Barrack's Boisterous Blog

Israel and Iran

2011-11-03T07:20:00.001-04:00

Israel has launched a long range missile, capable of striking Iran. In a recent poll, 40% of the Israelis surveyed said they favor an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. UNESCO has accepted the Palestinian Authority as a full member. Israel is expanding settlements. If I was directing this drama, I don't think I could find a better script for a remake of a disaster movie. And just for laughs, we can throw in Greece going under (if the movie about the Titanic made millions, think what this will do for me). As I mentioned in previous blog, the Republican comedians are sure fire comic relief. I am just worried that with so many people out of work, and ticket prices for movies now over $10 a ticket, very few will be able to afford to see this movie.

Sorry for the Silence

2011-10-26T07:26:00.002-04:00

It's been a while since I've posted anything on the blog. I decided that instead of blogging, I would write a 30,000 word essay. I call it "Reflections on (My) Life." I've asked some of my friends to read it. Some of it comes from my previous blogs. Other parts are thoughts back on my life and how I ended up where I am. I dream of it being published, but I don't think it will happen. Probably because I haven't sent it anywhere to be published. It's not enough for a book, and too much for a magazine. So, it will just sit on my computer.

Much has happened in the world since December, my last post. Gaddafi is dead. Mubarrak is in jail. Syria is in turmoil. The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is moribund. But, Gilad Shalit is home. I have mixed emotions about this. Obviously, I am overjoyed for his family and for him. But I wonder if Israel paid too high a price. Time will tell.

I tried watching the Republican debates, but I still think that TV can't produce good comedies any more. It is sad that they are the best our country can come up with. Obama will really have to fall hard to fast to lose next November. But with the economy going the way it is, anything is possible.

Not much else to discuss at the moment. I just want to know that I am back and raring to go. So please, start reading and responding again.

A New Political Term (At least I hope it is new)

2010-12-01T07:30:00.002-05:00

With my daughter studying in Egypt, I have been following the elections there. Only 7% of the population who were paid to vote for the National Democratic Party voted. The Muslim Brotherhood lost their 88 seats. Now, 90% of the Parliament is DNP, and will most like annoint Mubarak's son as his successor if Mubarak himself doesn't "run" for another term.

The poor in Egypt have no voice. The rich buy the elections so the Parliament will make the rich richer. Not much different than in America.

Since everyone knows I like big words, I have come up with a new term for the political system of Egypt and the United States--arichtocracy.

With unemployment killing us, our Congress thinks the best way to solve it is to give tax cuts to the wealthiest in America. The rich vote in the rich to support the rich.

My question--has politics ever been any different?

Where Would Jesus Go?

2010-10-21T09:55:00.005-04:00

In many of my classes, the topic of Christianity comes up. The phrase, "what would Jesus do?" seemed to have developed as an attempt at elicit a more moral approach to Christian ethics. Before you do something, take the time to think what Jesus would do in that situation, and then follow that example.

I have a slightly different question: where would Jesus go? If Jesus came back today, not as the savior of mankind, or the Messiah that would bring miraculous changes, but as a simple man, where would he go to worship and feel the most comfortable?

The first place I would consider is a Roman Catholic Church. I suspect that the same would apply for a Greek Orthodox. There are a number of things that would lead me to think that Jesus would not be comfortable there. I don't think Jesus would appreciate seeing himself hanging on a cross. He would have accepted the commandment not to make images. I don't know how he would react to a liturgy in the language of those who crucified him.

As for a Protestant church, I think he would be confused about the numbers and their various philosophies. How would he choose between a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and all the others? (Growing up, my preference was for the Baptists, since they had a basketball court in their church). In his mind, the Protestants would probably come closer to his emphasis on spirituality. But, would he be comfortable in a building where he is clearly seen as the equivalent of God? Did he understand himself that way? I am not sure he did. As a prophet who was bringing the end of days, maybe. But as a god? His mother may have thought so, but what Jewish mother does not think of her son that way?

Now, for synagogues. Orthodoxy probably comes closet to the Pharisaic tradition to which he was very familiar. However, the Gospels portray him as someone who was more liberal than that, so, he might not like being in that environment. I think we can also toss out Reform. As liberal as he was, they would be too liberal for him as well. As for conservative, as much as I think that the comprises that the Conservative movement makes toward accommodating their constituency to the modern world might attract him, I don't think he would accept them.

That leaves only one group, the Hasidim. Their blend of joy with spirituality would probably appeal to him more than the others. More than any other denomination, I think the ideology of Hasidism would make him most comfortable.

Does this mean that I think that Hasidic Judaism comes closet to the ideas of Jesus and early Christianity? Maybe. In it's origin, the Baal Shem Tov seemed to be reacting to the world of the Mitnagdim (the Orthodoxy of that time) the same way that Jesus reacted to his world. Is the supposed Messiahship (if there is such of word) of the Rebbe the connecting link? Maybe? If either one comes back to tell us, I will be very interested in their answers.

Follow up to yesterday

2010-09-29T06:31:00.002-04:00

There is another possibility. Robert Wright, in today's NY Times, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/a-one-to-two-state-solution/?ref=opinion,
claims that another solution is to give the Palestinians voting rights in Israel. Since they are under Israeli rule, and Israel is a democracy, they should have the right to vote. That will scare the Israeli moderates and secularists out of their complacency and force Israel to seriously negotiate a two state solution, since giving Palestinians the right to vote would vote Israel as a Jewish state out of existence, and create a secular, democratic state where ultimately, Jews would be a minority. He states that Abbas and the leaders of the Palestinians would not accept this, because it would mean they would no longer be in positions of power. And we all now the goal of politicians is to obtain and retain power.

Sherlock Holmes and the Settlements

2010-09-28T07:08:00.003-04:00

Sherlock Holmes, if he were negotiating the settlement issue, would look at every possibility, eliminate those that don't work, and the one left standing would be the solution. So, let's look at the possiblities.
1. Follow the example of Gaza and remove every settlement from (soon to be negotiated) Palestinian territory.
2. Allow all the settlements to remain, and those that are within Palestinian territory would have Jewish residents of Palestine. This is assuming that the land is more important than the government.
3. Keep the major settlement blocs and compensate the Palestinians with an equal amount of land from Israel.
4. Drive all the Palestinians from the West Bank into Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and make the entire West Bank part of Israel.
5. Continue the status quo.
What would Holmes do?
1. Settlers from Gaza still have not all been relocated in Israel, and their numbers were much smaller than the population of the West Bank. Logistically, bringing all of them back into Israel (even if it was a peaceful evacuation) does not seem possible. And that is not even taking into account the ideology of the settler movement.
2. I don't think Holmes would have a problem with this solution. There are those who consider the government of Israel to be illegitimate, since it wasn't founded by the Messiah. The commandment is to live on the land of Israel. The West Bank is still the land of Israel, though under this plan, governed by another power. In time, with the coming of the Messiah, it would return to Jewish hands.
3. Holmes would also agree to this plan. It seems to make the most sense. For it to work, the Palestinians would have to agree that settlements are a matter for negotiation, like borders, refugees, water, and Jerusalem, and not make them a pre-condition for negotiations.
4. Out of the question. Israel would become even more isolated than it is, and would exist in a continual state of attack.
5. More Israelis would become disillusioned and leave. Emigration is already an issue for Israel. With no hope in sight, and with the religious right gaining more power, secular Israelis would leave, creating a brain drain. Israel would continue to be isolated, and ultimately, the liberal to moderate American Jewish community would have trouble unconditionally supporting Israel.
So, I think Sherlock Holmes would conclude that the settlements become part of Palestine if Jews are willing to live under a Palestinian regime, or concessions must be made by both parties. His ultimate conclusion--only the Messiah will clean up this mess.

Been a Long Time

2010-08-27T07:51:00.002-04:00

It's been since June since my last blog. A wise man once taught me, "when you have nothing to say, say nothing." Now that the start of school is on the horizon, I thought it was time to resume.

So, what are some of the issues. The economy is clearly the most pressing. Another wise man once said, "if it wasn't for bad luck I would have no luck at all." Seems like that sometimes describes my life. My wife and I decided to put our house up for sale. In June it seems like the right thing to do. Who would have known that we were entering the worse housing sale crisis in decades. Our house has been on sale for two months, and only three people have looked at it. Part of that is the summer slowdown. We will probably keep it on the market through September, and if nothing happens, take it off. But at least I have a job (two in fact, along with my wife).

I enjoy reading Paul Krugman's editorials in the New York Times. Even though I don't understand a lot of what he says, since I have no real background in economy and finance, he seems to make a great deal of sense. His editorial today stated that we are not in a recovery, and unless the Fed and the administration acts, things are only going to get worse. What impact will that have on my job. Our enrollment is smaller this year, and if the economy continues to stagnate, what will that do to the future of the school. With investment income declining, will major donors like Mr. Barrack continue to invest in the school so that financial aid will be available? Without it, can the school survive if only the rich can afford to send their children?

Now, on to something more optimistic. When Jimmy Carter brought Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to Camp David, and Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty, his approval rating skyrocketed. Unfortunately, his debacle in Iran killed that. Does Obama have the tenacity to finally forge an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians? Martin Indyk, the ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration, wrote in today's Times that there are four reasons for optimism. One, violence is down considerably; two, Israeli settlement activity has slowed almost to a halt; three, the majority of Israelis and Palestinians support a two state solution; and four, most of the details of a settlement have been worked out over the past 17 years since Oslo. Even though Hamas could attempt to derail the talks, Indyk feels that a popular referendum in Gaza on a two state solution would pass, and Hamas would have to accept it, or lose power.

No one thought Menachem Begin, an Irgunist, would be the one to make peace with Egypt. Can Netanyahu, put aside his and his party's idealism, join with the middle and left, and finally make the necessary concessions? Does the good of both peoples outweigh political ideology? I think this is where Obama must come in. Unfortunately, he is is walking on a very small tightrope. With November elections coming soon, and the prospect of a Republican takeover, Obama cannot afford to antagonize Jewish voters, many who have already left the Democratic party because of Obama's perceived stance on Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. He can't afford to step over the line, or fall of the rope to continue my analogy, by pressuring Israel to make more concessions than Netanyahu is willing to make. On the other hand, an Obama engineered peace treaty, or even progress in the first month of negotiations, could keep the Democrats in power, enhance his standing, and allow him to push through much needed economic policies, especially tax reform.

Last, but not least, Iran. Will they try to play the role of spoiler? Unleashing Hamas and Hezbollah could bring about an Israeli reaction that would be devastating. Would Abbas be able to continue to negotiate with Israel while Gaza and Lebanon are being reduced to rubble? Would Hamas and Hezbollah allow themselves to be puppets of Iran and be willing to let thousands of people die for their political objectives? From our western sensibilities, it is horrific. But if you see all these people as martyrs who will rewarded for their deaths, allowing them to die is not a problem. The Jewish perspective says "choose life".

And so our seesaw continues.

My Three Favorite People

2010-06-15T13:47:00.002-04:00

I have heard a debate recently concerning Israel. It involved three of my favorite people: me, myself, and I--me, the once liberal, naive, and idealistic dreamer; myself, the right wing supporter of Israel's military accomplishment; and I, where I think I am now.

Me: The solution is very simple. Withdraw from the West Bank. Open Gaza to humanitarian aid. Once the Palestinians truly see that Israel respects their national aspirations and is willing to assist in their economic development, then peace will be right around the corner.

Myself: There will never be peace between Israel and the Arabs. Islamic ideology will not tolerate a Jewish presence on what is Islamic land (dar al-Islam). Military might is the only language that Arabs understand. Many left in 1948. More will leave when they realize that there will never be a Palestinian state and that their economic interests lie elsewhere.

Me: Are you crazy? How can Israel survive as an occupying power? The world has begun the process of turning its back on her. The longer Israel occupies Palestinian land, the easier it will be for anti-Semites to be proven correct. How can Israel endure when Bob Dylan's unofficial website for the tabs of his songs denies access to Israelis? Without Israelis learning how to play Bob Dylan songs, there is no hope for survival.

Myself: The only thing that is keeping a civil war from breaking out in Israel between the religious and the secular is an external enemy. We need them for unity, as they need us. What would happen to all those dictatorships in the Middle East if they can no longer blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East. Peace would be the worst thing to ever happen.

Me: Without peace, Israelis with any intelligence will move away. How many thousands have done so already? A brain drain will leave the country with people like Netanyahu to run it

Myself: Netanyahu and people like him are the only hope for Israel. Judea and Samaria are as important to a Jewish state as Tel Aviv and Haifa. The land of Israel, the entire land of Israel, belongs to the people of Israel. All it will take is another depression and the world will turn against the Jews. Where will they go if not Israel?

I: Gentleman, I would like to continue this debate, but the bell just rang, and I must get to my last class of the year. I'm sure we will continue.

Israel's Isolation

2010-06-01T06:38:00.002-04:00

Israel can't seem to do anything right these days. We can easily argue the decision to send commandos to stop the Turkish ships from reaching Gaza. Is a naval blockade of Gaza legally justifiable? As far as Israel is concerned, they exist in a state of war with Hamas, who still refuses to recognize the existence of Israel and denounce violence. The US placed a naval blockade around Cuba and threatened to sink any Russian ship trying to break the blockade. We mined Hanoi harbor and place a naval blockade against North Vietnam. Preventing supplies from reaching the enemy is a legitimate act of war, so in that sense Israel is justified in stopping those ships.

Unfortunately, however, right does not always mean correct, especially when it comes to Israel. Israel guaranteed that the supplies, once examined, would reach Gaza. Could the ships have been searched at sea, and if no weapons were found, be allowed to dock in Gaza? The world would still not be satisfied. Unless Israel stops the blockade and allows Hamas the freedom to rearm, then Israel will be condemned.

The liberals of the world, who once championed Israel during the Sixties, have now turned against her. Not allowing Chomsky into the West Bank just gave them more ammunition. My question to them, (and I once considered myself part of the liberal agenda), is: what is your ultimate solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem? Obviously, the first step for Israel is to stop the blockade of Gaza, remove troops from the West Bank, and allow all Palestinians refugees to return to their homes in Israel. In other words, have Israel commit suicide. Why are you incapable of only seeing one side of the issue--Palestinian suffering? Why are you unwilling or incapable of understanding that much of the suffering of the Palestinian people was brought upon them by their own leadership who saw the destruction of Israel as the only solution? Have you forgotten the terrorist attacks that took thousands of innocent lives?

I do not want to come across as someone who blindly supports every action by Israel. I am not an Israeli. I do not have the right to tell Israel how to run their affairs. I can support the existence of Israel without agreeing with it. I do not endorse Likud or its policies. I believe that a two state solution is the only way to achieve peace (if that is at all possible). I am hopeful that more progressive thinkers like Salam Fayad can have an impact on Palestinian society. Israel's actions only make it more obvious that a solution is absolutely necessary before there is another explosion which will cause even more deaths.

How "Healthy" are our "Health" Schools?

2010-05-17T12:25:00.005-04:00

Last week I attended a graduation at Temple university. My daughter received her M.A. in speech pathology. The graduation took place at McGonigle Hall, the basketball field house of Temple before the more spacious Liacouras Center was built. Seven hundred students graduated from the School of Allied Health, which includes speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, nursing, kinesiology, and public health. The speaker, whose name I won't mention because I forgot it, was terrible (be thankful, Barrack, for choosing the faculty to speak to you at graduation, at least we know you). Then, we had to sit while all 700 students were called up to the podium for their diplomas. As bad as that was, it was not the worst.

My 93 year old mother attended the graduation with us. Though she is not physically handicapped, it is hard for her to walk distances, so we brought her in a wheel chair. Towards the end of the ceremony, she had to go to the bathroom. There was a place for the handicapped on the upper level. To get to the bathroom, she had to walk down two flights of stairs. There was no way she could walk back up the stairs. We spent a half hour trying to find someone who knew the building well enough to tell us if there was an elevator. We finally discovered one in the basement and we were able to bring her up in her wheel chair. It was an extremely frustrating time (not that I resented missing some of the ceremony).

There must have been over 3,000 people in the gym for the graduation. How could a school that is training our health care professionals be so inconsiderate to the families of the graduates? There were no restrooms on the floor where they made space for handicapped people. There were no signs pointing to the elevators. In fact, we had to go behind the podium to get to the elevator. Not only was this a major inconvenience, I think it may have been illegal. I understand that the Liacouras Center is a newer building and is probably handicapped accessible. The main graduation ceremony took place in that building. I don't understand how the authorities at Temple could have permitted a ceremony to take place in a building that is not handicapped accessible.

I am sure that the majority of the people attending the graduation were totally unaware of any such problems. For a school that is training health technicians to be so inconsiderate of the concerns for those attending to me is outrageous. My wife is threatening to write a letter to the President of Temple. I hope she does.

A Personal Fantasy

2010-04-19T07:11:00.003-04:00

The last couple of days I have been spreading mulch over my flowerbeds. It is a fairly mindless job, so I have plenty of time to think. One way to pass the time is to think up fantasies. I have one which is not beyond the realm of possibility.

My fantasy is to turn Barrack into a basketball powerhouse. For those who study the history of the game, during the 1920's and 1930's Jewish basketball teams were a mainstay in professional sports. My father, who was only 5'6" was on such a team. When he died, an obituary in his hometown paper in Bangor, Maine, said he was the greatest Jewish basketball player to come out of the state of Maine. Philadelphia had it's great Jewish basketball teams as well. Quoting Steve Cohen, "There was a time when short, angry Jewish players dominated basketball. They came from South Philadelphia, and they were determined to make anti-Semites respect them."

The coaching ranks of both professional and college teams are filled with Jews. The great Red's of the past, Red Auerbach, Boston Celtics, and Red Holtzman, New York Knicks, both Jews, led their teams to multiple NBA titles. Bruce Pearl, head coach at Tennessee, also coaches the US Macabee team.

So, how do I achieve my fantasy. All it takes is money. I would just need an endowment of $300,000/year to give a full paid scholarship to Barrack for the twelve best Jewish basketball players in the Philadelphia area. Each year, 3 scholarships would be given in each grade. The team would be composed of three seniors, juniors, sophomores, and freshman.

My fantasy starts out small. We would beat all the teams in the Philly area. Then we would receive our invitations for national tournaments. Shoe and clothing endorsements would follow. Colleges would begin scouting and recruiting our players. And in a short period of time, we would be one of the best high school teams in the country. Of course, we would then be invited to travel to foreign countries.

And so, Harold Katz and Ed Snyder, if you are paying attention and would like to do something useful for the Jewish community, $150,000 a year each would not be a big deal for you. But just think what it would do for Jewish basketball.

The Brotherhood of Man

2010-04-07T07:42:00.002-04:00

I am reading a book called "The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man". Even though it is boring and is taking me a long time to finish, I finally made it through Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and have gotten to the Hebrew conception of God. The author's contention is that even though there were attempts at monotheism prior to Moses, (Akhenaten, for example), and the Hebrews borrowed these concepts, it was what the Hebrews did with monotheism that made them unique. It was tying the idea of one God to ethics and morals (ethical monotheism).

This led me to think about Rashi's statement to the opening of Genesis, that the Bible could have started with Exodus 13, making Nisan the first month of the year, since the Bible is a book of law, and that was the first law given to Israel. He questions, why does it begin with creation? His answer is to show that since God created the earth, God could give any portion of the earth to whomever God chooses; therefore the Hebrews were not thieves when they took the land of Canaan (Rashi reinforces this idea later in Genesis 12 with his comment to "the Canaanites were then in the land", by claiming that the Canaanites, a Hamitic people, conquered Semitic land, and their expulsion was justifiable--funny how some things never change).

I think there might be another reason. In other creation stories, the gods create people (usually to be servants to the gods). God created a man. As a result, all people are descended from one ancestor (it is brilliant that it is only one man and the woman comes from him). Since all people are related, God can demand that all people must be treated justly and fairly--especially the slave, the widow, and the orphan, since they are the most defenseless.

According to some interpretations of the Suffering Servant (mostly Isaiah 52-53), Israel is the barometer of the world. The way Israel is treated determines the fate of nations. Every nation that has oppressed Israel is gone--ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. Nations that allowed the Jews to prosper benefited as well. (Jeremiah--pray for the welfare of Babylon, for in its well-being is your well-being). As a result, Jews have been loyal citizens when permitted.

Why, then, if this is so easy to see (if I could figure it out, it must be), is there Antisemitism?

Something Different Again

2010-03-19T06:40:00.003-04:00

My wife is a physical therapist. She treats babies from birth to three years old. Yesterday she saw a month old baby for the first time. The baby was taken to the hospital with an internal brain bleed. The parents said that it was attacked by a dog. After examination, the doctors concluded that the child suffered a traumatic brain injury two weeks prior because the skull fracture showed signs of healing. Both parents were placed in jail. They each blamed the other. The father is out on bail. The mother remains in jail. They will both be charged with assault, which carries a light sentence. Since they are both first time offenders, they probably will receive little or no jail time. Their child, for all intents and purposes, is dead. A normal baby at birth is now profoundly brain injured, cannot breath on his own, eats through a tube, and is blind.

As you probably can tell from previous blogs, I consider myself on the spectrum of liberal to moderate. But on some issues, I find myself more to the conservative side. In this case, is sterilization too severe a punishment? Do people who beat a two week old child so severely that the child is now nothing more than a shell of a human have the right to have more children? We need to take a test to drive a car. Why don't we need to take tests to have children?

The Morality of Politics

2010-02-22T20:50:00.004-05:00

I do not think of myself as an astute follower of the political scene. I look at the NY Times every morning on line, but just predominantly focus on the Middle East. I read the editorials which probably give me a slanted (liberal?) view of the American political scene. Describing myself as a somewhat liberal, middle class, northeasterner, I am more inclined to favor the Democratic point of view (excuse me Zach). The Times continually decries the Republican stance which borders on obstructionism, not having a plan of their own, but doing everything they can to stop the Democrats. Their goal, according to the Times, is to bring themselves back into power rather than doing what is best for our country. I'm sure if I watched Fox News, I would get a different picture.

So, being a teacher of Bible, morality is an area that I feel more at home in than politics. Would I classify the actions of the Republicans as immoral? No. It might not be sound governing, but it is not immoral. The issue in the news today (other than Harriton) is the killing (choice of terminology is obviously important--calling it murder implies one thing, assassination another) of the Hamas operative. Was he killed on the field of battle? Since Hamas has taken the fight to inhabited areas, killing a member of Hamas in a city rather than on the battlefield might be acceptable. The United States military forces are involved in a war. We use drone missiles to attempt to kill our enemies. No one calls this immoral. Since Hamas still declares that its intentions are to destroy Israel, is every member of Hamas a combatant and can justifiably be killed?

I find it fascinating how Mossad is being portrayed through this episode. On the one hand, some have called them incompetent. Allowing all the members of the team to be photographed, using fake passports from friendly (?) European countries, and stealing the identities of people in Israel itself does not look professional. On the other hand, even though all these people were photographed, within hours of the killing, they all disappeared off the face of the earth. They accomplished their mission, were not caught, and there seems to be no trace. Or, maybe it wasn't Mossad. Look for a movie very soon.

I am thinking now of a funny Woody Allen movie, Love and Death. The movie is a spoof of the great Russian novels like War and Peace. In a deeply philosophical part of the movie, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton discuss the subjectivity of morality. I admit that I happen to be very subjective in my views of morality. It is very simple, though. I am right.

Watching the Snow

2010-02-14T07:49:00.002-05:00

I am sitting in my kitchen looking at the three foot drift of snow that has covered my patio. There's a chance I may be looking at more snow before the winter is over. As I stated in previous blogs, I am not a scientist. I don't know if this snow is a result of global warming or a new ice age. I am sure that we are destroying our world (don't blame me, I'm trying to help by driving a hybrid). What if we took the Ten Commandments seriously. What would happen to our environment if every Saturday, no one drove a car and turned off most of their electricity?

Next, I am reading a book by Mark Smith, professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University. In it, he claims that chapter one of Genesis, the first creation story, was written in the 6th century BCE by priestly scribes. It presents a model of God that is based on priestly ritual, so that the universe becomes a divine shrine, and God is the officiating priest. This differs from the monarchic view of God as the divine warrior, a theme more common in the Ancient Near East (see my article in Leshem Shamayim a few years back). Dr. Smith will be speaking to our seniors next week, and I hope there is time to ask him a few questions about his ideas.

Now that Iran is back with its enriching of uranium, and envoys from the US government are in the Middle East, are we preparing for an Israeli or US military strike against Iran?

Lastly, politics as usual, or rather very unusal. Health care reform seems to be dead. Wall Street is being infused with tremendous sums of money to pay their bonuses. The Republicans are claiming to be the populist party while the Democrats favor big business. With mid-term elections in 2010 coming up, can Obama and the Democrats have done such a lousy job that Republicans will come back into power? Interesting times.

Enjoy the snow, and I'll see my students again in March.

Continuation of previous blog

2010-01-31T08:19:00.002-05:00

According to http://www.rateitall.com/t-1283-most-influential-people-in-world-history.aspx, the list of the top ten people who influenced history are:

Jesus Christ (Jew)
Muhammed (Influenced by Jews)
Hitler (Exterminated Jews)
Buddha (didn't know Jews)
Einstein (Jew)
Guttenberg (Jew)
Reagan (Why is he here?)
Moses (Jew)
Martin Luther (Wanted to convert Jews)
Abraham Lincoln (Jewish name)

I realize that this is an unscientific list and I don't agree with all the selections (Reagan?). I do find it interesting that of the 10, four are Jews, and eight out of ten had a major connections with Jews. Maybe there is something to being chosen.

Jewish Superiority?

2010-01-29T07:12:00.002-05:00

A topic came up in my senior Bible class: Jewish superiority. We are studying the stories about Abraham, and one of the questions that the rabbis bring up in their commentaries, especially in Midrash, is why did God choose Abraham? When God created the world in chapter one of Genesis, everything was good. There was an order to the universe, all part of a divine plan. Was a moral universe also part of that plan? If God intended for mankind to be just and moral, and if we are created in the image of God, why is there injustice? If Abraham was chosen as an example of moral superiority through whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, why did God just choose one man, later to become one people?

David Brooks, in a January 12 article in the NY Times noted that "Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction."

Yehuda Halevy, in his book The Kuzari, claims that Jews are racially superior, and when you combine them with the Hebrew language and the Land of Israel, the highest level of humanity is produced, the prophets. A recent You Tube video claims that the majority of male Jews can be genetically traced back to Middle Eastern (ancient Israelite?) ancestry, and as a group have a higher average IQ.

Maimonides, following Aristotle, believes that God is an intellectual force, and since we are created in the image of God, we share a divine intellect. As Brooks points out, since Jews were cut off from the land during the Middle Ages, they were put in a position of developing their brains. The ideal of the Jewish world up to the Holocaust was the scholar. One of the five obligations of a father is to educate his son (I wanted to say child, but I have to stay faithful to the text).

So, are we truly smarter because of genetics? Is it our emphasis on education? Yesterday one of my players asked for permission to miss a game because he had to study for a test. I emphasize academics above all else. We may not be the most physically talented team in our league, but I would venture to say that we may be the smartest (basketball IQ aside--see the previous blog).

As I pointed out in a previous blog, I am very competitive by nature. I see the classroom as competitive as well. The thrill of intellectual competition is as fulfilling to me as the thrill of coaching in a basketball game. Jews are competitive. We want to succeed. The Israelis changed the playing field, as David Brooks points out. I heard from another teacher that one of our students described the school as competitive, but not cut-throat. Is being competitive genetic as well?

Something Different

2010-01-26T06:47:00.003-05:00

I am going to leave the realm of blood, science and religion for something else that is near and dear to my heart--basketball. When I was younger and people asked me what I wanted to be when I grow up, my answer was 6'7". My father, who was only 5'6" played for a professional basketball team in Maine in the 1920's. He had the best two hand set shot that I had ever seen. Luckily for me, he saw that I had an interest in basketball at an early age, and taught me everything I know. We would watch games together, and he would teach me how to watch the game. He constantly pointed out mistakes even professional players made. He taught me how to shoot, pass, pivot, block out, and play defense. But he never came to see me play. He always said he didn't want to put the pressure on me. I guess then I agreed with him, so I never asked him to come. I am very sorry about that now. So, Mr. Saewitz and Mr. Ben-Maimon, and all the other fathers who come to see their sons' play, I envy your children. Enjoy those moments.

Now, to the heart of the matter. Growing up, I did not have a lot of self confidence. That is why I probably didn't go out for college basketball. I still have serious self doubts, especially about my coaching ability. It may come from trying so hard to please everybody. When I coached the team in 1997, we won the Tri-County championship. I still have regrets about that season. I had 18 players on the team, and there was one player who worked as hard as anyone in practice, but I had a hard time finding him playing time. He was what I call a "tweener", too small to play inside, but not quick enough to play outside. I have never told him that I am sorry I couldn't get him the playing time he deserved, but as Vince Lombardi once said, "winning is not everything, it is the only thing". Hence, my conflict.

This year I have 15 players. Most teams carry around 12, and have a 7-9 man rotation. I try as much as I can to get everyone into the game. Sometimes I can, sometimes the games are too close and I can't. Even when we win, I am not always completely happy because I know that there are a few disappointed players who didn't get in. In an ideal world, everyone would sublimate their ego for the good of the team. I think for the most part my players do. But I know there is the disappointment and frustration. It's hard to come to practice, work hard,and then not get in a game. I too am disappointed and frustrated and have lost a lot of sleep over this. My wife told me the other night she can't wait for the season to end so that I can get some sleep.

Which now brings me to Saturday night. For those of you who were there, both for us and for Stern, thank you. You created an atmosphere that was electric. We play so many games with hardly any spectators. Having the gym filled to capacity with everyone on their feet screaming was something special. I want to give credit to the players for both teams as well. The rivalry between the two schools is extremely intense. It is going to be strange next year playing them in our old building.

We are now in the home stretch. We are trying to work our way up the standings for a better position for the playoffs. Is this team capable of winning a championship? To answer in a typically Jewish way, yes and no. Yes, if they play like they are capable. No if they play like they sometimes play. Although you might think that basketball is predominantly physical, it is mostly mental. Knowing what to do, being in the right position, and making the right decisions are essential. Most of the games we have lost this year have been because of mental mistakes. There is something called basketball IQ. Without it, even the most gifted athlete cannot play that well.

Basketball IQ is not related to intellectual or emotional IQ. It too is comprised of nature and nuture. It needs to be developed through hours and hours of practice and playing. And it is not gender specific (watch Tamara play). Much of what we do in practice is try to develop this IQ so that when they are in games, they know what to do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

And so, what is the moral of this tale? Come watch us play again.

Paradox

2010-01-04T07:23:00.002-05:00

I have always been intrigued by paradoxes, which is probably one of the reasons I enjoy reading science fiction. For example, time travel is clearly a paradox. If you go back in time, you would change the course of events, which ultimately would prevent you from going back in time since you would never arrive at the point where you went back in time, therefore creating a temporal paradox.

A paradox that is often discussed in classes is the question of the omniscience of God and our free will. If we have free will, then it is our choices that influence the future. If God is truly omniscient, then God knows what our choice will be, therefore it is determined. The statement of the rabbis, "hacol tzafui vehareshut netuna", can be interpreted a number of ways. Either "everything is foreseen, but permission (free will) is given", or "everything is observed and free will is given". If you accept the later, then God is aware of everything that happens, but we are still free to choose. Philosophically, this interpretation is easier to reconcile. It assumes that the future, since it does not exist, cannot be known, even by God. This, though, clearly limits the power of God, since we also assume that God is omnipotent as well as omniscience. So, even though it satisfies the issue of free will and God's omniscience, it still creates a problem with our conception of God.

Another solution is to assume that God does not exist within the temporal limits that envelop us. We live in linear time. We start from birth and travel in a straight time line to death. Philosophically, time does not exist independent of creation. We could easily understand "Bereishit" to be the creation of time. Since time did not exist prior to creation, and God is not constrained by the the limits of linear time, then God could watch our lives backwards, like reading the last chapter of a novel first. Or, our entire existence could be viewed in one instant by God, like watching a full length feature movie in a photograph. This too solves the philosophical paradox of free will and omniscience, but it creates another problem that I have not yet resolved. And that is, if God only observes, what role does God play in our everyday lives. In other words, how does a transcendent being become imminent?

Without a belief in an imminent being, there is no need for religion. Quoting Les Miserable, "what the use of praying if there's no one there to hear"? If we accept the idea of an imminent God who is all the "omni's" that we propose, then the problem is in our ability to reason and our inability to comprehend the true nature of God.

According to the "Kamenological" proof of God's existene, it is our inability to prove God that proves God. But this is for another time.

Blood

2009-12-31T09:32:00.003-05:00

I gave blood on Tuesday for the 77th time. I am not writing this to brag, even though I am proud of myself. It's somewhat exciting to know that there might be 77 people alive with my blood in them, and that my blood may have helped to keep them alive. I wish I could trace where my blood went. I will soon get my 10 gallon pin when I give 80 times. I heard that if you give 10 gallons in Texas, they give you a ten gallon hat. Maybe it will be worth the trip.

Ramban claims that the soul resides in the blood, and that is why we are forbidden to consume it. The bloods of Abel cry out to God. Whoever spills the blood of man, by man his blood will be spilled. Blood belongs on the inside. See Woody Allen's "Sleeper" for a funny reference to that. Blood pollutes and blood cleanses. It is a remarkable substance. The only TV series I watch is "True Blood". Hemophobia is a common disease.

We have not been able to produce synthetic blood. I am not a scientist, but I suspect that we never will. For me, it is the mysteries of life, like blood, that point to a concept of God.

So, for all of you who make new year resolutions, resolve yourself to give blood as much as you can. It doesn't hurt and it surely helps.

Nothing New

2009-12-08T07:34:00.000-05:00

It's been a long time since my last post, but I believe in the expression, "if you have nothing to say, say nothing". The last few weeks have been somewhat interesting looking back upon them in retrospect. I do not think those were the words I would have used a few weeks ago, but now that things are somewhat "back to normal", I can look at them a little more objectively. Thinking about a line from a Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song (yes I listen to other music than Bob Dylan), "life is for learning". So what did I learn?

First and foremost, I learned alot about myself. It may be hard for some to believe, but I am basically a shy and reserved person. I much prefer listening than talking (my joke is that is why we have two ears and only one mouth). In "Barefoot in the Park", in which I played Victor Valasco while I was in college (so well played by Alex Stern recently), there are "doers" and there are "watchers". The watchers watch what the doers do. Most of the time, I am content to watch. When something is important, I found I am a doer.

Second, I found I am a very competitive person. Maybe that is why I like to coach basketball. In a strange way, negotiations are like a game. During it, it is hard to think in those terms, because of the emotional involvement. But looking back, I remember many times when we felt that it was a game, and we had to remind ourselves of the seriousness of it. There are many moments in negotiations when hearts are pounding. I even found myself giving a pep talk as if I was a coach.

Third, and most important, I found out how strong, devoted and dedicated our faculty is. It is an honor and a pleasure for me to be associated with them.

Tomorrow the juniors return from Muss and things will really be "back to normal", which means noisy, overcrowded, hectic, but most important fun.

I want to welcome all the Muss students back. In a way, I am happy for you that you were away during our issue, but you did miss an interesting time.

Heavenly Bodies

2009-10-25T08:16:00.002-04:00

I just read a review of a book by Professor Benjamin Sommer of the Jewish Theological Seminary, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. He maintains that the ancient Israelites conceived of their God (which he writes as Yhwh) in bodily form. As a proponent of the source theory, he claims that the different sources treat the body of God differently. For P, the body of God dwelled in the Tabernacle, as was evidenced by the presence of the cloud. (In 10-1 tomorrow, we are going to look at the verse in Kings that states since the cloud filled the Temple, and the Glory of God was there, the priests could not go in). E has God coming down to earth to meet with Moses at the Tent of Meeting when the cloud came down. D has God only dwelling in heaven and never coming down to earth. Since the gods of Mesopotamia and Canaan had multiple bodies (sometimes the god of Canaan in called Baal, and sometimes Baalim), the question of the meaning of "echad", one, in the Shema, is that the God of Israel, unlike the other gods, only has one body.

Professor Sommer explains the body of God as the only reason why a person could not look at God and live. This also explains why Moses was able to talk to God face to face, Isaiah saw God sitting on a throne, and Amos saw God standing on the altar.

His point of view in my estimation obviously presents God as the ancient Israelites viewed him (and his view of multiple author reinforces the idea that there was not one consistent view of God among the people of ancient Israel). Since the Bible covers over 1,500 years of history, if it is not a divine document, that we would hope that the view of God would evolve from a primitive God in the Garden of Eden playing hide and seek with man, to a much more sophisticated view as the prophets understood God.

I am looking forward to reading the book, though the $85 price tag is making it a little difficult for me. I am most interested in seeing if Professor Sommer discusses the view of God as being seen in visions, rather than in true bodily form. In the meantime, though, he definitely presents questions that are worthy of examination and discussion.

2009-10-16T07:42:00.002-04:00

I couldn't stay awake to watch the Phillies. I went to sleep when they were ahead 5-4, convinced that somehow they would blow it. I was happy to wake up this morning and see that they held on for a win. I didn't go to the parade last year, though I was there in 1980. I haven't decided about the parade this year (am I being overly optimistic?). I consider myself a lackadaisical Phillies fan. I hope they win, but I can't sit and watch an entire game. The Eagles are another story. Professional football is something I can watch, no matter who plays. I won't watch any of the Yankees-Angels series. Pro basketball is a boring waste. College bball is a different story.

Why this deep insight into my sports affiliations? I am fascinated by people's addiction to sports. I am totally amused when someone says "we won" after their team wins, as if they actually had something to do with it. Why are we so obsessed with sports. I am sure that more of my students can name the starting lineup for the Phillies than can name their federal and state representatives. They can name every character on the Simpsons, but how many members of the Supreme Court do they know?

I am a sports fan. But I would prefer to play than watch. This past summer I tried keeping up with 18 year olds on the basketball court. It is sad and depressing for me that I have to admit that I am too old to play at their level. It's nice to think that my years of experience could make up for my lack of athletic ability, but unfortunately, the mind can say go, but the body just says no way. I can't jump as high as I used to, ran as fast, or cut as quick. It's hard to admit that I've entered a new stage of life, and I will never recapture my past glories, if I ever had any to begin with. As the saying goes, those who can't do teach (and quoting Woody Allen, those who can't teach become lawyers). So, at this stage in my life, I have to find satisfaction in teaching, which in bball parlance, translates into coaching.

I have to admit though, that the youth of today do not have the same enthusiasm for the game that my generation did. I don't know if video games and 24 hour sports on television caused that. After school, I did my homework, then was on the basketball court until it got dark. We even persuaded the town to turn on the lights for us so we could play at night. We played in rain, snow, wind, cold, it didn't matter. We just wanted to play. As a result, we developed a sense for the game that I call basketball IQ. It is sorely lacking in today's youths. They may be excellent athletes, but they don't know the game. When I was learning to play, I could watch pros and learn the fundamentals of the game. Then, it was a team game. Now, all people care about are dunks. Pro basketball has become a one man game, with the other four players stand outside the three point line and watch. They are truly gifted athletes, but not basketball players.

So, if you want to see quality basketball, come to our games. High school and college basketball is closer to pure basketball. We need all the support we can get.

Hag Sameach

2009-10-06T06:41:00.002-04:00

Now that we are in the "secular" days of the holiday, a concept that I found somewhat amusing, I think it is time for a little reflection. We are now in the period of "zeman simchatenu", the time of our happiness. It is somewhat ironic that we have to be commanded to be happy. Like other places in the Torah, we are being commanded to have an emotional reaction (you will love God, you will afflict your souls). I am not a professionally trained psychologist, even though at times I think it is necessary to be one to be a teacher. I really do not understand emotions. I can understand things intellectually and rationally. I can intellectually look at my life and conclude that I am very lucky. I have a job that I love, a tremendous family, a beautiful house, my mother at age 92 is still alive and well, and I am in excellent health (even though I have to admit that I am not the basketball player I was years ago). So, I should be happy. Yet, somehow, there is always something that eats away at my happiness. I don't think I am depressed, though at times I feel like that is the case. Things happen that can easily depress me. Intellectually, I should be able to convince myself that they are really not that important, and not have them affect me. Yet, emotionally, I cannot do that. I cannot control how I feel. And if I am not in control of my emotions, then who or what is? Without that control, can I truly believe that I have free will? Are we to assume, then, that God is in control? If that is the case, then why would God command me to have an emotional reaction, like being happy, when it is out of my control? Or is this another test by God? Midrash tells us that God chose Abraham since Abraham took the first step towards God, and God was then revealed to him. If I take the first step and show God that I am truly happy with my lot in life (which according to Ben Zoma means that I am rich, but I don't want the negotiating team for the school to know that), then God will reward my attempt at happiness with more happiness? Is that why we conclude the holiday of Succoth with another happy occasion, "simchat Torah", rejoicing over the Torah. Since the Torah is a "tree of life to all who grasp her", and as far as I now, I am happier alive than dead, The Torah also becomes the prescription for happiness. So, rejoice that you are alive, that you are in the time of our happiness, and may you be blessed with peace and happiness this holiday season, and for the rest of the year.

Is Anybody Listening?

2009-09-30T06:45:00.002-04:00

I know in class I talk to myself a lot. Or, to the walls. For those who read the Epic of Gilgamesh, Ea, the god of wisdom, is not allowed to tell Utnapishtim that the gods are going to destroy mankind with a flood, and instead, informs the walls of Utnapishtim's house. It seems that the ancient Sumerians already understood that the major component of education was talking to walls. So, since no one was responded to my last number of blogs, I have to assume that either no one is listening, or they were so boring that they weren't worth responding to (I don't know which option hurts less). But, being that my skin is thick (it has to be to be a teacher), I will continue, even if only the walls hear me.

There are a number of issues that I find fascinating. The first was the failure of the minister of culture of Egypt to become head of UNESCO. Of course, it was the Jews that stopped his appointment, since Jews can't tolerate anyone who is not Jewish succeeding, especially if they are Muslim. I was surprised to read in the New York Times that a number of Egyptians did not support his appointment. Yet the man who was quoted as saying that he would burn any Israeli book in an Egyptian library, then claimed that he was not anti-Semitic, turned to virulent anti-Semitism as a response to his loss. I guess we should take comfort in the fact that some things never change (to quote one of my favorite lines from Ecclesiastes: there is nothing new under the sun).

Then there is Iran and it's nuclear ambitions. An article in today's Times indicated that the discovery of a new site was probably one of many, and that Iran could be less than a year away from producing at least one to five nuclear warheads. With their testing of their short range missles that have the ability to strike Israel, are they asking for an Israeli strike to unleash Hezbollah and Hamas, since Obama is pushing for final status talks?

Finally, French tourists were stoned (with rocks, of course) on the Temple mount. They were mis-identified as Israeli settlers who were there to provoke violence. When the Israeli police arrived to protect them, the Palestinian papers reported a settler attack backed up by the police. No mention was made of the stoning of French tourists. Yet the liberal world continues to accept the Palestinian version. Why doesn't freedom of the press mean anything?

So, if anyone is out there, please say something. Walls are nice for decorations and privacy, but it's hard to dialogue with them.

2009-09-14T06:57:00.002-04:00

I was asked by a cousin of mine what I thought about Obama's relationship with Israel. I also read an article in the New York Times, "Land First, Then Peace", by Turki al Faisal, who writes that the Arab world is ready to recognize Israel if and when it withdraws from all territories conquered in the Six Day War. To support this, he claims, "Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter, which called for the destruction of Israel, as evidence of Palestine’s attitude toward a two-state solution". I think Obama is in line with this policy that the Arab world, including Hamas and Hezbollah, no longer reject or demand the destruction of Israel. When Israel and the Palestinians are able to reconcile their differences and create a Palestinian state, then the Arab world will welcome Israel with open arms. I would very much like to believe this is true. But it is going to take more than a peace treaty to change the attitude of the Arab world towards Israel. My daughter spent a summer in Alexandria, Egypt. She had an Egyptian roommate. Her roommate noticed Monica's connection to Israel through facebook, and her first reaction was that she hates Israel. After many discussions, Monica was able to open her eyes to the reality of Israel, and that had an impact. Monica's goal is create educational programs to breach these differences. She is learning Arabic and plans to spend a year in Alexandria after graduation to become fluent. Without initiatives to change the outlook of the Arab world through education and enlightenment, a peace treaty will not be a guarantee for peace.

Obama's Speech

2009-09-10T05:23:00.003-04:00

My wife is a physical therapist. Before I started at Akiba (now Barrack), I worked with her in her business. I spent ten years fighting with private insurance companies whose sole purpose seemed to have been to find any reason to deny payment. Since her practice was predominantly geriatric, I know the Medicare program intimately. Although there are certainly problems with the system, overall, it works. I am not a socialist, even though I do lean slightly to the left. If it is truly the role of government to promote the general welfare, then providing health care to the citizens of the United States should be in it purview. I am in favor of a one payer system. I think every citizen should be on Medicare. My health insurance plan will cost almost $20,000 this year. I am heavily subsidized by my employer, and I am very grateful for that. I would not have a problem being taxed a percentage of my income for Medicare coverage, as the elderly are now paying. Insurance companies would have to compete to be the Medicare carrier. Since Medicare is non-profit, the insurance companies would not be making the exorbitant sums they now are. Medicare demands that as a non-profit, costs are justified. Physicians and other health care providers are entitled to earn a living. Under a universal medicare plan, they would. As in all taxes, the wealthy would pay more, since they earn more. Those who don't pay taxes would be subsidized by those who do. The quality of care should not be lessened. The only drawback I can think of is that thousands of people who work for insurance companies would have to find another job, or be absorbed into other areas of the insurance industry. I know this will not happen, because the insurance lobby is much to powerful, and those on the right would oppose any form of government control of the medical industry. It is a shame, because it would work, deliver better health care, and save consumers money. Unfortunately, as I have found out many times, what is right is not necessarily what is.

Back to School

2009-09-09T07:12:00.002-04:00

It is the day before school starts. After taking the summer to let my brain rest (pulling weeds and painting are not the most intellectual endeavors), I decided to try to shake off the rest and write again. There are so many interesting topics that could be discussed: Obama and Netanyahu, Iran, health care reform, the energy bill, the Phillies and Eagles, how the Muss students are doing, and the holidays coming up. As much as I an interested in all of them, I would rather like to focus on school. I heard a speech that said teachers are lucky, in many cases luckier than people who work in other jobs. We get to start over. All the mistakes we made last year are gone. We start fresh. Summer is the time for us to reflect on both our triumphs and defeats, our successes and failures. Each year we should come back refreshed, reinvigorated, and ready to be better and more successful. I hope and believe that is the case. This is the beginning of my sixteenth year, and I think I can say I am a much better teacher now than I was sixteen years ago. But what makes a good teacher? Or a great teacher as many aspire to be? Teaching to me has two aspects: cognitive and effective. Or to put it in more simple terms: what we want you to know and what we want you to be. The same holds true for teachers. What we know is important. Unfortunately, I have had many teachers who were tremendous repositories of factual information, but they could not teach. I've known others who could captivate a classroom with style, but there was no substance. To be a good, or even great teacher, there must be a balance between the two, just as there must be a balance between the content that we give our students and the behavior we hope to elicit. It all comes down to care and respect. To quote Ben Zoma (not zonah as some like to think), the person who is worthy of respect is the one who gives it. We as teachers deserve your respect. You as students deserve ours. A classroom is a symbiotic relationship. It's success and failure depends on mutuality. Without give and take, a classroom is a sterile environment. So, with that stated, I am looking forward to another fun year in the classroom. I want to wish you all a very happy and healthy New Year,.

2009-06-25T06:44:00.002-04:00

Now that everyone is on summer vacation, my suspicion is that fewer and fewer will be reading and commenting (or commentating as many in my classes like to say) my blog. The numbers appeared to be dwindling as we headed into finals. In any case, I will try to keep throwing ideas out. I am still focused and fascinated by the events in Iran. There are a few issues that intrigue me. First, were the ballots every counted? If 42 million people voted, and they announced the results 3 hours later, how could they have counted the ballots? I don't think a person can count from one to 42 million in three hours. Second, why aren't the liberals of the world out in mass protests? They have no qualms about attacking Israel. Where is their indignation over the loss of democracy and the brutality of the Iranian regime? Third, I wish we Jews would stop controlling everything. We are making such a mess of the world.

2009-06-16T07:06:00.002-04:00

The War in Iran (soon to be broadcast over CNN)

Has the situation in Iran concerning the elections gotten us a step closer to a war against Iran, and if not a war, at least a military action? Netanyahu seems obsessed more with the threat from Iran than trying to find a solution with the Palestinians. Roger Cohen of the NY Times has had pie smeared over his face. With Iran proving to the world that it cannot be trusted, especially when it murders its own population, are we that much closer to a military confrontation? I am gravely concerned that if the United States or Israel attacks Iran, Iran will unleash Hezbollah and Hamas in revenge. Israel's reaction to that would make the previous wars against Hezbollah and Hamas look tame. Does Netanyahu think that an all-out war against Hezbollah and Hamas would give Israel the ability to finally wipe them out?

I have a simple philosophy: always expect the worse. When it happens, you are prepared. If it doesn't, then you are elated. I have a hard time seeing how anything positive will come out of the situation in Iran in the near future. There is no way the Iranian regime will take the presidency away from Ahmdenijad. They would lose too much face. If he remains president, how much pain and suffering is the opposition prepared to take? Ayatollah Khameni and the Guardian Council seem to have no lack of resolve to put down the demonstrations. Are the Iranians prepared for another 1979 revolution? Are they truly ready to become the second country in the middle east with free elections, free speech, and right of assembly? Rather than looking for a military confrontation, Obama and Netanyahu must somehow use their influence to bring freedom to Iran, not war.

Which will it be, the blossoming of a new world order or more of the same?

2009-06-05T06:55:00.002-04:00

As a non-native Hebrew speaker, I learned Hebrew for the most part academically. I memorized paradigms of the verbal structures, I made flash cards to memorize vocabulary, and I extensively used a dictionary. Even though I lived in Israel and was able to practice the language, I did not learn the language the "normal" way. I mention this as a preface, because I may be totally wrong about my views of Hebrew. I look forward to any native Hebrew speaker letting me know if I am right or not.

A debate we have in class is whether language influences philosophy, or philosophy influences language. For example, Hebrew is not a good vehicle for philosophy. Its verbal system is very basic; past, present and future. There are no would have, could have, should have. I can say, "if it hadn't rained yesterday, I would have gone to the park". An Israeli says, "it rained yesterday, I didn't go to the park." Greek, with 25 words for anything there is one word in Hebrew, and its elaborate verbal system, is much more suitable for philosophy. So my question is, were the ancient Israelites not philosophical because they were limited by their vocabulary, or did their psychology, which was more emotional than rational, create a language system that was much more concrete?

This is not to say that the ancient Israelites were not philosophical. For example, the book of Ecclesiastes is clearly a philosophical treatise. But you can argue, as some do, that the text was written during the Greek period and is clearly influenced by Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. This will be a debate for another time.

2009-06-01T18:03:00.002-04:00

I was scanning through the Philly.com site, and noticed that my town was being mentioned. It is not often that Marple-Newtown makes the news. It was about a court upholding a decision not allow a woman to read the Bible in her child's kindergarten class for show and tell. She claims it is her son's favorite book, and she was reading about the holidays of Passover and Christmas. The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school district's decision not to let her read, saying "the school's decision does not violate First Amendment rights given the nonpublic nature of the classroom and the tender age of the children." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". As I stated in a previous blog, I am not an expert on the Constitution, so I am curious about the development of the separation of church and state based on this amendment. Since I am a literalist, to me the amendment states that Congress cannot make me a Christian, or deny me the right to be Jewish. I would like to know from those of you who studied the Constitution, how a woman reading Bible stories to a kindergarten class is not protected by this amendment.

2009-05-11T06:59:00.002-04:00

It is Monday morning and I am waiting for the clinic to open so I can have a blood test. I can't eat before the test, so I am hungry, tired, and crabby. While I am waiting for the clinic to open, my thoughts obviously turn to blood. In many of my classes, we have discussed the duality of blood, both as a cause of pollution (ritual--sin causes pollution, and the worst sin of all is the spilling of blood), and as its cure. According to Ramban, this is the purpose of sacrifice. We substitute the animal's blood for our own. I am fascinated by the mystery of blood. We as Jews are forbidden to eat it. Ramban thinks the soul resides in the blood. We have been unable to create synthetic blood. As a donor who has given blood 75 times, I understand its importance, and how valuable synthetic blood would be. Perhaps Rambam is correct. We cannot create synthetic blood, because we cannot create life. Is this another proof for the existence of God?

2009-05-05T06:39:00.002-04:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"SANTA ANA, Calif. - A federal judge has ruled that a high-school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled Friday in a lawsuit student Chad Farnan filed in 2007, alleging that teacher James Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.", Philadelphia Daily News, May 5, 2009.

I am not an expert in constitutional law, but I find this ruling very troubling. My guess is that Mr. Corbett will appeal the ruling and it will go to the Supreme Court. Does this mean that "respecting an establishment of religion" means that we have to respect an established religion? Or, by speaking his mind, Mr. Corbett denied Christian students in his class freedom of religion? The constitutional rights of the student suing was ruled as violated when Mr. Corbett called creationism "superstitious nonsense". My understanding of the amendment meant that the government does not have the right to impose a religion on us. Though America might have a Christan majority, we are not a Christian country, and I don't have to swear an oath to Christianity to vote. Wasn't the freedom of speech clause denied to Mr. Corbett? Should I know worry that in my Bible class if I claim that a Christian interpretation of Isaiah is wrong that I might be sued?

Now, concerning Creationism. Yesterday in the New York Times, Sidney Fish wrote a book review concerning faith and science. I highly recommend that you look at it. Since we have been on the topic of science and religion, I find it appropriate. Basically, it lead me to a simple conclusion: the difference between asking how and why. Science wants to know how--how was the universe created from a big bang, how does brain chemistry affect behavior, etc. Religion is more interested in the why--why on this night do we eat Matzvah. What terrifies me about science is that understanding the how without the why can lead to disastrous results.

2009-04-30T06:37:00.005-04:00

I want to begin by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed our celebration of Yom Haatzmaut (Israel's Independence Day) yesterday. Having 24 Israeli teenagers join us added an energy that truly made us feel like participants rather than observers. I couldn't help but look at them and think that other than for their language, they are the same as all our students. They look the same, they act the same. They took to our school like it was their own. Even though I did not have a lot of time to spend with them, I will miss them.

With that said, I want to turn to the subject of Israel. It is something that is clearly on the mind of our students. It is not only because many of them will study for a trimester now. There is clearly a link. Many students have Israeli parents. Many have family and travel often to Israel. Some have never even been there, yet still feel a connection. Mr. Barrack spoke beautifully yesterday of his recollection of Israel's creation when he was a child. I am four years younger than Israel, so I never knew a time without it. I was only four during the Sinai war, so I have no memory of that. I do remember very vividly the Six Day War. What struck me most was the reaction of the non-Jewish community. I come from a small town in southern New Jersey (to us Cherry Hill was north Jersey) with a population of 10,000. On the second night of the war, a fund raiser was held in our synagogue. It was standing room only. There were more people than during the High Holidays. And many of them were non-Jews who were contributing to Israel. I don't remember how much money we raised, that wasn't important. What impressed me was how my non-Jewish neighbors rallied to support Israel.

A lot has changed since then. Israel is no longer the David in her battle against Goliath. Why has this changed? Even during the late 60's and early 70's, liberals like me could protest against the war in Vietnam and still take pride in Israel's military accomplishments. What has Israel done to cause the liberal world to change its views? What can Israel do to win them back?

2009-04-23T06:38:00.002-04:00

Andy's comment from yesterday made me think more about Rambam (even though I don't need much incentive). He implies that the more scientific you become, the more you will come to the realization that the order of the universe is not an accident (back to our teleological argument). Science and religion are not in opposition, but one naturally leads to the other. The more you try to uncover the mysteries of nature, the more in awe you should be of these mysteries. And as long as there are still mysteries, there will be a belief in God. Conversely, the more you study the Bible, the more you should realize that God is the cause of the laws of physics (an orderly universe is the direct product of a rational deity--chapter one of Genesis). A former rabbi of mine took the opposite approach. To him, science and religion were two separate worlds with two distinct vocabularies, and we should not try to join them (leave physics for the scientists and metaphysics for the spiritualists).

My second point has to do with the rabbis. This goes back to the issues concerning Pikuah Nefesh. We were debating why it is permissible to break laws to save a life, but not to save potential lives. First, we have to remember that the definitive period for rabbinic law is the sixth century when the Talmud was codified. All decisions made today by rabbis are based on a philosophy from the middle ages. For me, the most difficult tasks for rabbis today is trying to reconcile a sixth century philosophical system with the twenty first century technology. Our Mock Beit Din group (and I want to wish them the best in Denver) is debating the halacha of bone marrow transplants. The question as I understand it is "should a man with a heart condition give a transplant to save a life if it potentially puts him in danger?" Obviously there is no tractate of the Gemarra that deals with bone marrow transplants. How, then, should a decision be made?

2009-04-20T07:11:00.003-04:00

I hope everyone had a relaxing and enjoyable holiday. I spend the first week of Passover in Arizona. To get myself in the mood for the Sedar, I took a 5 mile hike through Sabino Canyon. The natural beauty of the canyon astonished me. My mind kept wandering in two different directions. The first was to the Exodus from Egypt. Watching my family walk single file through the narrow trails made me try to picture what it must have been like for our ancestors. I know my hike was different. I had a short destination, and then a return to civilization. But I tried to understand their emotion of wandering through a desert. The second direction was to the teleological argument for God's existence. The argument basically states that if something has a design and function, it did not come about by accident. The artistry of the desert made me think that there must have been a hand behind its beauty. I know that geologists can explain rock formations, and that the canyon is now the rim of an extinct volcano. It's very easy to put that aside while walking through the canyon and focus on "metaphysical", not physical explanations. So, my question, which again relates back to our original science and religion issue, must we disavow our scientific views to feel the presence of God?

2009-04-03T06:59:00.002-04:00

Looks like everyone was too busy with the end of the quarter (I hope that's it and that the question wasn't too boring) to make any comments. Since this is the last day of school before vacation, I want to wish everyone a very happy and healthy Passover. Enjoy your time off.

2009-04-02T06:56:00.002-04:00

I would like to stay on the theme of ritual. Zach mentioned that failure to offer the Passover sacrifice was a major sin. The punishment was "karret", which Rashi describes as dying before your time and having no children. Along with failure to circumcise your child, which also was punished with "karret", the Passover sacrifice seemed to be one of the major rituals that defined membership in the group. The Passover Sedar is probably the most observed ritual by Jews who are not generally ritualistic. My question is, why does the Sedar have such a prominent place in the pantheon of Jewish ritual?

2009-04-01T07:25:00.002-04:00

There are two issues that are percolating in my mind. The first is based on a comment by Andrew. Is the goal of Torah to create an ethical society, so ethics and morality should be emphasized over ritual (Reform), or, if indeed Halacha is divine, then we shouldn't distinguish between ritual and ethical. This issue in a way relates to my second idea, which is still tied to yesterday's discussion. Science, or at least in my simplistic and uneducated conception of it, works on a system of cause and effect. I believe it is a law of Newton that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the universe runs on a concept of casuality, then does humanity as well. Is there a system of cause and effect that governs our lives? Could ethics and morals be a part of that system? If I am good, good things will happen to me (karma). If I am bad, then the effect will be punishment, unless I perform a ritual that will somehow "lessen the severity of the decree". So, I guess, these two are really one--what is the role of ritual in our modern lives?

2009-03-31T19:55:00.001-04:00

Welcome to Barrack's Boisterous Blog. I am hopeful that you will use your creative, intellectual, emotional, metaphysical, comical, or any other al that you can think of. The purpose of this blog is to save me in class. Many times we go on tangents that are extremely interesting, but not really part of the curriculum. I am hoping that instead of using valuable class time (at least it is to me), we can all explore these ideas in this forum. Even though the topics are coming up in my classes, I am hoping that all the students and faculty at Barrack will be interested in the blog, and will become contributors. For example, in many of my classes, we discuss the difference between a religious and a scientific view of the world. It would be interesting to me if the science teachers would join us in our discussion. For example, here's an idea for my first blog: does the Torah have to be scientifically true in order for us to accept it as a divine text? Hope to hear from you soon.
B. Kamen