Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for October, 2003

NY Times Editorial Salutes Nusseibeh-Ayalon, Israeli-Palestinian Peace Campaigners

Friday, October 31st, 2003

I’ve found rather a lot to criticize in recent New York Times journalism. Not since John Burns wrote a wonderful piece on the Israeli security fence (a few weeks ago) have I felt glowing praise was in order. But today is the day to give the Times its due. New Tries for Mideast Peace (who thought of that lame title by the way?) lauds Ayalon and Nusseibeh, who:

produced an admirable…statement of principles for a two-state solution, which they say has been signed by 100,000 Israelis and 70,000 Palestinians. It deals with the most sensitive issues: Israel would be recognized as the “state of the Jewish people,” sovereignty in Jerusalem would be divided and shared, and the Palestinian “right of return” would not include returning to Israel.

But the editorial quickly raises the deepest sticking point to any potential peace agreement:

…A majority of Israelis and Palestinians favor such a solution, but the leadership needed to produce it is missing in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Washington.

For the time being, the will of the people is weaker than the lassitude of the political leadership. One desperately hopes that this will not always (and not long) be the case.

Condolezza Rice: When You Have No Defense Switch to Offense

Friday, October 31st, 2003

The following appears in today’s New York Times, Rice Faults Past Administrations on Terror:

Bush’s national security adviser said on Thursday that the Clinton and other past administrations had ignored evidence of growing terrorist threats and that despite repeated attacks on American interests, “until Sept. 11, the terrorists faced no sustained, systematic and global response” from the United States.

“They became emboldened,” the adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said of Al Qaeda, “and the result was more terror and more victims.”

The Bush Administration and its terrorism policy have been given terrible black eyes of late as highlighted by the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. So Ms. Rice and other top minions have decided when you have no defense go to the offense. The governement’s terrorism policy is a shambles. But in order to divert attention from its failures, the guiding principle seems to be: “Blame the guys who came before us.” The hope appears to be that such an offensive approach (which is also ‘offensive’ in the objectionable sense of the word) will buy time until the Administration can get back ‘on message.’ The only problem with this perspective is that Bush policy will never get back on message. Hussein and his loyalists only get stronger and more lethal. Al Qaeda is not gone or even seriously weakened though we have killed many of its followers. Things are likely to get worse before they (if ever) get better. This situation is not likely to change for a long, long time if ever.

Outlook 2003 Upgrade: Should You or Shouldn’t You?

Thursday, October 30th, 2003

Here is a hilarious and ingenious parody/spoof at Microsoft’s expense which basically takes apart the new Microsoft Office 2003 version: Microsoft Office 2003: Compare Previous Editions..Outlook 2003 screenshot

I just bought Outlook 2003 (part of the Office suite) because the New York Times lauded its spam filtering capabilities. Personally (and I may not use Outlook like you), I don’t see that many changes for me from the way I operated before. Not much better, not much worse. The spam filtering system does seem to pick up more spam than previous MS filters. But it still doesn’t get nearly everything (the Times reviewer claimed it intercepted 95% of his spam!).

In addition, opening Outlook 2003 is a much slower process. I’m guessing the new version is a memory hog and perhaps that the improved spam filter is delaying the initialization when you open the software.

If you liked the old Outlook Bar (which contained icons representing individual OTL folders like Contacts, Calendar, etc. and which provided you one-click access to them) in pre-2003 versions, you’ll miss it here. Instead, those brilliant programmers came up with a Navigation Pane, which ties (actually I should say ‘chains’) together what the new version calls the Folder List with a set of graphic icons which functions something like the former Outlook Bar.

Those programmers must’ve been pretty excited by their Navigation Pane because slipstick.com mentions this neat little nugget of MS lore:

‘WunderBar’ was the working name for the Outlook navigation pane during the Office 2003 beta.

Surely they jest??! It ain’t no wunder to me, that’s for sure!

In Outlook 2002, these two features were separate and could be displayed or not depending on the user’s preference. Not anymore! Leave it to those whacky Microsoft programmers to take two separate good things and turn them into one really bad thing. What were they thinking when they locked these two features together?

Now, in Outlook 2003 either you display the Outlook Bar AND Folder List together as the Navigation Pane or you don’t display them at all. There’s no way to display the Outlook Bar alone (as I would like). Go get ‘em MS! You rock (not)!

Israel’s Chief of Staff Attacks Sharon Draconian Policies

Thursday, October 30th, 2003

Is this man of war turning to winning the peace?Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s Chief of Staff (equivalent to chairman of the Joint Chiefs here), today severely criticized the current repressive policies of the Sharon government against the Palestinians in Israel’s Chief of Staff Denounces Policies Against Palestinians. In effect, Yaalon was criticizing not only Sharon, he was also calling into question the very policies which his own forces are implementing. I’ve been following Israeli politics since 1967 and cannot remember a time when a Chief of Staff criticized government policies so strongly and clearly. For Mideast doves, today was a very good day. Let us hope that momentum is sustained.

Imagine how that will go over with the rank and file soldier! Hopefully, it will make them question what they are doing even more strongly than at present. Here is the gist of Yaalon’s statement as quoted from the Israeli press:

Nahum Barnea, a leading Israeli columnist with the daily Yediot Ahronot, quoted “a military official” as saying comprehensive travel restrictions and curfews imposed on Palestinians were actually harming Israel’s overall security.

“It increases hatred for Israel and strengthens the terror organizations,” Mr. Barnea wrote, quoting the official.

General Yaalon also said that Israel should have eased punitive measures to bolster the fortunes of the former Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who resigned on Sept. 6 after only four months on the job.

“There is no hope, no expectations for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, nor in Bethlehem and Jericho,” Mr. Barnea quoted the “military official” as saying. “In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest.”

In previous public statements, General Yaalon has supported strong military action.

While this might look like a strike out of the blue for the military commander to directly contradict his civilian commander (and it could never happen here [I hope]), there may be ample reason for this. Though I know nothing of the background for Yaalon’s statement, it could be possible that his military career is nearing an end (most Chiefs of Staff retire from the service after performing this role for a few years and then return to private life; MANY chiefs turn to politics after they retire) and he plans to run for office. If he’s intending to run as a Labor Party member, then this statement makes perfect sense. Or if he wishes Sharon to fire him so that he can do the same thing…it’s possible that he will get his wish and become a hero to Labor Party members throughout the country as the man who stood up to Sharon. Whatever the reasons, this man deserves a lot of credit and has a lot of guts. May there be more where he came from.

For Zagat Haters: a Food Guide Alternative

Wednesday, October 29th, 2003

Most everyone I know who loves food has what I’d call a “hate/like” relationship with Zagat: either they hate it with a passion or they might grudgingly admit its utility.

I’d like to point out an alternative. Not in the sense of a guide that replicates Zagat; but a guide that represents for Canada what a good nationally focussed food guide could be here in the States. It is called Where to Eat in Canada and has, for the past 32 years been produced by Anne Hardy.

I first discovered the book while staying at Sooke Harbor House in Sooke, BC. The way I judge whether a food guide is any good is by reading a review of a restaurant I know well. If the review is on the money, then I have a sense of the judgment of the particular guide. Just for the hell of it, I decided to look up the review of Sooke Harbor House in Where to Eat in Canada. Not only was it right on the money, it was quite literate and made for a most enjoyable read. Now, that’s my kind of food writing. I remember thinking: ‘If only there was something like this in the U.S.!’

For some sample reviews, check out : ‘Where to Eat’ Sample Reviews.

Now, I understand that the goals and methods of Zagat and Where to Eat are different. Zagat aims to be the people’s guide and Where to Eat is a more traditional reviewer driven guide. But what I like about Where to Eat and hate about Zagat is that the former focuses on food and the dining experience, while Zagat sexes up its reviews. Zagat aims to tell you what’s hot and what’s not in the world of food. That’s why it loves those pithy, sexy oneliners that its reviewers throw in to describe the restaurant. All that stuff I can do without.

Of course, in the U.S. you could never write a single guide that could encompass every major restaurant in the country (as Where to Eat attempts to do). But you could write guides for the major cities (as Zagat has done). I quite like the New York Times Restaurant Guide. But I’d like to see something of that quality for all the major U.S. cities. Any of you food writer/entrepreneur types out there listening?

Do Children Really Need a Jeep Larger than They Are?

Wednesday, October 29th, 2003

Make your boy a real manMy 2 1/2 year old son loves the swings at Madison Park playground. One day, while pushing Jonah on the swings, I noticed some small boys driving a battery-powered Gaucho Jeep replica. These are not little toy trucks like kids have played with since time immemorial (well, maybe not time immemorial!). These behemoths are larger than the boys themselves. They drive like the real thing including forward and reverse gears. And I’ve seen some of the children driving these machines on the public sidewalk as if they were driving the real thing. I’m just waiting for some kid to drive one of these right into a pedestrian. Shouldn’t they have a license?? Not to mention the serious danger which the chidren themselves face if they drive these things as erratically as a kid is wont to do. This Amazon.com product review boggled my mind a bit:

My 4-1/2-year-old received this for his birthday last winter. He’s been driving it ever since. It seats two kids comfortably and has velcro seat belts. We know they work because our two boys have flipped this Jeep twice. Once on a moderately steep, grassy hill in our yard (flipped over backwards) and once driving over a mound of dirt in the street. After the first rollover we started to make them wear helmets on it all the time. We have learned that this toy really does require supervision and the establishment of safety rules with the kids. Of course, we don’t let our 2-year-old drive. He’s content with being a passenger for now.

The kids love riding around the driveway, street and yard with their friends (who also have a similar Jeep). This Jeep is running very well and looking good even after some collisions with the neighbor’s Jeep and even after our son learned to drive off the curb into the street.

I think this woman should have her head examined. She’s letting a 4 1/2 year old child drive a vehicle into the public street?? If this isn’t a disaster waiting to happen, I don’t know what is.

When I first saw this monstrosity I thought it must cost $700 at least. But after checking online I see that they you can get a Gaucho for the low, low price of $538 (plus sales tax and shipping). Think how many nice books, DVDs or other toys one could buy for one’s child with that $500. I know, parents with $500 to blow on a toy SUV don’t worry about saving their money.

All of this begs the question: what has gotten into the minds of the parents of these children? Why does any child need such a gargantuan toy? The thinking of these parents is reprehensible. They’re inaugurating their children into the great American marketing extravaganza. If they’re driving SUVs at 5, imagine what toys they’ll be playing with at 55? Yuck.

Dead[set] Against Bush: the Gertrude Jones Obituary Hoax

Wednesday, October 29th, 2003

Obituary published in The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, on 10/2/2003:

Gertrude M. Jones, 81, passed away on August 25, 2003, under the loving care of the nursing aides of Heritage Manor of Mandeville, Louisiana. She was a native of Lebanon, KY. She was a retired Vice President of Georgia International Life Insurance Company of Atlanta, GA.

Her husband, Warren K. Jones predeceased her. Two daughters survive her: Dawn Hunt and her live-in boyfriend, Roland, of Mandeville, LA; and Melba Kovalak and her husband, Drew Kovalak, of Woodbury, MN. Three sisters, four grandchildren and three great grandchildren, also survive her. Funeral services were held in Louisville, KY.

Memorial gifts may be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office.

I became a little worried that this obituary might be yet another internet hoax. But Snopes.com, an Urban Legends website confirmed its autheticity. It can be found on the newspaper’s site.

UPDATE

SCB read this post & did some sleuthing of his/her own & has made a convincing argument to me that the above obituary may be a hoax of sorts. Here’s her e mail to me:

I think your instincts were right. While I detest Bush also, the Gertrude M. Jones obituary set off my “BS Detector” almost immediately, even though an “urbanlegends” site said it’s “true” and linked the Picayune obit page to “prove” it.

What made me suspicious is the mention of a “live-in boyfriend” by first name only, then the omission of the names of the other actual family members!

For this reason alone, this is NOT an appropriate obituary, nor one that an 81-year-old Southern woman would approve of, I assure you. It makes the anti-Bush donation request equally suspect. A “rogue” family member, (perhaps the daughter in Mandeville, LA with the “live-in boyfriend”?) may have come up with this very tacky obituary. It could even be a direct contradiction of the woman’s political leanings in a final “gotcha” by a disgruntled daughter…

THIS obituary, published in the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal seems much more appropriate, and valid. She also goes from being a “Vice President” to an accounting employee with GA Life:

Gertrude M. Jones

Gertrude M. Jones, 81, formerly of Louisville, passed away Monday, August 25, 2003, in East Mandeville, LA. She was the former Gertrude Mann, a native of Lebanon, KY, an employee in the accounting department of Georgia International Life Insurance Co. and a former member of St. Pius X Catholic Church. She is survived by two daughters, Dawn L. Hunt and Melba J. Kovalak; three sisters, Drucella Stine, Mary Alice Marzian and Borgie Smith; two sisters-in-law, Josephine Mann and Geneva Jones; four grandchildren, Melissa Hinebaugh, Donald Hunt and Brad and David Kovalak; and three great-grandchildren, Nathan, Patrick and Delaney Hinebaugh. Funeral services will be held at 10 a.m. Friday at Ratterman & Sons Family Funeral Home, 3800 Bardstown Rd., with burial in Resthaven Memorial Park. Visitation will be from 1-8 p.m. Thursday. Memorial gifts may go to the American Cancer Society.
Published in The Courier-Journal on 8/27/2003.

Take care…

A Southerner

Thanks, SCB for correcting the record.

A later update: Snopes. com has updated its evaluation of the hoaxster obituary and pointed out its discrepancies and inconsistencies. At first, I thought it odd that the site lists the status of the story as “true.” But after writing to the site owner, he pointed out that the obituary is not a hoax in the true sense of the word. Someone actually did submit this obituary (including the item about donations to defeat Bush) to the newspaper and the newspaper did print it. It is certainly possible (or even probable) that the person who added the Bush item did not represent the real wishes of the deceased or even the rest of the family. But it was an actual obituary.

New York Times Panders in Reporting the Sexualization of Girls’ Dolls

Tuesday, October 28th, 2003

sexualized dolls for teenage girlsThe New York Times Sunday Style section featured a repulsive story, Underdressed and Hot: Dolls Moms Don’t Love. Among the most disgusting portions of this objectionable article is the following:

At 8, Macie Rosenthal is done with Barbies. “I have a whole collection,” she said, “that I would like to get rid of someday.”

Instead, pride of place on Macie’s toy shelf belongs to Jade, a 10-inch avatar of urban chic, from her exploded hair, inflated lips and tiny wifebeater shirt to her platform boots.

‘Wifebeater shirt?’ Since when has ‘wife beating’ become a fashion statement? [Update: a reader below corrects my lack of fashion sense and terminology by pointing out the "wifebeater" is a specfic type of T-shirt]

Editing, man. Where was the New York Times editor for this story? Asleep at the switch like the Assistant Captain of the Staten Island ferry which crashed into the dock? Remember Jayson Blair? There never seems to be an editor at the Times when you need one.

I hate stories like these because they purport to depict a negative social phenomenon (the sexualization of little girls by the toy industry), but in reality the story pruriently and vicariously allows the reader to experience the tittilation of the sexualized dolls.

I say, “For Shame” to the New York Times.