Highlighted 
Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 13:30:34 PM EST
|
- The most philosophical discussion of farting I have ever seen (Rabbi Rami).
- Young Hispanics leaving Catholic church (Religion News Blog).
- Hillel shoutout on The Simpsons (JTA).
- WashingtonPost.com launches TheRoot.com, a daily web magazine dedicated to "raising the profile of black voices in mainstream media and engaging anyone interested in black culture around the world."
- In praise of the Jewish blogosphere (Haaretz).
- Jewess ponders "the Orthodox she-rabbi."
- It's really stupid to "compare" the oppression of blacks and women (The Nation, via HNN)
- Are there too many nonprofits in the US already? (Philanthropy.com)
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1141 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:02:58 PM EST
|
|
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1998 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 14:30:15 PM EST
|
The new winter issue of Lilith (no online content, unfortunately) includes a feature piece that asks whether internet dating is good or bad for Jewish (hetero) women.
I've known people who have had a great time dating online and people who have had truly terrible encounters, so it's hard to make a broad judgment. But I'm grateful to Lilith for raising the issue because my own troubling experiences with online dating have to do, I think, with the way that the process eliminates a certain subtle kind of human-to-human accountability that we take for granted in our interactions with "real" people. I don't think there are more "bad people" dating online. I do think that people feel freer online to treat each other rudely or unethically, or to disappear from each other's lives without warning.
Are women more impacted by this than men? I don't know. When I imagine the argument, which has something to do with how "society used to protect" women and girls better before all this internet stuff came around, I don't like it. I'm always wary when people try to say that things were better for women in the good old days when society protected them (an argument that crops up in discussions of everything from Jewish divorce laws to the movie Juno). As the old women's proverb goes, better to get your feelings hurt sitting in your own apartment than to be locked up in your father's house while your burly elder brothers avenge your lost honor. But human-to-human accountability is certainly an issue about which Jewish text and tradition have a great deal to say, and so I hope this conversation continues.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1468 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:40:47 PM EST
|
I recently finished Mark Tolouse's God in Public: Four Ways American Christianity and Public Life Relate, which offers a useful framework for thinking about Christianity (and religion in general) in the American public square. As the subtitle suggests, Toulouse helpfully divides the interactions between Christianity/Christians and public life into four categories, which he describes as follows:
1. Iconic faith, defined as putting symbols of Christianity (such as a Christmas tree) in public spaces, or putting American cultural symbols (such as the flag) in Christian spaces and "venerat[ing these icons] as having special or sacred significance."
2. Priestly faith, defined as the stance by which "Christians transform iconic expressions into either a systematic collection of values or a definition of cultural ethos, promote either one as if it represents the true meaning of both Christianity and America and seek to persuade the government to protect its interests by legislative or political means. . . or where government leaders transform national initiatives or interests into divine missions in the world or wrap them in God-language"
3. Public Christian, defined as when "Christians emphasize the existence of two kingdoms (kingdom of God and Kingdom of this world) and affirm the radical discontinuity that exists, or as some prefer, that should exist between church and world. The church is to avoid activity intending to transform public life, but individual Christians are encouraged to participate through voting, as politicians, or in any other appropriate way consistent with Christian faith. Priority is placed on the church and its members to stand as witnesses both to God's salvation and to authentic human life in the world, and to bring individuals to Christ."
4. Public Church, defined as "Where Christians assert the unity of God's reign, and God's equal concern for all things sacred and secular. . . [they] expect the church to engage social life in America, especially whenever political realities exploit human beings or deny them justice; declare that the mission of the church includes the use of political wisdom, effective methods, and critical reason to establish a greater degree of relative justice in American public life.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 5152 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:18:09 PM EST
|
Sometimes when we pose a question in the title of the post it's because we want to raise a question to which there is no single empirical answer. And sometimes we actually do have the answer in mind and we just want to sound, you know, intriguing. (I used to hate it when my teachers did that, didn't you?) But in this case, upon further reflection on the New York Times article we discussed here, I just want to know the answer.
I don't want a general answer like "the system discriminates against them," and I don't care if the answer has 20 complex parts or if it's PC. (Is it because we did worse on our math SATs? Is it because women get more tempting junk mail?) I just want a real answer, maybe with some real economics in it (I do believe some economics is pretend, but I'm willing to listen in this case), to this extremely significant question:
Why do women and minorities get crappier mortgages at all income levels?
Why this?
Consumer Federation of America found that women were 32 percent more likely to receive subprime loans than men. The disparity existed within every income and ethnic group. Blacks and Latinos are also more likely to get subprime loans than comparable white borrowers.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 1983 words in story)
|
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 19:46:00 PM EST
|
Jewish Council on Public Affairs' Mellisa Boteach has an interesting post about the decision by both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Nevada to hold their upcoming caucuses not only on Shabbat, but also right in the middle of morning services.
While it is hard to know just how many Jews will be harmed by these decisions, it is a slap in the face to Jewish community. On the plus side, it provides additional evidence that Jews do not control the United States (as if the outcomes of the past two presidential elections wasn't proof enough)... Of course, if the parties go ahead and change the time because of pressure from Jewish groups on this issue, well, that might undermine the previous assertion somewhat.
In my experience, the reason something like this happens is that the people impacted by the decision (observant and synagogue-going Jews) are not part of the decision making process. This is compounded by the unwillingness of those Jews who are part of the decision making process to raise this as an issue - because it doesn't affect them or their Jewish friends, or because they feel uncomfortable asking that a decision be make to accommodate the religious practice of (some) Nevada Jews.
These days, it is harder to believe that there were no Jews in this loop willing to raise this as an issue, but who knows? Maybe things are different in Nevada, despite its growing Jewish population.
So, good for JCPA for looking into this. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it.
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 1269 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:09:43 PM EST
|
Parshat Va'era bridges two defining moments in the formation of the Israelites' national identity: the first, which took place in last week's Torah portion, comes in Exodus 1:9, when, for the first time, the people are referred to as an am, a nation. Notably, it is an outsider--in fact, their oppressor, Pharaoh-- who identifies them as such.
Next week, we'll read of a second pivotal moment, when God brings the final plague--the slaying of the first born-- on the people of Egypt. A close reading of the text informs us that avoiding this plague was not automatic for the Israelites; rather each household had to mark its doorposts with blood in order to identify as part of the community that would not be touched by the mashchit (destroyer). In other words, each member of the collective has to opt into the national unit, choosing her own identity.
In between these two moments, where identity goes from being defined by a complete outsider to being defined by the individual Israelites themselves, is Parshat Va'era. In this parsha, the identity of the Israelite people is divinely established, as a by-product, almost, of the plagues.
In two instances, the Israelite people are explicitly separated out, made distinct from the Egyptians. In the first case, the land of Goshen, where the Israelites reside, is "made distinct" (Exodus 8:18) from the rest of the land, and is unaffected by the plague of erov (meaning is unclear: either swarms of insects or wild beasts). Similarly, the Israelites' livestock is "made distinct" from that of the Egyptians, and does not suffer the plague of animal pestilence (Exodus 9:4).
Through the first three Torah portions of the book of Exodus, we experience the formation of identity through three modalities: that of an oppressor defining his subjects, that of a divine force defining its people, and that of self-determination. Common to these three modalities is the fact that the origins of our national identity are rooted in 'otherness,' being defined against something else.
While there may be some clarity in understanding oneself in contrast to what one is not, there is also danger in seeing oneself solely as an other, separate from the rest of the world. And indeed, while otherness and outsiderness is part of our foundational narrative, our tradition is nevertheless bothered by it, and its potential for callousness. A number of correctives come from rabbinic and later traditions, such as the midrash in which God silences the angels for celebrating the Egyptians' drowning in the Red Sea (T.B. Megillah 10b), and the practice of spilling a drop of wine from our cups (lessening our joy) when we recite the plagues at the Passover seder.
Last week, Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt's beautiful post described the challenge and importance of embracing the responsibility that comes from seeing the other. For me, Parshat Va'era, and the surrounding Torah portions, extend this challenge, asking us to hold ourselves distinct while simultaneously striving to bridge the divide.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 2470 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 18:13:05 PM EST
|
It is not considered good manners to rub your prescience in the face of others. And yet... not doing so has its problems; nobody seems to remember who was right and who was wrong when decisions were made those many months or years earlier.
As we've heard more than once during the presidential campaigns, experience counts, but so does judgment.
So I've come up with something of a solution: when we see that someone was correct and another was incorrect, it is incumbent upon us - the interested third-party - to say something.
The most recent example of this phenomenon is the subprime lending crisis. Recently the NYTimes captured it nicely:
Until the boom in subprime mortgages turned into a national nightmare this summer, the few people who tried to warn federal banking officials might as well have been talking to themselves.
Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.
But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.
In 2001, a senior Treasury official, Sheila C. Bair, tried to persuade subprime lenders to adopt a code of "best practices" and to let outside monitors verify their compliance. None of the lenders would agree to the monitors, and many rejected the code itself. Even those who did adopt those practices, Ms. Bair recalled recently, soon let them slip.
And leaders of a housing advocacy group in California, meeting with Mr. Greenspan in 2004, warned that deception was increasing and unscrupulous practices were spreading.
John C. Gamboa and Robert L. Gnaizda of the Greenlining Institute implored Mr. Greenspan to use his bully pulpit and press for a voluntary code of conduct.
"He never gave us a good reason, but he didn't want to do it," Mr. Gnaizda said last week. "He just wasn't interested."
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 2648 words in story)
|
|
Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 17:10:39 PM EST
|
Often obscured during the conversations about health insurance is the subset of problems surrounding dental insurance. For some reason (unknown to me) we have different insurance for our mouths than for the rest of our body. Many folks lucky enough to have regular health insurance still lack dental insurance, a fact that finally got some attention after a 12 year old boy DIED because he couldn't afford to treat an abscessed tooth. Another incredible story to receive national attention this year is that of 51 year old James Lowe, a disabled coal miner from Eastern Kentucky who was born with a cleft palate and couldn't speak properly until he finally was able to get surgery a year ago.
Inspired (in part by Lowe I'd guess) to do some digging, NYTimes decided, take a closer look at Kentucky. The statistics and stories in the article are shocking. Half of kids aged 2-4 have untreated cavities. 1 in 10 state residents is missing all of their teeth. Kentucky has the highest proportion of people under 65 without teeth. Half the population doesn't have dental insurance.
Although I have avoided serious dental problems myself, I have been routinely frustrated with my dental insurance over the years. Unlike my health insurance, my dental insurance has always required me to pay for treatment myself and request reimbursement. It has taken me months to get reimbursed and once I never got the check ($300 plus just for a cleaning and xrays!). The one exception was when I was a union member with access to our Local's dental clinic; it was quick, easy, and almost cost-free.
One of the problems with the debate around health care is that despite the large numbers of Americans who lack insurance (47 million of so), most ARE insured and are thus very wary about changes to a system that more or less meets their basic needs (although portability and affordablilty are problems for many of the insured). Yet many more Americans lack dental insurance (almost one in three!); pointing this out may help the average American better understand and thus embrace the need for real reform.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 2018 words in story)
|
|
Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 22:30:50 PM EST
|
I'm spending the week in Jerusalem at a seminar on translation, so naturally I'm thinking about what we mean when we do or don't use Hebrew terms in English discourse. To that end, I was intrigued by this headline on the URJ biennial blog: A Catholic mayor speaks Hebrew.
The mayor in question is Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, and the Hebrew in question appears in this quote:
There is a central idea that justice and opportunity exists for none of us if it fails to reach all of us.
And there is the faith that our best days are yet to come.
I may have be Catholic, born and raised. But the lessons of my life and a career in public service, have always found their clearest articulation in Hebrew: Tikkun Olam, Tzedakah, and Mitzvot.
A few questions for Villaraigosa, the URJ bloggers, and all of us:
Villaraigosa is hardly the first non-Jew to use these terms to a Jewish, or even non-Jewish audience. Bill Clinton and Cornell West have both been known to talk about tikkun olam (but then again, Clinton was the first Black Jewish president), and most politicians have a Jewish speech writer on hand to slip in a few Hebrewisms or Yiddishisms, which never fail to please a Jewish crowd. (I particularly remember Al Gore making a GA audience roll with laughter over his exaggerated pronunciation of chhhhesed). Clearly, the use of familiar Hebrew/Yiddish terms or references to bagels or pastrami create an artificial sense of closeness with a Jewish crowd (though the use of Hebrew terms unfamiliar to a general audience would produce a pretty serious case of alienation).
That said:
1. Did Villaraigosa intend the terms "tzedakah" "tikkun olam" and "mitzvot" as three separate and independent terms, or as general expressions of the concept of "justice"? And how did the audience hear these terms? I and others have written extensively about what happens when terms such as these become so general as to be meaningless (on tikkun olam, see Rabbi Arnold J. Wolf's article in Judaism from a few years back, my piece in Zeek, Rabbi Jane Kanarek's chapter in the newly-released Righteous Indignation). My assumption is that the terms were intended and heard as three means of talking about justice, rather than as specific references to monetary support for the poor as an act of justice (or however one might translate tzedakah), whatever tikkun olam might mean (see the longer discussions mentioned above), and commandments/commandedness. Is it a good thing that we have such shorthand for good acts in the world, or a bad thing that these terms have lost much of their specific meaning?
2. What does it mean for a non-Jew to talk about mitzvot? I assume that Villaraigosa meant this term in the general sense of "good deed," and not of "commandment." But what happens to this word, which describes the particularly Jewish response to the divine call (or whatever theological language you'd like to use to describe "mitzvah"), enters the general vernacular? Does the word introduce some sense of obligation into a civil society that generally speaks of justice work in terms of volunteerism, charity, or altruism, or does the word lose its particular meaning in the transition?
3. Why do Jews so love when Christians use Jewish language? What if Villaraigosa had stood up and spoken about Catholic Social Teaching, which is extraordinarily powerful and compelling in its own right, and about which I have a certain amount of religious envy? Could that have led to dialogue about the different ways in which people of various traditions come to justice work? Does the use of shared terms create a useful common language, or does it iron over real differences (or something in between)?
4. Was Villaraigosa, as the headline announces "speaking Hebrew" or was he simply using words of Hebrew origin that have made their way into American leftist discourse?
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 3533 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
| User Blox 1 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
| Barack Obama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RSS Feed Links |
Subscribe to JSpot in a feed reader!
Subscribe to JSPOT by Email!
|
|
| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
|
