Kahane was repudiated by the Israeli government. Sadly, the government used "hate speech" laws to accomplish their goals. The medicine was equal to if not worse than the disease, in this case. Finally, Kahane may have represented settler opinion pretty well, but so what? Randy Weaver represented American lunacy pretty well, too. The real question is, Did Kahane represent Israeli public opinion? No! I’d think you’d support a country, especially one in the Middle east, that 1) outlaws capital punishment; 2) was founded by socialists, many of them atheists; 3) is a member of the West; and 4) makes excellent pita.
My friend Lewis has used various screen names on JDate including BlowMyShofar, Hairy Knish, Uday Hussein, Anne Frankfurter, BotchedBris. They were all deleted by the uptight administrators.
In the wake of my tasteless comments on Cathy Seipp’s unfortunate demise, it seemed I’d lost all my friends.
Without Cathy’s protection, I felt like a stray dog with rabies headed for the pound.
With trepidation, I stepped into Wednesday night’s L.A. Press Club/Reason Magazine party for John Stossel’s new book.
"Luke, what are you doing here?" said a friend of nine years. "Aren’t you afraid that someone is going to push you in the pool?"
Well, darling, if you will talk to me, then no, I don’t fear. After you’ve been knocked around by Mike Albo and dropped off in Boyle Heights, these press clubbers don’t seem quite so intimidating.
After that initial connection, the party was like old times. Sure, it may be a while before I can shnorr off Mox, Ray and Jackie, sure, a few more people will pass me by on the information superhighway without tossing coins into my virtual cup, but there are always new suckers coming down the WWW who’ll think I’m trustworthy.
Working at The L.A. Times has changed Matt Welch. He pauses before he speaks. He’s more responsible. His conversation philosophy is, "Do it right, do it once, do it long."
Amy Alkon (brought on as a moderator for the Festival of Books by Book Editor David Ulin) buttonholed LAT publisher David Hiller twice over the weekend, giving him the story of how she was excluded from the paper for referring in an LAT article to her breasts as motivators for police to find her stolen car.
I saw some hot chicks at the party but none hotter than these girls.
Here’s the audio from John Stossel’s talk Wednesday night.
Video: Stossel Reception – Volume I Stossel Reception – Volume II Slideshow – www.myspace.com/lapressclub
From Amazon.com on Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel–Why Everything You Know Is Wrong: "When he hit the airwaves thirty years ago, Stossel helped create a whole new category of news, dedicated to protecting and informing consumers. As a crusading reporter, he chased snake-oil peddlers, rip-off artists, and corporate thieves, winning the applause of his peers. But along the way, he noticed that there was something far more troublesome going on: While the networks screamed about the dangers of exploding BIC lighters and coffeepots, worse risks were ignored. And while reporters were teaming up with lawyers and legislators to stick it to big business, they seldom reported the ways the free market made life better…In "Give Me a Break" Stossel explains how ambitious bureaucrats, intellectually lazy reporters, and greedy lawyers make your life worse even as they claim to protect your interests."
