Ari writes: The frum Jews I hang with loathe the Jewish Journal of LA. They want to know and they are correct in this: who the hell does Eshman speak for when he puts two men on the cover? Why does the paper run men seeking men ads? Money, certainlky. But do they run ads for escort services? Is it a Jewish paper just because they run stories about actrresses who have questionable conversions? While the paper claims to be Jewish, it does everything in it spower toi undermine Judaism.
I tell them that they do not have to read the paper, they counter, properly, that it send the larger message, to Jewish children, to the outside world, that we are just hunky-dory with things that are obviously a chilul-Ha-shem.
If someone like Rob Eshman or Amy Klein spills a great deal of ink over say, homosexual marriage, how seriously should the Jewish community take it? And then comes the central question: who does Rob or Amy speak for. If they speak for themselves, do we as readers not have the right of full disclosure about their private lives? In other words, if Rob hammers away at the moral and social necessity of homosexual marriage, I think we have a right to know if he's doing this because he's well, swinging for the other team?
We all know the dirty little secret of the conservative and reform movements: that over fifty-percent of their female rabbis are gay. Or is it because Editor Eshman is just a hack for the Democrats and in the great tradition of Pravda, expounds the part line. Or is it because he's ignorant of Torah, or because he knows Torah, but rejects it? This all sounds small, but it's what journalists do all day long. Why does no one demand an accounting from the writers? Journalists think nothing of exposing others, it's time for them to be exposed. If Amy Klein seems to be angry at frum Jews, well, how come? Was she treated badly by a beautiful Yeshiva boy and now she's bitter and having her revenge? And if the Journal gives space to Arab propaganda writers, one must ask, does Rob Eshman also get space in the American Arab newspapers? It's up to you, Levi, to straighten out this awful mess.
Many able and astute pundits have already dissected the broad claims – or, more accurately, innuendos – of Fahrenheit 911 and called attention to the glaring inconsistency, occasional dishonesty, and general incoherence of the film. Most noteworthy, perhaps, is Christopher Hitchens’s devastating review for Slate.com, which has become something of an instant-classic, due both to its trenchant analysis and the reviewer’s impeccable liberal credentials.
Indeed, Hitchens and a gaggle of others (who, by the way, seem more than a tad reliant on Hitchens) do an excellent job of unraveling, scrutinizing, and questioning/demolishing the foundations of the Moore’s thesis. Therefore, I see little point in sharing my thoughts – which generally parallel those of Hitchens and others – about the general effectiveness of the movie as an argument criticizing the decisions made by (and the character of) President Bush and his administration; in short, the F9 is not a convincing argument, or even a very good one.
However, fortunately (sort of), F9 is a movie rich with material to be commented upon – bad arguments, but with some genuinely entertaining parts, as well – and I am happy to share with you some of the discrete thoughts that occurred to me while I watched the movie. Indeed, I am half-tempted to see it again, with a proper notebook in hand rather than the napkins from Dougies upon which I scribbled mostly indecipherable notes, to record my impressions more completely and to mine some new nuggets that I undoubtedly missed during the first showing. I present some of my points here in no particular order (much like the scenes in the movie itself), with some discussion. They are my own, though I wouldn’t be surprised if others have had similar ideas. Also, I want to emphasize that my quotes are not exact, since I don’t have a recording or transcript of the movie.
1)Early in the movie, Moore (as narrator) calls the events of 9/11/01 “the worst attacks on US soil,” or something to that effect. He does not refer to them as “terror” attacks or as attacks perpetrated by “terrorists.” This would not be surprising, except that – a few minutes later – he brings up the attack on the WTC that took place in the 1990s, and he does refer to it as a “terror attack” (or to the perpetrators as “terrorists” – I don’t recall exactly).
He seems to be making some sort of distinction between the two, although I’m not at all sure what it is. Why would the attack in the 1990s be terrorism while 9/11 was not?
Perhaps Moore provides the answer when he tells us, in a pointedly gratuitous (and, therefore, suggestive) aside, that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated against the “financial and military” centers of the country. Is Moore suggesting that 9/11 was an act of war and therefore not terrorism? Maybe.
[The obvious objection is that the “financial center” of the country was attacked in the 1990s as well, so that should be an act of war, too (and, therefore, according to Moore, not be “terror”). The only (twisted) rationale that I can come up with for the distinction Moore makes is that the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon, specifically, sort of transformed the entire 9/11 enterprise into an act of war. And, as a result, the attacks on the WTC are subsumed under the general rubric of the “military action.”]
2) During a segment poking fun at the “terror alerts” disseminated by the administration following 9/11, Moore cuts to a number of still-frames, focusing on each image for no more than a fraction of a second. I’m guessing that it escaped the attention of most viewers, but one of these images struck me as hilariously funny: a picture of two cops on “terror alert,” standing right in front of a Dunkin’ Donuts.
This seems like a fitting point to note that, despite the movie’s ineffectiveness as an argument (see above), it is absolutely entertaining.
In a similarly light moment – making fun, this time, of America’s coalition partners in Iraq, rather than of law enforcement officials – Moore mentions the Netherlands amidst the on-screen backdrop of a huge weed-filled pipe. A liberal making fun of marijuana users? Never thought I’d see it happen.
3) While we’re on the subject of the coalition…One of the tactics Moore uses (pointed out by virtually every reviewer) is providing only the information that serves to prove his point, to the point that he will omit any information – no matter how significant – that undermines his point. A perfect, and fairly ridiculous, example of this is the roster he presents of America’s coalition partners. He mentions only the most insignificant countries in order to emphasize how alone America is in the war against Iraq. Of the 47 or so countries in the coalition, Moore mentions just a few: Palau, Costa Rico, Iceland, the Netherlands, Micronesia, Morocco (which offered monkeys to set off landmines, another hilarious bit) and perhaps a few other countries. As Moore points out, these countries are of limited use, since they don’t have much, if any military capability.
Of course, this sort of argument is so stupid that it hurts. Arguing that we have no reliable military allies by simply not naming them?! Exactly. That’s like arguing that the NY Yankees currently have a terrible team. I mean, just look at them – a pitching staff of Bret Prinz, Tanyon Sturtze, and Brad Halsey; and “sluggers” like Bubba Crosby, Miguel Cairo, and Enrique Wilson. They’ll be lucky to win 50 games. Unimpeachable logic, right?
4) Amidst a segment in which Moore attempts to show how convincingly the American people were duped by Bush, we discover that Britney Spears supports the President and, presumably, the war effort. As if we needed more proof that she’s hot.
5) One of Moore’s star witnesses is “Baghdad” James McDermott, the anti-war Democratic Congressman from the state of Washington who claimed earlier this year that the timing of Saddam’s capture was politically motivated – Saddam having been captured earlier and held, secretly, by the Bush administration. Anyway, I know this is gonna sound weird (and perhaps petty/irrelevant), but check out this dude’s eyes; among the spookiest, craziest eyes I’ve ever seen. (Right up there with alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid). Still photos don’t do them justice. I checked.
6) From the “facts that must be checked” department: Moore is incredibly enamored with making grandiose statements. The entire movie, in fact, is basically one long, grandiose statement. But are they accurate? Well, let’s start with this one. In the opening segment, detailing the election “stolen” by the Bush administration, Moore describes the protests on the day of the Bush inauguration as something “that had never been seen before in Washington.”
This would be meaningfully true, of course, if Moore had finished the sentence with the words, “since 1973,” 1973 being the year that Nixon’s inauguration drew between 25,000 and 100,000 protestors (according to conventional estimates cited by news reports and liberal organizations), as opposed to the perhaps 20,000 people who – organizers said – “would take part in the weekend demonstrations.”
See, but Moore is a slippery debater. He doesn’t actually say that the anti-Bush protest was the largest protest at a Presidential inauguration; such a statement could be shown to be false. He’s too clever for that. Instead, he makes a rather general statement that is true but actually doesn’t mean anything of substance (what philosophers like to call a “vacuously true” statement), and which therefore cannot be proven false. “Washington had never seen anything like it.” What does he mean? That there had never previously been protests of a Presidential inauguration? Well, no. That it was the biggest protest? Well, no. That there had never been a protest of Republican presidential inauguration in a year beginning with 2? The point is – if there’s anything unique about the 2001 protests, no matter how minor or trivial, then Moore’s statement is by definition true. But it doesn’t have any value, except – of course – the rhetorical value that Moore skillfully instills in it.
[By the way, a similarly tricky tactic is used in advertising: e.g. “Food X may reduce the threat of heart attack.” This is a true statement. But it doesn’t mean anything. Yeah, it may reduce the risk of heart attack, but it may not. It would be a strange commercial, but a clothing company would be equally justified in claiming that “Brand Y jeans may reduce the risk of heart attacks.” Whenever you hear a modal verb in a commercial – can, may, etc. – most likely a vacuously true statement will follow.]
Ok. That’s all I have patience for right now. I may add some more at some point.
I spent two hours with Gene Lichtenstein (former editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles) at the Farmer's Market on Fairfax Thursday morning. Then we exchanged some email.
Gene writes me: I'm curious about [Gene's successor Rob Eshman's] views of Jewish journalism. Incidentally, thank you for not asking me "what do you think of his editorship of the Journal," which is not an infrequent question. For the record, I think he's a terrific editor and is doing a great job.
Good writing was the central focus of the Journal when I started it. My judgments may have been faulty, but the concern was paramount.
Steve Weinstein, for example, was a writer, not a journalist. He was lured away from The Journal within a year by the LA Times to write features about popular culture; Joe Domanick had no reporting experience either, but turned out to be an exceptionally good reporter and magazine writer. He was pulled away by the LA Weekly and the LA Times. Columnists were seen by me as writers who would serve as the spine of the paper. I started with Yehuda Lev, who was a wonderful writer. By the time he moved to Rhode Island, he was old and tired and
spent, though occasionally produced something wonderful.
Marlene Marks, who had wanted to be the editor of the paper, came by about a year after we had been publishing. Her husband had jusr died. She wrote two rather boring, sophmoric pieces about Judaism and the community, which I turned down. I told her to write about being in the hospital when she heard that her husband had died, and her anger at the doctors and rabbi, etc. She did, and was off and running. Her columns were about herself and women and being a single mother in LA, and in the first few years they were pretty terrific. Later she became a celebrity and her columns were a bit ponderous and full of herself.
During the last year that I was at the paper, I couldn't bear to read them and asked Rob to take over the responsibility (this was before she developed cancer).
Anyway, I could cite many other writers---Steve Leder, David Margolis, Dov Aharoni, JJ Goldberg, Teresa Strasser, Rob Eshman, Eric Silver, Helen Davis--all of whom I brought to the paper because of their writing. Stephen Leder, who is rabbi at Wilshire Blvd. Temple, was then an assistant rabbi who wrote the Torah Portion, which had been guarded by the Board of Rabbis, who zealously made sure every rabbi who wanted got a shot at it. Most of the writing was dreadful until Leder came along; at which point I dispensed with the Board and signed him on. Read some of his columns; they were very good. The Federation, the Board, the publisher of the newspaper all pressured me to rotate, but I stayed with Steve until he had to bow out because of time.
The same thing applied to Dov Aharoni, an extreme right wing Orthodox rabbi. I don't think he and I agreed on a single issue; but he was a wonderful writer. The Federation in the person of Stanley Hirsh, who was also a member of the newspaper's board of directors, pressed me not to run him: He was too extreme, too divisive. We kept publishing him until he withdrew to attend law school. Even when it came to hiring reporters, such as Naomi Pfefferman and Julie Fax, good writing was a central factor.
I approached JJ Goldberg and asked if he'd write for us if I could put
together a consortium of Jewish newspapers to pay him a decent salary. He agreed and I called David Twersky, who then edited the NJ newspaper, and asked him to help line up some papers. That's how JJ came to write a column.
On the other hand, [a right-winger], who has a large following in LA, asked if he could write a column for us. I had published a few pieces by him, but found his writing pompous, overblown and boring. I turned him down because of the writing, though he was convinced it was because I disagreed with him about policy. What he didn't understand was that I was desperate for good writers on the right (Aharoni was a case in point), but unwilling to publish bad writing.
MoisheShnorer got stood up. He complains on Frumsex: I had taken extra
long shower that day, even put on deodorant (to which I have to
confess that I don't do it daily, althought I should, specialy in
the summer), I looked in the mirror twice, "men never look in a
mirror", I prepared the roses and the chocolate, and alas I am
deflated, now I am looking on melted choco and old flowers and my
mind is wandering, will she call again or was it a mirage....
People, members, pray for me.
Captain Carmen writes: First of all, there is NO INYAN of mesira when you hand a dangerous criminal to the authorities. Mesira was a problem when Jews turned other Jews in for 'crimes against the state' in a 'malchus she'eina hogenes' (a government that is not proper - i.e. - an antisemitic, tyrannical regime). This was a problem during the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and Communist Russia, just as examples, but it's NOT a problem now. These molesters, thieves, and worse have to be locked up. Not 'spoken to' by community leaders. LOCKED UP.
Second - I like that Shmuley Boteach has addressed married sex in an
somewhat enlightened, modern way, but I think he's using sex as a big neon sign to draw more attention to himself. He's a publicity hound in the worst way. And he's smart, but not so smart that he can compete in a serious halachic or intellectual venue. That's why he restricts his 'debate' partners to playboy playmates and black activists. No offense to the black activists implied.
Who's the Jewish Journal staff-woman that then-Jewish Journal publisher Stanley Hirsh was infatuated with (though Stanley was married), leading to his erratic behavior that led to the firing of Gene Lichtenstein (summer of 2000) as the JJ editor and his replacement by Rob Eshman?
Who was the woman poet at University of Judaism who was popular with the students but denied tenure because outgoing president David Lieber and the staff found her obnoxious (circa 1991)?
Reb Yudel writes: "Hardly the world's worst Jewish newspaper, though perhaps not quite as interesting as it was when Gene first took it over. Send me an email, Luke, and we can set up a phone interview."
Reb Yudel, You keep promising me things but, one, I do not know who you are [Larry Yudelstein?], and two, you don't include contact info in your posts, unless I am missing something, which I obviously am, which is very embarrassing for me, but I still want to talk to you, because it reads like you know something of which you speak, of which I could do with some, if you know what I mean, this is such fun, writing the longest sentence of my career, G-d bless you all.
I drove my Timothy McVeigh-style van to the headquarters of the Jewish Journal Wednesday afternoon (3580 Wilshire Blvd). The back was filled with a special preparation of fertilizers designed for maximum bang. I scanned a few pages of The Turner Diaries, checked my watch, and leaped out on my one-man suicide mission against the Jewish Journal, the world's worst newspaper. It was do or die. Future generations will thank me. I felt like Ann Coulter vs The New York Times as I took the elevator up to meet editor Rob Eshman.
Steven I. Weiss writes: A few Barbie Doll suggestions for the Jewish set (mock press release pasted below the jump):
- While lacking traditional Barbie's big boobs, the Abe Foxman doll will, nevertheless, beat his breast in continual agony over the hatred of the Jewish people.
- Sure, you thought that your mother had given it away to the local poor kids, but your kid sister is convinced that her Lubavitcher Rebbe doll will rise from the toy chest sometime soon. In the meantime, she keeps a vigil at her Malibu Dreamhouse, former headquarters of the doll. Imitation Malibu Dreamhouses have been popping up in playrooms all around the neighborhood.
- It costs the same $13.95, but the Kotzker Rebbe doll stays in its box for 20 years.
- While Ken hangs out with Barbie, his shorter, fatter alter-ego, the Baruch Lanner doll, just can't seem to get enough of Skipper.
- The Demi Moore Barbie was manufactured in 1964, but the box claims a two-decade difference. Red String accessory $20 extra.
- The Joe Lieberman Barbie: All the Jews think it's great that it exists, but none are actually buying it.
ME writes: Don't forget that the Baruch Lanner doll comes with criminal conviction and release-pending- appeal powers that let him walk freely down the streets of NJ frequently running into previous victims.
The doll also comes with no restriction on travel within the US that allows him to travel to Florida.
And don't forget the convenient heart-attack-in- Florida feature which allows him to further delay the appeals process.
Clueless then, clueless now. "Budd Schulberg reported that when Louis Mayer heard that a friend was going to interview Hitler [circa 1938], he innocently urged him "to put in a good word for the Jews." (Scott Fitzgerald, by Jeffrey Meyers, pg. 296)
A Fly on the Wall writes: Actually, many of the Hollywood moguls in the 1930s, even though they were Jewish, didn't think Hitler was much of a threat. They snipped films of scenes that might offend the Nazis before they shipped their product off to Germany, which was a bigger international market than the UK for Hollywood fare.
Louis B. Mayer also employed Mussolini's son at MGM.
This is all documented in my buddy Chuck Higham's superb book, Merchant of Dreams - Louis B. Mayer, MGM, and the Secret Hollywood (Donald Fine: 1993).
David Greenglass writes: I'll bet if someone had offered Osama bin Laden a chance to work in Hollywood, the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing. We Jews are very likeable people, once you get to know us.
It's time for frum people to break the silence and talk about sex. Is anyone frustrated by the nida laws? Is anyone finding it difficult to follow every precept? Let's share our thoughts and support one another through open, non-judgmental dialog.
Talmud613 writes on Frum Sex: "This reform chick keeps talking with me. It is very funny to hear her talk about keeping holidays but not shabbos. We talk on the phone and IM. last chat I typed Orthodox Booty call. I think that is so clever! I told her that besides, I am really good in bed, and she said she is too. Last night on the phone she asked if I know anything more shocking. So I mentioned Taharat Mishpocha and she wasn't shocked but it was ironic when I pointed out needing permission to have sex."
Folks, before you complain, I want you to know that I am even more appalled by this Yahoo group than you are, and I only am posting an excerpt of it so that the authorities can better control things.
No writes: I just want to comment on how impressed I am at the ability of some of you guys/girls to roll off the 'mareh mekomos' for some of these issues. They sure didn't teach me any of this stuff during my 8 years in yeshiva. Maybe its time for a sefer! I can just see it now..."Frumsex Al HaTorah"
Professional man writes: "What do you guys think of a frum person benefitting from a porno business (e.g. website) (even as an investor), or for that matter another "adult" business such as a strip joint? Is there any legitimate business/ "its' just for parnassa" justification, or is it completely forbidden because of its inherent nature?"
Gita writes: As Machshava Levatala
put it so well, it is important to educate children about sexuality
just as its important to teach them safety. I dont need to be the
one to add to their masturbation guilt and I dont tell them I
condone it..I tell them (as a mother but also a professional
involved in the field) that it happens to be a normal part of
adolescent develpment.
Your comment that "working on the assumption that the lady doesn't
know the chemer hainyan" is quite condenscending. This does happen
to have a background in learning. In fact, I would recommend Rav
Sherlo's latest book on shealot vetshuvot called "Rishut Hayachid" where he discusses these issues candidly and sensitively. He recommends practical methods to young men to help avoid obsessing about these things but also pointed out that averot have to be put into perspective. The neviim gave tocheha about shmirat shabbat, idol worship and being nice to your fellow man...not masturbation. Ironprik I totally agree with you...boys should feel free to discuss these things with their rabanim and lol on your nic comment Talmud 613...its sad that you think being frum is about condemning your grandfather to hell for not being shomer mitzvot. Maybe he was very machmir in the laws of man and man. Dont forget in America 60 years ago keeping shabbat and getting a yeshiva education couldnt be taken for granted as today.
Luke says: Could someone please translate some of these terms above? What's masturbation?
Ernest Hemingway wrote to his friends Gerald and Sara Murphy who lost two children: "I can't be brave about it and in all my heart I am sick for you both. Very few people ever really are alive and those that are never die, no matter if they are gone. No one you love is ever dead."
Ariel is, will be.
Precisely how much buggery should rabbis be allowed with the boys before we give them the sack? I say we stop worrying about this pedophilia stuff and concentrate, with full kavanah, on truly important matters such as installing filters to get rid of those pecky varmints pouring through New York City water.
Me writes with the Answer:
Igud HaRabbonim (Rabbinical Alliance of America) - until a victim of our former Vice-President actually goes to the authorities before he can moved to his new pulpit.
OU/RCA - until reporters finally have the stones to print exposes and name names (decades later)
Agudath Israel - as much as they want, because it only happens in Public schools and to non-frum Jews. Anyone who says differently is ex-communicated.
Jewish Renewal - we defend ours by arguing that it's consensual because the child molester is always more believable than his close to half-dozen victims. It's statutory rape not rape. That's OK. We also get everyone to sign no-sex contacts. Did you hear about our open marriages?
Eda Haredit - if you say anything we'll sic our modesty squad on you and break your legs.
CCAR - we have policies, we just don't follow them.
Rabbinical Assembly
(Conservative) - we've ignored the problem as long as we could. Now we'll have to issue a voluntary policy that doesn't require reporting to the national body and delay a little longer.
Me writes: Ask Rabbi Avi Shafran why his organiation is co-operating with the Catholic Church in blocking legislation that would protect abused children in private Jewish schools which are not subject to the protective mechanisms the NY school board has for the public system.
1)
Rabbis Back Law To Report Child Abuse
By Rachel Donadio
The Forward (NY)
March 29,2002 p. 3
With the exception of a major ultra-Orthodox organization, rabbinical groups of all denominations say they support proposed legislation in New York State that would require clergy to report allegations of child abuse.
The proposal, which would broaden the state's Social Services Law to make clergy of all religions criminally liable if they do not report instances of child abuse, was advanced last week by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in the wake of growing allegations of molestation within the Catholic Church. This week, the Democrat-controlled State Assembly proposed similar legislation, and a version passed in the Republican-controlled State Senate.
Most rabbinical groups said they were not concerned that the legislation would violate confidentiality between clergy and congregants.
"I think that full disclosure to the authorities would be not only acceptable, I think it's imperative," said Rabbi Paul Menitoff, executive vice president of the Reform movement's Central Council of American Rabbis. "Ethical violations, whether they're violations of the criminal code or not, need to be dealt with very openly, fairly and directly by each denomination. Anything short of that is not keeping faith with our people."
The ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America, however, said it was wary of the legislation, which would require clergy to "report to
authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused," according to a March 19 statement by Morgenthau.
David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Aguda, said he feared that the proposal could infringe on "religious freedom."
"There ought to be some exemption for situations involving confidentiality," Zwiebel said. "To protect the Catholic confessional-type situation, and more specifically in our community, to protect those situations where a member of the community does want to confide in his rabbi and get guidance and counseling without fear of having the whole fury of the secular legal system descend on him."
Last summer, Aguda and the Catholic Archdiocese of New York joined forces to oppose a proposed bill in the City Council that would have required all schools, including parochial schools, to file a police report about any criminal act committed by students or staff.
Zwiebel said he was concerned that secular law would "not necessarily" respect religious concerns, such as the concept of mesira, a category of rabbinic canon law concerning when a Jew may inform on another to the secular government. He said that rabbis should evaluate issues "on a case-by-case" basis.
However, Zwiebel said, "if a person is perceived as an imminent danger to children or others, rabbis would say, `let's not handle this internally, let's bring it to outside authorities.'"
Looking more favorably on the legislation was the Orthodox Union, representing Modern Orthodox synagogues. "In principal we'd be supportive," said Harvey Blitz, president of O.U. "We believe that clergy have a responsibility to protect the safety of people from being victims."
"We were told by our Halachic authorities that we should without any type of delay report these instances to the police," said Steven Dworkin, the head of the Rabbinical Council of America, a Modern Orthodox rabbinical body, referring to religious law.
Two years ago O.U. faced its own abuse scandal when several top officials stepped down following claims that they ignored 30 years of abuse complaints against the director of its national youth group, Rabbi Baruch Lanner.
Blitz was unfazed by the thought that under the proposed legislation, O.U. clergy would have been criminally liable for ignoring allegations of abuse. "Maybe they would have reported it," Blitz said.
"We've tried very hard to change the culture at the O.U. in light of what happened" and make children feel "more comfortable" reporting abuse and leaders "more sensitive" to allegations, Blitz said.
Rabbi Joel Myers, president of Conservative Movement's Rabbinical Assembly, also said he supported the proposal.
Myers said clergy confidentiality was not as "cut and dry" as some would make it out to be. "Every rabbi knows not everything is confidential or ought to be," he said. "Many clergy will say, `I'll be glad to listen but I won't be able to tell you if it's confidential until you tell me what the issue is.'"
The church scandal "may have nothing to do with confidentiality," Myers
said. "Confidentiality becomes a nice sounding word, but that's not the issue. The issue is how bishops supervise priests."
"It is clear that social pressures on the clergy are such that transferring the obligation to enforce justice onto the legal system is a helpful step," said Rabbi David Teutsch, president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College.
2)
The New York Post
March 26, 2002, Tuesday
Pg. 20
IT'S NOT JUST CATHOLICS WHO HAVE TO WORRY
By Douglas Montero
THE panic has begun.
Religious organizations went into a frenzy yesterday after learning state legislators introduced two bills that would require them to call
authorities whenever one their clerics is accused of molesting a kid.
But, it's far from just a Catholic problem.
"Sex abuse suppression in the Orthodox Jewish clergy is much worse than the Catholics because it's such an insular community and they can get away with it," according to Amy Neustein, who says she was ostracized by her community after she began advocating for Jewish women and kids.
She called the problem of child molestation by the clergy and the invariable coverup in her community a "cancer."
An official at the Agudath Israel of America - an Orthodox Jewish advocacy group that helped exorcise a similar City Council bill last year - seemed skeptical the bills would do much good.
"There may be a situation where there might be a conflict between the law and what a rabbi feels is religiously appropriate," said David Zwiebel, its vice president for government affairs.
"Rabbis might react differently. Some will comply with the law and others will choose not to comply with the law."
Bishop Steven Bouman, who heads the city's Lutheran Church, insisted he
"absolutely" supports the bills. "I believe the primary responsibility of church officials and the church is to the people we serve - especially the most vulnerable," he said.
But when asked to describe his church's sex-abuse policy, he said he had to check his facts. He called back an hour later and referred questions to the church's lawyers.
Religious leaders are nervous.
The days of conducting their own internal, and possibly biased, investigations before calling cops may be over soon.
It's appropriate that the sex-reporting bills were introduced during the start of Holy Week.
"It's Lent, and Christ is giving the Church a big cross to bear - one that it has earned," said Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League.
But he said his church has plenty of company.
"I've always felt the Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on this issue," he said.
3)
Daily News (New York)
March 26, 2002
Pg. 18
POLS PUSH TO MAKE CLERGY REPORT ABUSE
By JOE MAHONEY DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF With Robert Ingrassia
ALBANY - State lawmakers unveiled bills yesterday that would require clergy members to report all child sex abuse allegations to police or other authorities.
The most stringent proposal, introduced by Assemblyman Jack McEneny (D-Albany), would force churches and other religious organizations to comb through records going back 20 years or more and turn over all accusations.
"This reflects the change in attitude we are seeing on child abuse," said McEneny, a Catholic. "The present system has obviously not protected children."
The proposed legislation came as the Catholic Church faced a Holy Week crisis over revelations that leaders often covered up abuse charges and
allowed accused priests to move from parish to parish.
Last week, district attorneys in Manhattan and other boroughs called on state lawmakers to add the clergy to a list of professionals, including doctors and teachers, who are required to report child sex abuse
allegations.
Some three dozen Assembly members backed McEneny's bill. But their leader, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan), said he wanted to study the proposal before taking a stand on it.
State Senate Republicans, meanwhile, drummed up support for a milder measure that would require church officials to make their reports over a state-run child abuse hotline.
The Senate proposal, introduced by Sen. Stephen Saland (R-Poughkeepsie), would cover allegations going back five years.
Both bills would shield clergy members from reporting abuse they learned about through confession or other ministering duties. Failure to report allegations would be a misdemeanor.
Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the state Catholic Conference, which is led by Edward Cardinal Egan, declined to comment on the two measures.
"What we're saying to the sponsors in both houses is to act with the best interests of the children, as we move forward," Poust said.
Rabbi David Zwiebel of Agudath Israel of America, a Jewish advocacy group, voiced support for the provision that would protect confessions and other ministering conversations.
"But the 20-year provision sounds a bit overblown," he said. "It kind of sounds like clergy members would be singled out for special treatment."
Allegations older than five years could not be prosecuted because of the state's statute of limitations. But the bill's backers said prosecutors would keep the old allegations private in case new accusations surfaced against the same clergy member.
A spokesman for Gov. Pataki said the governor would sign legislation requiring clergy to report sex abuse cases to authorities.
4)
N.Y. LETS CHURCH SHIELD SEX ABUSE
by Douglas Montero
The New York Post
January 28, 2002
Pg. 18
IT'S time the Catholic Church in this city followed in the footsteps of its brothers in Boston before it's too late.
On Thursday, the Boston Archdiocese broke a long-standing tradition - it now requires its clergy and employees to call cops if a priest is accused of sexual misconduct.
The edict comes only after the Boston Archdiocese admitted that in the 1980s it played three-card monte with pedophile priest John Geoghan, who went on to allegedly molest more than 130 kids. About 80 kids have lawyers and lawsuits pending.
Reports indicated Brooklyn Bishop Thomas Daily, the former general vicar in Boston, was aware of Geoghan's problems.
Edward Cardinal Egan's vestment was also stained by a similar scandal when he served as bishop in Connecticut.
That's why the assassination of City Council Bill 933 last year should cause shudders in anyone whose children attend religious schools in this city.
The bill was shot down by religious leaders who didn't like the law requiring its employees to call cops whenever a sexual allegation is made.
The proposed law applied not only to public and private schools but also to affiliated areas like a church or synagogue.
Inspired by a string of grossly mishandled sex-abuse cases in public schools, the strongly supported and much-touted bill languished in committee during the summer after religious leaders, who normally handle embarrassing sex matters internally, put the squeeze on lawmakers.
Sources inside the Giuliani administration and City Council speaker's office told The Post in September the religious community was "caught off guard" by Bill 933.
"They wanted to kill it or arrange it so that it only applies to public schools," a source said.
Bill 933 was eagerly taken off the negotiating table in August because Giuliani handed it to his Charter Revision Commission which put an altered proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot.
The referendum, which was overwhelmingly approved, applied only to public schools - not private.
Asked why, Commission Chairman Randy Mastro said the commission was
"sympathetic" to private-school concerns and they wanted a referendum that would acquire the "broadest consensus" from voters.
"Do we personally believe we should have gone further? Yes," he said in September.
Just last summer, The Post learned one of four priests accused in a March 2000 lawsuit of sexually abusing a teenage rectory worker at St. Simon Stock Church in The Bronx was quietly transferred to St. Patrick's Church in Staten Island.
Parishioners at St. Patrick's said they were unaware of the allegation until The Post broke the story in June.
The priest, who worked in Staten Island for about three years, was again transferred - coincidentally in June - to an unknown location, a priest on duty said yesterday.
Repeated messages left with the spokesmen for Egan and Daily, our spiritual and moral leaders, were not returned yesterday.
Ask Rabbi Avi Shafran if this is the approach Agudath Israel plans to continue taking with the issue of sexual abuse.
Basically, excommunicating the victim's father and taking away his parnasa so he doesn't have the resources to fight for justice for his son, the victim.
see this website (not well organized and a bit naive in expecting the Jewish community/leadership to do anything, but increadibly troubling allgations nonetheless):
background:
http://www.projecttruth.info/thomas.html
Copy of distributed Agudath Israel Memo
____________________________
June 28, 2001
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
Honorable Peter F. Vallone
Honorable Priscilla A. Wooten
Honorable Members of the New York City Council Education Committee
FROM:
David Zwiebel
Executive Vice President for Government and Public Affairs
cc:
Honorable Rudolph W. Giuliani
Members of the Committee of Nonpublic School Officials of New York City
SUBJECT: Intro. No. 933-A
This memo is a follow-up to my memo of June 14 to Peter Vallone and Priscilla Wooten, in which I requested that the City Council postpone any action on the captioned legislation until Agudath Israel and other representatives of New York City's nonpublic school community had an
opportunity to study and comment on the bill. I am grateful that the City Council acceded to our request; and I take this opportunity now to share with you our concerns about this legislation, as well as to offer what I hope will be seen as a constructive suggestion.
Section 3 of the bill would add a new Section 10-124 to the New York City Administrative Code, requiring any employee of any public or private school who "witnesses or has reasonable cause to believe that a crime involving the health or safety of a child has occurred or has been threatened in an educational setting" to immediately report such information to the Police Department and to the school principal. After those reports are made, the principal is obligated to "promptly notify the parent or legal guardian of a child about whom a report has been made" unless the Police Department determines that such notification would impede a criminal investigation. Failure to comply with these requirements would be classified as a criminal misdemeanor.
This proposal is apparently a response to several incidents in public school settings that might have been avoided had the police been brought into the picture at an earlier stage. Without in any way denigrating the seriousness of those few incidents, or the need to find ways to try to avoid such incidents in the future, we question whether the approach embodied in the proposed legislation is the most appropriate means of achieving that purpose. Based on the input we have received from the Jewish school principals with whom we have discussed this issue, we are concerned that any legislation that strips principals of their professional discretion to handle sensitive situations in the manner they deem most appropriate would do more harm than good.
It is important to recognize that even under existing law, schools cannot simply ignore situations that threaten the health or safety of students. A school's common law duty to care for its students imposes upon principals and other responsible school authorities the obligation to take reasonable steps to deal with harmful or dangerous conduct. Those steps may include, under certain circumstances, notifying the police about actual or threatened criminal activity. At the same time, principals and other school authorities have a great deal of professional discretion in how to deal with individual situations. So long as they do not abuse that discretion by acting negligently or otherwise abrogating their duty to care, they are free to deal with situations in ways that they understand to be in the best interests of the child or children under their care.
Thus, for example, under existing law, if a student is caught smoking marijuana, a principal may decide to deal with the problem by referring the child to a drug counselor. Or, if a student is acting in a physically threatening manner toward one of his peers, the principal may decide that the problem can best be addressed through a phone call to the aggressive child's parents. Or, if a model teacher who has a longstanding unblemished record is provoked into lashing out at a troublemaking student, the principal may decide to address the incident by having a heart-to-heart chat with the teacher and student. Or, in any of these cases or others like them, the principal may decide that the matter is best dealt with through the school's internal disciplinary system, or by suspending or expelling the offending party, or by calling in the police. The existing law recognizes that one size does not necessarily fit all situations, and that knowledgeable school authorities are the ones best equipped to serve as gatekeepers in determining whether any given situation merits the extreme step of bringing in the police.
Under the proposed new legislation, however, all such school-based discretion and professional judgment would be removed. School employees who witness or have reasonable cause to believe that a crime involving the health or safety of a child has been threatened or actually committed would have to call the police immediately – no matter what the magnitude of the crime, no matter who or how old the perpetrator, no matter what the surrounding circumstances, no matter what the school principal and student guidance counselor may consider most appropriate. The bill would thus operate in blunderbuss fashion and effectuate a sea change in the way principals and other key school employees deal with problems that may arise in their school settings.
The Jewish school principals with whom we consulted were unanimous in their opinion that this change would be a change for the worse, not for the better. Their experience has been that most cases are best-handled internally, without police intervention. They are especially troubled by the prospect of having to call in the police for student-on-student conduct. They point out that personal trust is the most critical tool a principal has in effectively dealing with problems that may arise in a
school setting – personal trust between the school administration and its staff, between the school administration and its students, between the school administration and its parent body – and that bringing in the police as soon as a crime is committed or even suspected is likely to destroy that foundation of personal trust, thereby making it exceedingly difficult to deal effectively with many of the problems that are far better addressed by school personnel at the school site.
It is thus our view that the bill's failure to allow for principals to exercise professional judgment and discretion in dealing with actual or threatened criminal conduct is a serious flaw. This is especially so with respect to nonpublic schools, where there has been little if any evidence that the existing system does not adequately protect children, and where any such inadequacy can easily be addressed simply through parents' decisions to remove their children from the school.
There are several ways in which this legislation might be improved:
limiting the mandatory reporting provision to adult-on-child crime; limiting the types of crimes that have to be reported to felonies that pose a clear and present danger to children; excluding nonpublic schools from the ambit of legislation that is ultimately a response to a perceived problem in the public schools.
Most fundamentally, and in addition to these possible improvements, our
recommendation would be that the bill be revised to simply codify and amplify the existing common law standard. Thus, the bill could continue to require school employees immediately to report to their principals crimes or threatened crimes affecting the health or safety of students, as the current version of the proposed legislation does; and then establish the principal's legal duty to take reasonable and appropriate steps to deal with the harmful or dangerous conduct. The bill might spell out what some of those steps might be, including immediate contact with the Police Department if the nature of the situation is such that reasonable care would demand such contact; but the bottom line responsibility for exercising professional judgment in dealing with any given situation would rest four-square on the principal's shoulders. Negligent or reckless failure to discharge that responsibility would represent an abrogation of a
school's duty to care for its children, and could be basis for liability.
Such an approach, we believe, would largely accomplish what the bill's proponents seek to accomplish, while at the same time preserving the critical element of professional discretion that has by and large served schools and students well.
Emanations. Explorations. Anyone read these books? Are they good? "This beautifully written work offers masterful and profound insights into the weekly parashah. Drawing heavily upon the Midrash, the author first raises cogent questions and then answers them in a manner that lends new understanding both to the Torah portion and our own lives."
Rabbi Ari D. Kahn is the Director of Foreign Student Programs, Bar-Ilan University.
This week I will interview Rob Eshman (editor of the Jewish Journal), Eve Kessler (Forward), Gene Lichtenstein (former editor of the Jewish Journal), Benyamin Cohen (Jewsweek) and R. Avi Shafran. What do you want me to ask?
People who've refused my interview request include: Conservative rabbis Bradley Shavit Artson, Elliot Dorff, Perry Netter, Perry Rank, David Ackerman, Joel Meyers, Jay Rosenbaum. Dr. David Biale. May they soon receive the same level of cooperation from others that they extended to me.
Did I just utter a curse and was it wrong of me?
Cathy Seipp writes: "I can't say if it's wrong or not, because so much of what you do is so beyond wrong it's ridiculous to waste time considering exactly how wrong it is."
Yaakov writes: "Yes, it is petty and wrong and worse, it is stupid. Everyone you meet and deal with now, you will meet and eal with later. If you act like a gentleman people will act in kind. You might need their cooperation at a later date. So just thank them, tell them you understand perfectly and express the hope that sometime in the future you might find a project that will appeal to them. Why make an enemy? It benefits no one."
Abe writes: "Say it in the positive - 'I hope they get better cooperation from others than they gave me" it means the same thing, and we both will know that you don't really mean it - but no one else will know for sure."
Yehupitzer writes: "As far as "curses" go, I thought it was mild, and cute. A nice middah k'neged middah."
Author Luke Admires: "There are two issues here. First, my general feeling is that when people cooperate journalists should be pleasantly surprised, and that we too quickly assume we are owed cooperation when we are not. Secondly, if you want to show the reader that you did the work--or tried to do the work and were thwarted--I think there are many ways to list who turned down interview requests without actually dissing or cursing them. I think Jewish Law gives you the right to always question, but does not guarantee you that anyone must answer."
Me writes:
You can direct this quesion to Benyamin Cohen of Jewsweek.
Why has the Jewish press completely ignored the serious questions which have followed Rabbi Boteach? Why do the NY Jewish Week and Jewsweek publish his garbage columns on Michael Jackson? Why is he not subject to criticism? Because we have fluff not reporting.
Rabbi Boteach keeps talking about all the good he and Jackson did for children. Nonsense. The whole Heal the Children/Oxford L'chaim(NY) charities filled Boteach's pocket. He's the worst type of opportunist, the type clothed in righteousness who takes advantage of people's goodwill.
NY POST/PAGE SIX...
--THE "charity" Michael Jackson formed with rabbi Shmuley Boteach is operating at a loss. The New York-based Oxford L'Chaim Society told the IRS it took in $203,185 in 2000-2001 but wasn't able to actually dispense any help because it had expenses of $259,432, mostly in-office fees and staff salaries, reports Foxnews.com's Roger Friedman. In addition, Boteach lists $19,028 for
"promotional" costs and $13,480 on unspecified
"outside services." Boteach's mother and sister are listed on the L'Chaim Society's filing as treasurer and secretary, respectively, but both of them told Friedman that they have nothing to do with the charity and should not be on the forms.
The New York-based Oxford L'Chaim Society told the IRS it took in $203,185 in 2000-2001 but wasn't able to actually dispense any help because it had expenses of $259,432, mostly in-office fees and staff salaries, reports Foxnews.com's Roger Friedman. In addition, Boteach lists $19,028 for "promotional" costs and $13,480 on unspecified
"outside services."
IRS filings can be viewed at www.guidestar.com with free registration. (search for "Oxford Lchaim")
My question for Rob Eshman, editor of the Jewish Journal is the following:
Why is there so poor follow-up on stories in your newspaper?
1) The Jewish Journal ran the JTA piece on Rabbi Michael Mayersohn 2 issues ago. See: www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12436
and a stupid letter regarding the case last issue:
www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12466
But what about the outcome of the CCAR meeting on this that took place two weekends ago in Toronto, Canada?
2) What about "Rabbi" Michael Ozair? http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=9090
Where was the follow up, indicating he plead no contest to the charges?
Wanda writes Luke: Do you really agree with the sh-t he writes?
I just read his two essays -- to me, the message is -- "Women, don't go seeking economic power through your careers by competing with men. And don't go seeking power by dressing and being sexy."
Yeah, right, our true path to power is getting married, dressing modestly, cooking and cleaning and having babies. Let him do that and see how powerful he feels.
"When all is said and done, heading a home and being married to a good man are far more satisfying to most women than college teaching or corporate work." Give me a break.
I'm a woman, and to Shmueley Boteach and Dennis Prager I say -- stop preaching to me and tell your own sex how to dress and behave, if you're all so damn holy you can figure out how to keep it in your pants no matter what women do or wear.
Luke says: Yeah, I do, about 80% of the time...and the other 20%, I am agnostic. I am not a systemic thinker. I am a provocateur. I've always found that satisfying a man is the most important thing I can do with my life.
Yours is not a Jewish attitude. We have a responsibility for how our actions affect others.
WANDA WRITES: So where do you draw the line as to how women have to dress in order for men not to get turned on and want to screw around?
Who decided that its long skirts that's enough of a turn-off? Or covering your hair with an ugly hat or a wig? Where does it end? I'll tell you -- with these pathetic women wearing sheets over their heads like they did under the Taliban.
Though I guess if a guy has a foot fetish, even that is still a problem.
Seriously, this modesty concept is ridiculous. Is a beautiful Orthodox woman dressed modestly really going to turn you on less than a 300-pound ugly woman dressed like Britney Spears?
Luke replies: All men who carry on conversations with women treat them with considerably more sensitivity than they do fellow men. Men would tell a man who behaved with PMS symptoms to stick his PMS. Men rarely say such to women.
Thus, as men must take into account women's sensitivities, women should take into account male sensitivities to visual arousal.
Where do you draw the line? Orthodox Judaism has developed a system that has worked for thousands of years in this regard and is better than any other at keeping men sexually faithful to their wives.
I've never known a man to become upset when I've forgotten his birthday.
I've never known a man to get upset if I mention he's gained a few pounds.
I've never known a man to get upset if I mention he's losing his looks.
I've rarely known a man to get upset when I mention his age. I've never known a man in his forties to get upset if I refer to him as middle-aged.
I've rarely known a man to keep me waiting more than a minute so he can do his hair.
Dozens of women have behaved differently in these respects. Ergo, men and women have different needs and sensitivities. If we expect men to subordinate their verbal tendencies to accommodate female sensitivities, we can expect women to curtail their exhibitionistic tendencies to accommodate male sensitivities.
We live in a narcissistic age. One example of this is women wanting to wear whatever they want without regard to the affect their attire has on men. This is childish, selfish and unJewish.
Nowhere in Africa. What a great film. What's the last great Jewish film? I think this is it.
Chaim Amalek writes: "I'm watching TRAINSPOTTING (1996). Far more relevant to our lives.
"Why no money no honey? What are you going to do to get money? WHY AREN'T YOU RICH?"
JMT writes: "Luke is working on becoming the first author in the history of the printed word to have his manuscript rejected by a vanity press."
Most of life is froth and bubbles
But two things stand like stone
Kindness in another's troubles
And courage in your own
(Forgot)
I'm always absurdly grateful when people are kind to me and absurdly touchy when they are not. About 80% of those I've approached to do an interview for my new book on Jewish journalism have cooperated, including many prestigious people, but those 20% who refuse, I am going to list at the beginning of my book with the curse - May they soon reap the same cooperation that they extended to me.
Am I so wrong?
Cathy Seipp writes: "I can't say if it's wrong or not, because so much of what you do is so beyond wrong it's ridiculous to waste time considering exactly how wrong it is."
Yaakov writes: "Yes, it is petty and wrong and worse, it is stupid. Everyone you meet and deal with now, you will meet and deal with later. If you act like a gentleman people will act in kind. You might need their cooperation at a later date. So just thank them, tell them you understand perfectly and express the hope that sometime in the future you might find a project that will appeal to them. Why make an enemy? It benefits no one."
Abe writes: "Say it in the positive - 'I hope they get better cooperation from others than they gave me" it means the same thing, and we both will know that you don't really mean it - but no one else will know for sure."
Yehupitzer writes: "As far as "curses" go, I thought it was mild, and cute. A nice middah k'neged middah."
Heather Mac Donald writes: I don't know Jewish customs. If it's OK to assume the Old Testament mantle of divine castigation, why not?
Joe writes: "Luke, Thank you for sharing your life with the world. I have read the majority of your website and have learned much through your experiences. I work in Hawaii as a marine biologist and spent as much as 300 days per year at sea. In my free time I have learned biblical Hebrew and have taken an interest in Judaism. I enjoy listening to Prager, Aish audio (48 ways, Rabbi Spiro, Rabbi Kahn). Luke if you found yourself stranded on an island what books, audio tapes, dvds would you like to have with you (Artscroll Chumash, Artscroll siddur, Rabbi Noah Weinberg etc). In other words I'm asking you what you think the best of the best is in Jewish learning."
Luke says: I think Prager is best, along with the Lapin brothers, Beryl Wein and 613.org, Mordecai Finley and the books of Louis Jacobs and Eliezer Berkovits.
Mystery writes: Is there a reward for readers who read this entire blog? Perhaps in another world? I will not be in the running, however.
Velvel writes: Does anyone remember when this was an Orthodox blog? Is anyone else still reading this who was here pre-Luke?
Gresham writes: Well, there's you. I've been through all this before. When I was a kid, I lived in a really nice middle class neighborhood. Then the shvartzes began to arrive, and before you knew it, all the Jews who could afford to leave, left. My family was one of the very few left on the block. All because of blockbusting, and the tendency of violence-averse Jews to flee at the first sign of trouble. And that's what you orthodox jews have done here - shvartze Luke shows up, and you run like a bunch of sissy yeshiva boys.
For a real Jewish blog, read Miriam: "the real problem isn't a lack of interest in community work amongst young involved Jews, but the stultified and stultifying nature of many of our organizations. As the last line of the article concludes, "the recruiting organizations must be willing to adapt, change and even reinvent themselves if that’s what it takes to engage our best and brightest as professional leaders."
Now, if Steinhardt could fund that..."
Andy at TattooJewmovie.com writes: TATTOO JEW IS IN THE NEW ISSUE
OF SKIN & INK MAGAZINE!
We have a feature article in the September 2004 issue of Skin & Ink
Magazine, written by Andy Abrams (yes, that's me!) and with amazing photos by Justin Dawson. Skin & Ink is the largest and most respected tattoo culture periodical in the world, and we're really proud of the piece they published. IT'S ON NEWSSTANDS AND IN BOOKSTORES NOW!
Also, we have a NEW VERSION OF THE WEBSITE:
www.tattoojewmovie.com
Go there and check out the new trailer for the film. Also, we've added a
section with photos of some of our interview subjects.
STATUS OF THE PROJECT:
We are completing the film Tattoo Jew this summer! Our plan is to have the film available for sale on the website by the end of August. We are
editing the film and putting the finishing touches on some final footage.
We are midway through our work to finish the book. I am currently looking for a literary agent or manager to work with me on this.
We are looking for finishing funds to cover our last-minute costs to
complete the film. In addition we are working hard at getting distribution for the film. We have a seven-minute cut that is an outline of the film in short form. Anyone interested in seeing this version for professional purposes can contact me directly.
We have been getting a lot of interest in Tattoo Jew! We have been invited by a few film festivals to submit Tattoo Jew. In addition to the Skin & Ink article, Tattoo Jew has been receiving press coverage for months. We have been featured in articles and interviews in the following: Kitchen Sink Magazine, Afterword, B'Nai Brith Magazine, J: The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, and Judisk Kronika.
INTERVIEWS:
We are still doing interviews for the Tattoo Jew book. If you are Jewish
and have tattoos, please contact me if you (or someone you know) are
interested in being photographed and interviewed. Please send me details
about your tattoos, as well as any other information you think relates to the subject of being a tattooed Jewish person. To all of the people we have already interviewed: thank you, thank you, thank you!
TATTOO JEW NEEDS YOUR HELP!
How can you help? We are looking for people willing to contribute
financially to the completion of the project. Tattoo Jew has grown beyond our wildest expectations, and that means we need more money! We also are looking for one or two production interns to help with administrative work, photo shoots, and general organization. If you are in the Los Angeles area and are interested please contact me.
A few months ago, I had a flirtation over the phone and online (never in person) with a beautiful shiksa. She was 22 and she told me she was majoring in "media studies" at a community college. We talked a lot about Judaism and spirituality.
I asked her opinion of Dennis Prager's essays on "Why young women are exposing themselves." Part Two.
She replied: "Hmm, Bassicly that guy covered all the basis. I myself am self contios and hate getting in a bathing suit and try to hide my tits so if I hade the body I did when I was 16 I would tastfully wear less clothes, and I hate when girls show there stomach. But I think Its all over thought, you should dress how you feal without embarassing yourself, you know! Some girls just have no stlye or class and the kind of attention they want they will get. Being a parriniod hermite I prefer no eyes on me most the time. Anyways, how are you, I am in Ixtapa, the pretures of everyday life forced me to once again flee the country. The good news is I went to a very spirituil city for Samana Santa and went to a very nice church to pray. I also went to a rodeo and a cock fight, I plane to go to an Island today because Its getting boring. What have you been up to. Oh yah I wrote a great little story on the city of Petatlan and I have pictures."
It made me sad that this girl was so pressed by her need to get a job that she didn't have the time to fully develop her writing abilities.
Today I found out she is in prison, charged with cocaine trafficking. She could get ten years. At least now she will have the time to recollect in tranquility and make a contribution to modern American literature.
Somehow, I feel guilty. I shoul've been a better witness for Torah. The full sorry story here with pictures.
Amalek writes Luke: "YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS WOMAN'S FALL. Look at what she offered you: she spoke of her love for making love, Jesus Christ, Ham, and yeast. What did you offer her back in return? Nothing. Result? One more white woman not making Jewish babies. Another victory for the other team. Had you responded as she most clearly signaled she wanted you to respond, perhaps you would have purified her to the point of leading her to Judaism, and thence to the chuppah."
Der Nister writes: "Luke: Take her bait. Explain to once loyal readers of this bog why you think you have the right to take Protocols over in this way, and in what ways it was not rude for you to have exploited a one-week guest-blogger's gig into a seemingly fulltime hostile takeover of an entire community of readers."
Luke answers: "Because I can. Might makes right, as Rabbi Nietzsche, zt'll wrote. I can do the work of six Jews.
"I am the Good Shepherd and my flock follow me everywhere, even to the end of the earth. Lo, I go to prepare a place for you, so that where I am, you may be also. In my father's house, there are many mansions, and I am preparing one for you.
"You hypocrites, you brood of vipers. You've been teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Not that which goes into the mouth defileth the man, but what comes out.
"Oh ye of little faith. I will destroy this temple of Protocols and rebuild it in three days. Do you want to crucify me for blasphemy? I will rise again.
Go ahead, drive the nails in my hands
Laugh at me where you stand.
Go ahead and say it isn't me,
The day will come when you will see.
'Cause I'll rise again.
There's no power on earth can tie me down.
Yes, I'll rise again.
Death can't keep me in the ground.
Go ahead and mock my name,
My love for you is still the same.
Go ahead and bury me,
But very soon I will be free.
Go ahead and say I'm dead and gone,
You will see that you were wrong.
Go ahead, try to hide the son,
But all will see that I'm the one.
Because I'll come again.
There's no power on earth can keep me back.
Yes, I'll come again.
Come to take my people back.
Leni writes Luke: "Your presence here is a victory, a triumph of the will that no amount of rabbincal study can defeat."
Dr. Michael Berenbaum writes: I feel particularly intensely about the attack on John Roth because I have known John Roth for the past twenty five years. We have written a book together. I have published articles in books he has edited, I have lectured to his students and taught his classes as he has taught mine. We have spoken at conference together throughout the world.
Professor Roth is a scholar of impeccable credentials. He is the author of more than twenty books in American Studies, Philosophy, Ethics and the Holocaust. In 1988 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching chose him as the nation’s outstanding teacher/scholar for his work on the Holocaust and the American Experience. He was chosen in a public process from hundreds of other professors, each nominated by his or her school and vetted by a distinguished panel
Michael emails me: "Not correct. I am a most unorthodox practitioner.
"I was ordained at 23 not 20.
"In reality I was ordained because of Vietnam, but it proved to be one of the most important things in my life. It imposed upon me a responsibility to the Jewish past -- and the Jewish future -- and to become a producer of Torah and not just a consumer, but thatnis another conversation."
see (not on-line):
Rabbis Back Law To Report Child Abuse
By Rachel Donadio
The Forward (NY)
March 29,2002 p. 3
excerpts:
With the exception of a major ultra-Orthodox organization, rabbinical groups of all denominations say they support proposed legislation in New York State that would require clergy to report allegations of child abuse.
...
The ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America, however, said it was wary of the legislation, which would require clergy to "report to authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been
abused," according to a March 19 statement by Morgenthau.
...
Last summer, Aguda and the Catholic Archdiocese of New York joined forces to oppose a proposed bill in the City Council that would have required all schools, including parochial schools, to file a police report about any criminal act committed by students or staff.
...
Steven I. Weiss' article in the Forward addresses all of Rabbi Avi Shafran's points.
http://forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.16/news9.lakewood.html
...
After reading Grama's book, Rabbi Yosef Blau, a leading rabbinic counselor at Yeshiva University, sent the Forward a letter arguing that the newspaper had accurately translated the work (please see Page 10). But, he added, Grama "is not an advocate of acting against the gentile. On the contrary, his message is the need to separate from a hostile, intrinsically antisemitic world."
Still, Blau wrote, the "possibility exists" that Jewish extremists in Israel could use the text to "justify horrendous behavior." He suggested that American scholars such as Grama may be unaware of the possible impact of such writings in today's charged atmosphere.
...
Allison Kaplan Sommers writes: I think the title at the blog Protocols should be changed. Currently it reads: A group of Jews endeavors towards total domination of the blogosphere
Now it should read: A guy from Los Angeles endeavors towards total domination of the Jewish world.
To a degree, I do miss the old Protocols -- let's face it, Rav Steven I. Weiss is too busy digging up stories for the Forward to post on his new blog at his old dizzying pace. That's what happens when you get a real job. (Can we admit it? With a few notable exceptions, the truly prolific bloggers are unemployed or don't have the most challenging and stimulating of jobs).
For those who are Luke'd out, I recommend reading Miriam Shaviv's blog. She brings the energy of a new journalist-turned-blogger to Jewish issues.
"I think the Forward has become much less objective. It has declined under its new regime. I found it more compelling under the previous regime. There are stories that you find in the Forward that you find nowhere else. I also find stories in The Jewish Week that I don't find well done in the Forward. I think The Jewish Week does a much better job of preserving a sense of objectivity whereas the Forward is taking a liberal party line approach. I think its reporting on Israel reflects a certain point of view.
"Whether it was articles on religion, or [JJ Goldberg's] articles on the National Jewish Population Survey... Almost none of the scholars of the NJPS buy into JJ Goldberg's conspiracy theory about the survey, nor do most of us buy into his view that intermarriage is not a significant issue. It is correct that the definition of intermarriage was changed, but I don't think any serious student of the NJPS can not conclude that intermarriage is a highly significant issue. I do not think there was any conspiracy in the world of the NJPS. There may have been mistakes. I think there are grave problems today with telephone surveys as a genre. I do not think the Forward did a good job of explaining that. The New York Times did it.
"I think the Forward would've been better advised to have gone the Leonard Saxe (head of the Cohen Center of Modern Jewish Studies) direction, and helped readers understand complexity.
"We have not seen anything that resembles Eve Kessler's articles on Jewish religious life [under the Lipsky regime] in the new Forward. She's still working there but she has a different beat. They never replaced her with someone who was investigating in quite so serious a way. They don't even have such a correspondent. The reason is simple. The current editor is not very interested in Jewish religious life. It's not what he thinks the American Jewish community cares about. I think he's wrong.
"I found the Forward more riveting under Seth Lipsky. I respect Seth for creating a new vision of what Jewish journalism could be. I understand he ran afoul of the people who were paying the tune and that JJ is more in tune with the folks who are from the old Forward and have a certain political [socialist] perspective taken from the old Forward. I don't happen to share that politics. It's not surprising that I find the slant of the Forward less to my liking. Seth opened up stories that we have not seen before or since."
One of my favorite reads is Dating Theory Mike, who I at first thought was a shmuck because of his nasty comments about grieving friends of mine.
Here's his latest: "No matter how hard one tries, a guy can never become "cooler," or more socially desirable in the eyes of women. Contrary to popular films, simply putting trendy clothing on the otherwise mediocre nerd will not make him the homecoming king. The only thing a guy can hope for is a change in his surroundings."
I remember taking a few whacks on this blog from frum journalist Chayyei Sarah (she moved to Israel over a year ago from NY) a few weeks ago. Now I've become intrigued by her blog. What's a yid to do? She had a good time at the Shabbaton.
The history of Jewish Journalism in the United States presents something of a challenge. Traditionally, historians like to recount the story of progress: development onward and upward from primitive origins to flourishing contemporary success. The history of Jewish journalism in the US, by contrast, represents, at least until recently, a story of marked decay.
Chaim Amalek writes Luke: Why bother writing a book about a bunch of shlubs who can't do much more than what they have been doing, when there is a far richer universe of people to write about? I am suggesting that instead of writing about Jewish Journalism, you flip this project inside out and write about the Journalism of the Jews. Your targets will be far more numerous, wealthier, and both fearful of your work and eager to win you to their side. You could become the Faith Popcorn of Jewish Journalists, the man al Jazeera turns to whenever it needs a jewish mouthpiece to explain jewish hegemonic control over American mass media.
My poor friend from Young Israel of Century City has only two vehicles in his household. Nebuch! I had no idea. Chaver, feel free to borrow my van at any time. Drive it into the YICC parking lot and you will get Maftir!
For tznious reasons, I would've placed your wife and daughters in the back while driving them to their appointments. They'd be the talk of the kehilla. The whole experience is guaranteed to help them pray harder.
Chaver replies: Levi: Thanks so much for your kind offer. It is tempting to commandeer your van and discover how the other half lives. Alas, I value my image as a wildly successful and powerful Hollywood [rabbi]. However, I will keep your offer in mind, in case I become completely self destructive. *** hesitates to step into the same room as you, so the chances of her catching a ride with you are about as good as me becoming the next Hershel Bernard.
Anonymous writes: I do not want to embarrass Mr. Ford, as this is not the Jewish way. Still, I was once in his van, and while he was standing outside it, arguing with the Mexican over our order of (kosher) tacos, I surreptitiously searched it for Shatnez. I found none. I checked some stains I found next to the drivers seat, but these proved not to be menstrual blood. There was a tattered and very realistic looking sheitel in the cargo space of the van, but genetic analysis of the hairs indicated that their origin was not from the scalp of a south asian woman. And as for the few bones I found nearby, the genetic tests I have done indicate that they were not porcine in nature. Hence, it is perfectly respectable for any respectable Jew to accept transportation from Luke Ford. --Your Moral Leader's Moral Leader
Chaim Amalek, Friend to the Jewish Woman, writes: There would be more Jewish children in the world if more Jewish women spent more time working on their bodies and less time trying to compete with men in the workplace.
Dear Yehudit: It is not the task of the Jewish man to appeal to the carnal lusts of the Jewish woman, for properly raised, she has none outside of marriage. As for the physical character of the Jewish man, a bachur who spends his days and night engaged in the study of the oral law cannot be expected to have the body of a goy. Now get yourself to the gym and stop eating so much.
Michael Berenbaum writes me: "I am still a observant and religious Jew. I do not use denominational ties but we daven [by a Conservative temple]. I was ordinated [Orthodox] by Rabbi Yaakov Rabin zt'l [when Michael was 23].
"In reality I was ordained because of Vietnam, but it proved to be one of the most important things in my life. It imposed upon me a responsibility to the Jewish past -- and the Jewish future -- and to become a producer of Torah and not just a consumer, but that is another conversation."
I get a ton of criticism for writing so much in the first person. The owner of this site, Steven I. Weiss, writes me Sunday night, "As always, I want to emphasize with you that you can do great work in Jewish journalism. I'm still waiting for that one day without the pronoun "I"."
Steven, it is not the voice that matters as much as the quality. First person is a perfectly wonderful way to tell a story so long as the writer is engaged in meaningful conflict that results in a realization.
Gene Lichtenstein wrote in last week's issue of The Jewish Week: "Two years ago at a Hollywood screenwriters’ conference, the then head of the Writers Guild, Daniel Petrie Jr., remarked to this reporter that he had no idea how many screenwriters were Jewish, but in any event it was not a significant number."
The use of third person did not make this a superior story.
The overwhelming amount of Jewish journalism is written in third-person, and, frankly, it sucks.
I may attend a Jewish event, and the most interest thing that happens there is the variety of my internal states.
I do not consider the people I write about to always be more compelling than myself, just as I do not always view myself as more interesting than the people I write about.
The use of first person is fine if the writer is a major and compelling part of a story.
If I am not for myself, who will be? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?
I love it how journalists such as Gary Rosenblatt (The Jewish Week) and Amy Klein (Jewish Journal) proudly tell me that their papers are not Federation papers. Yet their primary financial support comes from the Federation. Yet they always cover the Federation with mind-numbing detail that is rarely negative. The more such journalists assure me that their papers are not Federation papers, the more...
Who cares who the new executive vice president is? Will it make any difference to the education of Jewish kids? No.
Betrayed writes: These papers get their funding from Federation because Federation controls most of the money in most Jewish communities. In some cases, this is a good thing, but that the papers are so clearly Federation influenced and yet deny the closeness of the tie, seems like they're kidding themeselves. We all know.
BTW, NY Federation in particular is notorious for treating employees like crap and spitting qualified folks out on a whim, which is not, to my mind, very haimish. Now that's a story worthy of investigation, a shonda of epic proportions that no Jewish paper will touch, because you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
Check out this bird Julie Barroukh -- she's a Jewish mom -- very active in her synagogue -- former journalist, former producer at the KTLA morning show -- turned personal trainer.
http://www.juliebfit.com
We're friends from Columbia Journalism School. I tease her that this is what happens when you take a smart NY girl and put her in LA. Her brain atrophies and she becomes obsessed with her body....
I offered Nancy Rommelmann and Cathy Seipp a free training session with her a while back, but they never took me up on it.
Mommy writes: I've found that having small kids and being a mother is pretty much the same routine whether you live in West LA or Boston or London or Israel. You get 'em up, dress 'em, bring them to school. In the late afternoon you pick 'em up, bring them to friends' houses and afterschool stuff like swimming lessons and gymnastics classes, come home, do homework, feed them, put them to bed. You spend the weekends entertaining them.
Your geographical location matters little -- frankly, what matters most is your income and therefore how many activities you can afford for the kids, and how much you have to do yourself, how much hired help you can get to support you and clean up after you and watch the kids sometimes so you can have some form of adult existence once in a while -- and, in our Jewish sphere, whether or not you do Shabbat -- do you spend your weekends eating and praying or at the pool and the beach?
The difference is, obviously, what you do during the time they are in school. I spend it primarily on the computer and the telephone, with the occasional coffee or lunch with a friend, usually an ex-American -- so again, does it matter that I'm in Israel?
I'm really, really glad that I spent my first four years in Israel working and not having kids, so I have a clues as to what real Israeli life is. I used to poo-poo the town I now live in. I used to say, "If I wanted to live in New Jersey, I'd go for the real thing."
But I gave up. It's too exhausting to try to be hip and cool and urban and happening AND raise kids. The suburbs are the place to do it, for now. I'm accepting it as a finite period of my life and am trying not to let too many brain cells die in the process, so hopefully when my kids get older I'll still have a life and a personality. I figure that talking to people like you help this process along. It's like the mental equivalent of the maintenance on their bodies that the Hollywood moms do.
XXX writes: Interview Ori Nir. He is the most intelligent, thoughtful Israeli journalist I've ever met and he's now covering Washington for the Forward. He knows Israeli journalism, mainstream journalism (his wife works for LA Times, formerly Christian Science Monitor) and he's spent enough time in and around American Jewish journalism to form opinions.
He's a wonderful journalist in Hebrew -- worked for Ha'aretz for many years covering the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs -- fluent in Arabic. He and his wife met on the job in the West Bank.
"Would you be surprised to learn that Malcolm [Hoenlein] threatened The Jewish Week (NY) that if they published an article about a slush fund he kept that he would financially destroy the paper?"
"No."
"What's your critique of JJ Goldberg and the Forward?"
"I don't think he has yet established an Op/Ed page that reflects dramatic opinion in the [style of] The New York Times and Washington Post. That you have an understanding of the issues and you shape an agenda. There are enough people writing enough powerful stuff that the Forward should be able to do it. There are usually two or three good stories each week and the rest of the paper is not worth reading. The Culture section is sometimes very good. JJ hasn't fully established his own voice."
"Is he that good of a journalist? I always found his columns tame."
"He may be too tame. Lipsky was anything but tame."
"What's your critique of Gary Rosenblatt and The Jewish Week?"
"Gary earned his place in Gan Eden [world to come] by virtue of what he did on the [Baruch] Lanner thing. He's too tame. He often comes off as if he is ball-less. When he had some good journalists working for him, he restrained them from covering anything too controversial. He had Larry Cohler [renowned investigative journalist]. I helped train Larry. You've got to let him do his stuff and stick by him and 99% of the time you will end up with something of worth. Larry was essentially driven out. He found out that Gary was without balls. Larry may sometimes be without brains but he is never without balls. Gary tends to be tame and timid.
"The Jewish Week doesn't have a good Arts section or a good book review section. Jewish life in its intellectual sphere is flourishing. How a paper like that in New York isn't covering books and literature and arts and dance and theatre at the epic-center of where that is exciting, I don't understand. I don't understand that with my friend [Rob Eshman] at the Jewish Journal. How can you not cover this? Stuff gets covered in The New York Times book review or the New York Review of Books but The Jewish Week doesn't say a goddamn thing about it. The Jewish Journal doesn't say a goddman thing about it."
"They do but they assign spineless book reviewers such as Sandee Brawarsky."
"For example, compare the review of David Myers book by [Rabbi Daniel] Bouskila [in the Jewish Journal] with the way [Samuel Moyn] from Columbia reviewed it in the Forward and you see the difference between something that is serious and something that is not serious. In the areas I know well, these guys [Rosenblatt, Eshman] are not committed to it. Even if you were Gary and you wanted to play it safe, you could raise every issue you wanted to raise through the book review section that you don't want to review elsewhere."
"It's so bad. The Jewish press is so bad."
John writes: Of course Gary lacks balls. He's the editor of a Federation paper. If you want to keep these kind of jobs, especially long-term, lacking balls is a requirement.
Just like if you want to set up an independent web site covering the porn industry and pissing off very scary people, having massively oversized balls and being slightly insane is a requirement ("Boogie Nights" was on cable last night, reminding me of that fact.)
It takes all types to make a world, even in journalism. Would the papers be better if they employed a series of editors with journalistic balls, each of whom got fired after three months on the job? (Maybe, but...)
The question isn't whether the federation rags are journalistically daring or not, the question is whether there are alternatives. Till the Forward and the web publications and blogs came along, there weren't alternatives. And frankly, there would be no Forward if there wasn't a very rich Jewish macher who is willing to bankroll a paper that is critical of, among other things, rich Jewish machers.
It's all about the money -- or lack thereof. That's why the Internet is a boon, because the start-up and support costs are so low.
"The most oft-updated site shop for Jewish kitsch and personal commentary in the blogosphere." -- Jewsweek Magazine "If you only have time for one Jewish blog, make it this one." -- Jewish Journal North of Boston
Support protocols via PayPal:
Earn Protocols money by applying for this no-annual-fee credit card (you can cut it up when you get it -- we still earn a referral fee):
Any time you purchase something at Amazon, click on the link below first, and Protocols earns a referral fee.
