Bullying: The act of being habitually cruel, especially to smaller or weaker people.
-The American Heritage Dictionary
I do not think anyone would disagree with the above definition of bullying. Nor would they approve of bullying. No one in MTA would intentionally harass a fellow student, even in a lower grade. Despite this, bullying is still prominent in MTA. Many bully unintentionally and unknowingly. This is because they have a misconceived notion of what constitutes bullying.
Bullying is no longer just the stereotypical situation of a physical prank that a jock pulls on a typical nerd. High school teens have created a more concealed and subtle way to behave ‘habitually cruel.’
The modern era has created an opening to the possibilities of more verbal abuse than ever before. Sarcasm is probably the most used form of speech. Speaking critically about someone can now simply be labeled as constructive. An opening phrase of ‘No offense but…’ allows the subsequent statement to automatically become acceptable.
However, also in this modern era, pediatricians and researchers in this country have been giving bullies and their victims the attention they have long deserved — and have long received in Europe. We’ve gotten past the “kids will be kids” notion that bullying is a normal part of childhood or the prelude to a successful life strategy. Research has described long-term risks — not just to victims, who may be more likely than their peers to experience depression and suicidal thoughts, but to the bullies themselves, who are less likely to finish school or hold down a job.
The New York Times reported that next month, the American Academy of Pediatrics will publish the new version of an official policy statement on the pediatrician’s role in preventing youth violence. For the first time, it will have a section on bullying — including a recommendation that schools adopt a prevention model developed by Dan Olweus, a research professor of psychology at the University of Bergen, Norway, who first began studying the phenomenon of school bullying in Scandinavia in the 1970s. The programs, he said, “work at the school level and the classroom level and at the individual level; they combine preventive programs and directly addressing children who are involved or identified as bullies or victims or both.”
Our esteemed Guidance Councilor, Mrs. Tamar Sheffey, pointed out that there are really three people involved in this type of harassment: the victim, the bully, and the bystander. Many times, the bystander can cause as much, if not more, damage than the intimidator if he does not stand up for the victim.
“The victim expects the harassment from the bully but he hopes that a bystander who is watching it all unfold will help him. When the bystander stays silent, it victimizes him all over again,” Mrs. Sheffey remarked. “Speaking up to a person who is hurting someone and making him aware that his actions and words are not okay is one simple way to make a difference,” she suggests.
“Olweus’s genius,” says Dr. Robert Sege, chief of ambulatory pediatrics at Boston Medical Center and a lead author of the new policy , is that Olweus’s approach focuses attention on the largest group of children, the bystanders, in “that he manages to turn the school situation around so the other kids realize that the bully is someone who has a problem managing his or her behavior, and the victim is someone they can protect.”
Dr. Rona Novic, a licensed clinical psychologist with a PhD from Rutgers University, a professor of child and adolescent psychology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and currently the Head of Doctoral Studies of Yeshiva University’s Azrieli School of Education, agrees. She heads a nationwide classroom-based program called Bully Reduction/ Anti-Violence Education and Social Leadership Development (BRAVE). The program’s name itself makes two interesting points right off the bat: one, the program readily admits to a more realistic and depressing goal. It gives up on the possibility of the end of bullying; all it seeks to accomplish is to reduce it. Is the fact that bullying has become a given in society not enough of a tragedy in itself to convince one to take up arms to combat it? Two, that just a reduction of bullying is not enough. To truly make a complete turn-around there must be a resurgence of social leadership. Bullying is no longer a physical action; it is a social force that must be reduced, if not stopped entirely.
Dr. Novic has said bullying and related problems such as taunting, name-calling, and social exclusion are more serious than most students are willing to acknowledge. I disagree with her on one point; bullying, taunting, name calling and social exclusion are all, in essence, one and the same.
She also has proposed the following question: “We teach the notion of bein adam l’chaveiro [treating one’s fellow man properly] as part of Torah values, but we still see children bullying and taunting their fellow students. If we’re teaching it, why aren’t students getting it?”
My answer, which was perhaps too optimistic, was that many people do not realize when they are bullying someone. Many off-hand sarcastic jokes that demoralize people have become routine.
For example, one can no longer resist pointing out when a student walks into class late. This leads to a situation where it seems than one can no longer walk into class late, a simple daily action, without receiving a form of verbal abuse. Although this action alone would never be considered cruel, the buildup of all these remarks, and what they amount to, can. Everyone desperately tries to fit in. To be ‘accepted’ is everyone’s goal.
Next time a joke is said in class I want you to look around. Pay close attention to where everyone’s eyes wander. The person making the joke and those laughing will all be looking around in search of the peer approval that determines which jokes are funny or not. Everyone will longingly look around to find acceptance; after all, laughing at a bad joke can result in another joke, except that one would be directed at you.
Acceptance is the modern obsession. People change their true selves to try to fit in. Teenagers can no longer be themselves. I personally have avoided entering a classroom late just to escape the comments and the piercing eyes as one make his way across the room. These comments have tortured people until they change who they are. Taunting, name calling, and social exclusion are habits which are inherently cruel. That is the true definition of bullying, and it has no place in MTA.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Reading Lover’s Approach to the Kindle
When I buy a good sized, brand new, paperback the first thing I like to do is to rifle through the pages just to get a taste of that new book smell. For me, there is nothing better then when the contraption of bound paper flaps its wings as I turn the pages and delve further and further into the protagonist’s journey. I begin to sadden as I notice how the amount of remaining pages is dwindling down. Well Amazon.com, a site that used to be a reader’s best friend in now trying to take this experience away.
Amazon is the brain child of Jeff Bezos, an ex-finance worker turn revolutionary book salesman, who wanted to create an online bookstore. This site became operational on July 1, 1995. For the next two years not only did it supply books for anxious and needy readers, but also contained suggested reads. Then, like all great businesses do, in ’98, Amazon extended to the sales of CDs and DVDs. Finally, in 2001, Amazon became the web site we have all learned to know, an “e-commerce infrastructure for use by third-party vendors,” as the Time Magazine describes it. Three years ago, in ’06, Amazon then took Apple’s iTunes store on as it offered music-and-video-downloading.
In these short fourteen years, Amazon has become the leader in book sales, owning around 43% of that industry.
Amazon.com is not only a website for the distribution of hard covered books, though. There is also a BurgeSurge feature which allows for a book’s ‘print on demand.’ And now Mr. Bezos has made a self publishing service called CreatSpace.
A survey done by the Jenkins Group reported that 80% of Americans wants to write and publish a book. And now with Amazon’s self-publishing, this past year, for the first time in history, there were more books self-published in the U.S. than in the regular way. Without the rigorous publication progress, many writers are leaving publishing agencies to get the books of a less than superb caliber.
Not only may Amazon be allowing the deterioration of writing level of modern books, but may also be making the end of books as we know it. Amazon has designed an electronic hand-held reading device compatible to the sites new e-books. The new Amazon Kindle is the company’s attempt to “introduce the next chapter in reading,” as its slogan proclaims, while perhaps it is the last.
The Kindle, a 10.2 ounce, pencil thick, hand-held reader can hold up to 1,500 books. This almost $350 piece of technology is connected to a 3G network and can upload a book from the online e-book store in a minute flat for the minimal price of $9.99. With this minimal price, many publishers fear for their jobs.
The reason why this writer thinks that Kindle might be the end of reading is due to its new handy feature, the ‘Read to Me’ application. This allows for any book to be instantly made an audio book, including newspapers, magazines and even blogs. Unless, of course, the book rights holder forbids it.
The Kindle’s critics complain that the lighting makes reading a digital screen difficult. But with the improved, Kindle DX on it way, with the ability hold an additional 2,000 books, the critics are being blinded by promising modern technology. They are missing the possibility of the downfall of books.
Although digitizing a book in itself is not threatening, the fact that it comes with a ‘Read to Me’ feature is. Not only is there an increasingly lessening writer’s standard due to self-publishing, we have eliminated the fresh book feeling and worse of all the need to even read at all. This may seem unrealistic, but e-books’ prices are unbeatable. “Who wouldn’t like a price that was significantly lower than the price of the hard cover,” said Carolyn Reider, president and CEO of the Simon & Schuster publishing agency.
On the bright side of things, however, while this distopian picture I have just drawn is far off in the future, until then there may be the greatest insurgence of reading the world has ever seen with many more titles being cheaper and easily accessible. But with the starting price of almost four hundred dollars, considering the economy and the future of reading, is it really worth it?
Amazon is the brain child of Jeff Bezos, an ex-finance worker turn revolutionary book salesman, who wanted to create an online bookstore. This site became operational on July 1, 1995. For the next two years not only did it supply books for anxious and needy readers, but also contained suggested reads. Then, like all great businesses do, in ’98, Amazon extended to the sales of CDs and DVDs. Finally, in 2001, Amazon became the web site we have all learned to know, an “e-commerce infrastructure for use by third-party vendors,” as the Time Magazine describes it. Three years ago, in ’06, Amazon then took Apple’s iTunes store on as it offered music-and-video-downloading.
In these short fourteen years, Amazon has become the leader in book sales, owning around 43% of that industry.
Amazon.com is not only a website for the distribution of hard covered books, though. There is also a BurgeSurge feature which allows for a book’s ‘print on demand.’ And now Mr. Bezos has made a self publishing service called CreatSpace.
A survey done by the Jenkins Group reported that 80% of Americans wants to write and publish a book. And now with Amazon’s self-publishing, this past year, for the first time in history, there were more books self-published in the U.S. than in the regular way. Without the rigorous publication progress, many writers are leaving publishing agencies to get the books of a less than superb caliber.
Not only may Amazon be allowing the deterioration of writing level of modern books, but may also be making the end of books as we know it. Amazon has designed an electronic hand-held reading device compatible to the sites new e-books. The new Amazon Kindle is the company’s attempt to “introduce the next chapter in reading,” as its slogan proclaims, while perhaps it is the last.
The Kindle, a 10.2 ounce, pencil thick, hand-held reader can hold up to 1,500 books. This almost $350 piece of technology is connected to a 3G network and can upload a book from the online e-book store in a minute flat for the minimal price of $9.99. With this minimal price, many publishers fear for their jobs.
The reason why this writer thinks that Kindle might be the end of reading is due to its new handy feature, the ‘Read to Me’ application. This allows for any book to be instantly made an audio book, including newspapers, magazines and even blogs. Unless, of course, the book rights holder forbids it.
The Kindle’s critics complain that the lighting makes reading a digital screen difficult. But with the improved, Kindle DX on it way, with the ability hold an additional 2,000 books, the critics are being blinded by promising modern technology. They are missing the possibility of the downfall of books.
Although digitizing a book in itself is not threatening, the fact that it comes with a ‘Read to Me’ feature is. Not only is there an increasingly lessening writer’s standard due to self-publishing, we have eliminated the fresh book feeling and worse of all the need to even read at all. This may seem unrealistic, but e-books’ prices are unbeatable. “Who wouldn’t like a price that was significantly lower than the price of the hard cover,” said Carolyn Reider, president and CEO of the Simon & Schuster publishing agency.
On the bright side of things, however, while this distopian picture I have just drawn is far off in the future, until then there may be the greatest insurgence of reading the world has ever seen with many more titles being cheaper and easily accessible. But with the starting price of almost four hundred dollars, considering the economy and the future of reading, is it really worth it?
Why I Believe In God
This new segment was inspired by a learning rebbi I had this past summer, Rabbi Hersh Kasierer, from Teferes Moshe, a yeshiva located in Queens. Every day in camp, he would begin our morning learning group with a reason why he believed in God, usually on an emotional level. In our new Science & Health section, The Academy News would like to give you a secular and more scientific approach to one of the biggest religious struggles of our times: why do we believe in God?
I believe there is no topic of greater relevance and importance to a Jew of any age, especially teens. This is also one that seems to fall through the cracks of our faulty yeshiva system. Rabbi Kasierer was the first rabbi I have encountered that was bold enough to face this touchy topic head on. After seeing Rabbi Schiller and Rabbi Bechhofer, make a joint effort to combat doubt against the divine over Thursday night mishmars throughout the year, I have mustered up the confidence to bring up a subject that I believe should be brought out into the open, at least to the general MTA student body.
I readily concede that God’s existence can not be proven. If it could, that in itself would craft a physical attribute to something of a purely spiritual nature. Like the exact placement of an atom at a given moment, god is impossible to accurately locate. Therefore, the first step that one must take to direct oneself on this long and crucial journey is not to strive to prove god, but to highlight the errors in other approaches to the human existence, namely alternate religions and evolution.
I would like to tackle evolution first, mainly because it is easily refuted systematically because it is of a scientific nature. To preface my argument against evolution, I would like to address one main concern of many. If I maintain that evolution is incredibly mistaken, how could a scientist like Charles Darwin convince prominent scientist from his time until this day of its validity? Why would it remain such a highly regarded explanation for how our planet has come to its advanced state?
In reality there are great scientists on both sides of this augment. There is a newly emerging scientific movement, consisting of world renowned scientists, named Intelligent Design that combats evolution on a purely secular basis. This new movement started at a conference held at Southern Methodist University, in March 1992. This movement was spearheaded by mission statements issued by three main proponents of this new movement, Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, William Dembski’s The Design Inference, and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. They offer the following explanation as to why Darwin had reached such a misguided theory.
Although a great scientist can explain how nature works, there is a difference between explaining how nature works and explaining where it came from. Darwin’s theory of the origin of man was developed and commonly accepted before we even understood nature. We have now learned that life is built on molecules, and biochemistry has become the study of the very foundations of life. Darwin made an uneducated observation based on his expectation of everything to be of simple nature, but in reality it is very complex.
Darwin expected mechanisms of change and the subsequent developments by natural means to be uncomplicated life processes, and that the evolution that he hypothesized would came out from simple steps, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified, entirely by natural means. Modern science has proven it not to be so straightforward, however.
Darwin folly is that he only had the ability to observe the outer patterns, the whole animal or whole organ, and then imagined the steps of its origin; it is impossible to do so if you don’t understand its foundations, though. The entire body is built on molecules, not just on organs. “Thus the primary question is ‘what is the origin of this peculiar organism, the cell?’” as put by Mathias Schleiden, the scientist who discovered the plant cell.
As to why modern scientist would remain to adhere to an impossible theory is, as Rabbi Mendelson has explained, that this theory has created a way for people to relieve themselves of the burden of belief in God, such as the restrictions that comes with it, without feeling guilty. Now that the Darwin’s theory has become so ingrained in society that these scientists will defend their newly acquired freedoms at all costs, no matter how wrong the theory might be.
Lynn Margulis, the scientist who developed the theory of the origin of mitochondria and their doubled layered shell, said how Neo-Darwinism has become more of “a minor twentieth-century dogmatic religious sect,” then a group working upon scientific principals.
For instance, Richard Goldschmidt, a geneticist, in an apparently desperate attempt proposed the “hopeful monster” theory. This suggests that occasionally large changes might occur just by chance – perhaps a reptile laid an egg once, and from it hatched a bird.
In my refutation of Darwin, I would like to take the approach of Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, which develops an effort to stress a problem with the theory, which Darwin himself admitted to, relying on the existence a certain scenario in nature.
Darwin himself explained that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Michael J. Behe, insists that modern biochemistry has supplied us with many complex organs. And in his book Darwin’s Black Box, although Darwin himself admits that only one would be necessary, Behe offers thirteen examples of these organs.
He describes these structures as “irreducibly complex.” Such would be “a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease function.” This would imply that this organism could not have been made in slow, simple steps that would have also aided the organism in question to continue to live through the process of natural selection.
One system Professor Behe discusses in his book is that of the human eye. Darwin himself knew its complexities, and tried to explain its origin in his chapter entitled “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.” He did not specify the steps it would take, but he proposed that the eye originated from less complex eyes that began as simple light sensitive spots that took a leap up to our multifaceted eyes (which is comparable, as far as science goes, to a successful jump across the Grand Canyon).
“Darwin however merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation,” Michael Behe says. “This is comparable to answering the question of ‘How is a stereo made?’ with the words ‘By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver and a tape deck.’”
Dr. Behe then explains the unseen biochemical steps that are involved in the basic, daily function of a fully operational eye that is too complex to explain in an article in a high school newspaper, even our lofty Academy News. This system requires many chemicals to stabilize the reaction ongoing within the optical system that can only be made through the reaction itself, an arrangement that certainly could not progress in successive steps, no difference how small these notches are. With our world currently being explained with increasing complexity, Darwin’s theory is growingly implausible.
Although this is not convincing truth of a creator, this allows us to take the vital first step in acknowledging that other explanations are surprisingly less feasible than a mystic being that is above the laws of nature.
Once you have reached the logical conclusion that there must be a creator, then one must choose which religion he believes is the truly divine one. Hopefully, in the continuation of this segment, I will prove that the only reasonable conclusion, from a secular approach, is Judaism.
This is a subject that none should shy from shedding light upon. This is a very important topic that can be handled plainly and effectively. We no longer need to debate on morals and use the bible as textual proof, but can now use the reason of science to make coherent and realistic stand points. I have quickly supplied one way to refute evolution but there are many others, many of which are easily understood. The strengthening of our belief system is so important because its ramifications will resound throughout every religious act any Jew commits from washing negel vaser in the morning to saying kriat shema at night.
I believe there is no topic of greater relevance and importance to a Jew of any age, especially teens. This is also one that seems to fall through the cracks of our faulty yeshiva system. Rabbi Kasierer was the first rabbi I have encountered that was bold enough to face this touchy topic head on. After seeing Rabbi Schiller and Rabbi Bechhofer, make a joint effort to combat doubt against the divine over Thursday night mishmars throughout the year, I have mustered up the confidence to bring up a subject that I believe should be brought out into the open, at least to the general MTA student body.
I readily concede that God’s existence can not be proven. If it could, that in itself would craft a physical attribute to something of a purely spiritual nature. Like the exact placement of an atom at a given moment, god is impossible to accurately locate. Therefore, the first step that one must take to direct oneself on this long and crucial journey is not to strive to prove god, but to highlight the errors in other approaches to the human existence, namely alternate religions and evolution.
I would like to tackle evolution first, mainly because it is easily refuted systematically because it is of a scientific nature. To preface my argument against evolution, I would like to address one main concern of many. If I maintain that evolution is incredibly mistaken, how could a scientist like Charles Darwin convince prominent scientist from his time until this day of its validity? Why would it remain such a highly regarded explanation for how our planet has come to its advanced state?
In reality there are great scientists on both sides of this augment. There is a newly emerging scientific movement, consisting of world renowned scientists, named Intelligent Design that combats evolution on a purely secular basis. This new movement started at a conference held at Southern Methodist University, in March 1992. This movement was spearheaded by mission statements issued by three main proponents of this new movement, Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, William Dembski’s The Design Inference, and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. They offer the following explanation as to why Darwin had reached such a misguided theory.
Although a great scientist can explain how nature works, there is a difference between explaining how nature works and explaining where it came from. Darwin’s theory of the origin of man was developed and commonly accepted before we even understood nature. We have now learned that life is built on molecules, and biochemistry has become the study of the very foundations of life. Darwin made an uneducated observation based on his expectation of everything to be of simple nature, but in reality it is very complex.
Darwin expected mechanisms of change and the subsequent developments by natural means to be uncomplicated life processes, and that the evolution that he hypothesized would came out from simple steps, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified, entirely by natural means. Modern science has proven it not to be so straightforward, however.
Darwin folly is that he only had the ability to observe the outer patterns, the whole animal or whole organ, and then imagined the steps of its origin; it is impossible to do so if you don’t understand its foundations, though. The entire body is built on molecules, not just on organs. “Thus the primary question is ‘what is the origin of this peculiar organism, the cell?’” as put by Mathias Schleiden, the scientist who discovered the plant cell.
As to why modern scientist would remain to adhere to an impossible theory is, as Rabbi Mendelson has explained, that this theory has created a way for people to relieve themselves of the burden of belief in God, such as the restrictions that comes with it, without feeling guilty. Now that the Darwin’s theory has become so ingrained in society that these scientists will defend their newly acquired freedoms at all costs, no matter how wrong the theory might be.
Lynn Margulis, the scientist who developed the theory of the origin of mitochondria and their doubled layered shell, said how Neo-Darwinism has become more of “a minor twentieth-century dogmatic religious sect,” then a group working upon scientific principals.
For instance, Richard Goldschmidt, a geneticist, in an apparently desperate attempt proposed the “hopeful monster” theory. This suggests that occasionally large changes might occur just by chance – perhaps a reptile laid an egg once, and from it hatched a bird.
In my refutation of Darwin, I would like to take the approach of Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, which develops an effort to stress a problem with the theory, which Darwin himself admitted to, relying on the existence a certain scenario in nature.
Darwin himself explained that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Michael J. Behe, insists that modern biochemistry has supplied us with many complex organs. And in his book Darwin’s Black Box, although Darwin himself admits that only one would be necessary, Behe offers thirteen examples of these organs.
He describes these structures as “irreducibly complex.” Such would be “a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of these parts causes the system to effectively cease function.” This would imply that this organism could not have been made in slow, simple steps that would have also aided the organism in question to continue to live through the process of natural selection.
One system Professor Behe discusses in his book is that of the human eye. Darwin himself knew its complexities, and tried to explain its origin in his chapter entitled “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.” He did not specify the steps it would take, but he proposed that the eye originated from less complex eyes that began as simple light sensitive spots that took a leap up to our multifaceted eyes (which is comparable, as far as science goes, to a successful jump across the Grand Canyon).
“Darwin however merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation,” Michael Behe says. “This is comparable to answering the question of ‘How is a stereo made?’ with the words ‘By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver and a tape deck.’”
Dr. Behe then explains the unseen biochemical steps that are involved in the basic, daily function of a fully operational eye that is too complex to explain in an article in a high school newspaper, even our lofty Academy News. This system requires many chemicals to stabilize the reaction ongoing within the optical system that can only be made through the reaction itself, an arrangement that certainly could not progress in successive steps, no difference how small these notches are. With our world currently being explained with increasing complexity, Darwin’s theory is growingly implausible.
Although this is not convincing truth of a creator, this allows us to take the vital first step in acknowledging that other explanations are surprisingly less feasible than a mystic being that is above the laws of nature.
Once you have reached the logical conclusion that there must be a creator, then one must choose which religion he believes is the truly divine one. Hopefully, in the continuation of this segment, I will prove that the only reasonable conclusion, from a secular approach, is Judaism.
This is a subject that none should shy from shedding light upon. This is a very important topic that can be handled plainly and effectively. We no longer need to debate on morals and use the bible as textual proof, but can now use the reason of science to make coherent and realistic stand points. I have quickly supplied one way to refute evolution but there are many others, many of which are easily understood. The strengthening of our belief system is so important because its ramifications will resound throughout every religious act any Jew commits from washing negel vaser in the morning to saying kriat shema at night.
Tikva Application
We will never succeed. Well, that is unless we reconsider our goal. We will never find the fundamental hashkofo. Any single hashkofo will by definition limit the community to one line of thought, and no one thought is flawless. The hashkofo that would truly allow any civilization to reach its collective potential is one that would permit all hashkofos to proper. I have seen this hashkofo put to the test twice, and it passed both times with flying colors. This hashkofo has come to be known as the acronym Blit’z, or its English counterpart, ‘The Safe Place.’
No hashkofo will be perfect. One of the most famous flaws in most is trying to find the right balance between emotions and the complete and precise subservience to divine law, the controversy between Brisker and most other European Talmudic thinkers. However, this Blit’z or ‘safe place’ is the title of a social contract that, when all subscribe to it, can create the super community in which all hashkofos can coexist, which is the most favorable outcome. Rav Adin Steinsaltz, in his book Simple Words, explains that it is every individual’s choice, prerogative, and duty on this world to judge every hashkofo, to learn from its strengths and weaknesses, interpret these findings and adapt them into one’s life.
Although this approach sounds simple enough, there is one simple yet complicated barrier. It is simple in the way it works but it is complicated to solve. Karl Jaspers (1882-1969), a German psychiatrist turned philosopher, adamantly believed that all humans are “endowed with possibilities, through the freedom he possesses, to make of himself what he will.” Everyone can be what he wants to be. When objects begin to tax this ‘freedom’ we are endowed with, we no longer have this possibility. To America’s founding father’s dismay, everyone’s freedom, in this current society is taxed by an ‘onlooker factor.’ This onlooker factor consists of the comments and emotional abuse one receives from onlookers. Due to the natural fear of being the subject of verbal attacks, it has become nearly impossible for one to try unusual and unfamiliar styles of living, worship, or even a way of dress. For instance, many would not venture to wear a black hat for the Sabbath if it is not custom of his surroundings out of the fear of his peer’s reactions.
This is where the social contract of Blit’z comes in. Blit’z stands for Beli Tzinyot "without mockery." That everyone and anyone can live without the fear of being made fun of by their peers for trying unfamiliar ways because such anti-diversity comments have been made unacceptable. Without the worry of onlookers and their judging eyes, or invasive disheartening comments, one is able to experience Judaism, or any other religion for that manner any way they like. Anyone can just be themselves without fearing his peer's reaction.
I have seen the implementation of Blit’z into a community twice, both times resulting in a community with endless possibilities of growth; once in a summer camp, Ya’alozu, and once in a school in Israel that I had visited in a foreign exchange program ran in my school this year called Makor Chiam. I have seen it work, and I have witnessed the detriments its absence causes. This hashkofo is the only one that is all encompassing while at the same time allows for the greatest collective potential of any one community.
The Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum, said “You people with hearts have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful.” The human race used to have a heart. But this heart has been drowned out by what my rebbi, Rabbi Bechhofer, fondly calls the ‘moron factor.’ Recent social stresses on inappropriate subjects and practices have lowered the overall intelligence of humanity. These subjects have now become the subject on kid’s minds before they can find their relationship with their religious beliefs. If I would write a modern Moreh Nevuchim it would directed towards teenagers, the infamous sufferers of curiosity, and on what became the most difficult subject the Modern Jewish Rabbinate had to deal with since the separation of Chabad from the Ultra Orthodox fold.
While the topic seem simple enough, due to the past Rabbinic response of letting this issue fall to the waste side unnoticed, this problem became exacerbated. The topic is too touchy for most inexperienced Rabbis. Teen’s minds have been allowed to wander, and have questions that their religious leaders are afraid to answer. Although some Rabbis have taken this subject head on, such as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, there needs to be a book, or some farther reaching Jewish source that all Jewish teens in America can reach.
Fredrick Nietzsche said, “All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the whole world upside down.” Such a book could be revolutionary. Although I have come to terms with the hypocrisy of the new social attitude towards sex and my religion, many have not. This problem is the definition of endemic, and to all material, spiritual and philosophical parts of our social climate.
However, “What is word knowledge but a shadow of wordless knowledge?” (Khalil Gibran) No book can solve our problem because, as many intellectuals may solemnly admit, you cannot spread ideologies in any venue in the modern age of technology due to my Rabbi’s ‘moron factor,’ something the current Pope himself had agreed to. But the tradition of the tongue is still alive in Jewish day schools. The only real way to solve this problem is on a classroom level, relying on the competence of the Rabbis. As the Roman Catholic Church had realized in the counter reformation, our clergy must keep up with the times, something in which it has failed numerous times, for instance, Germany in the 18th century where the reformed movement prospered towards the end of the century.
No hashkofo will be perfect. One of the most famous flaws in most is trying to find the right balance between emotions and the complete and precise subservience to divine law, the controversy between Brisker and most other European Talmudic thinkers. However, this Blit’z or ‘safe place’ is the title of a social contract that, when all subscribe to it, can create the super community in which all hashkofos can coexist, which is the most favorable outcome. Rav Adin Steinsaltz, in his book Simple Words, explains that it is every individual’s choice, prerogative, and duty on this world to judge every hashkofo, to learn from its strengths and weaknesses, interpret these findings and adapt them into one’s life.
Although this approach sounds simple enough, there is one simple yet complicated barrier. It is simple in the way it works but it is complicated to solve. Karl Jaspers (1882-1969), a German psychiatrist turned philosopher, adamantly believed that all humans are “endowed with possibilities, through the freedom he possesses, to make of himself what he will.” Everyone can be what he wants to be. When objects begin to tax this ‘freedom’ we are endowed with, we no longer have this possibility. To America’s founding father’s dismay, everyone’s freedom, in this current society is taxed by an ‘onlooker factor.’ This onlooker factor consists of the comments and emotional abuse one receives from onlookers. Due to the natural fear of being the subject of verbal attacks, it has become nearly impossible for one to try unusual and unfamiliar styles of living, worship, or even a way of dress. For instance, many would not venture to wear a black hat for the Sabbath if it is not custom of his surroundings out of the fear of his peer’s reactions.
This is where the social contract of Blit’z comes in. Blit’z stands for Beli Tzinyot "without mockery." That everyone and anyone can live without the fear of being made fun of by their peers for trying unfamiliar ways because such anti-diversity comments have been made unacceptable. Without the worry of onlookers and their judging eyes, or invasive disheartening comments, one is able to experience Judaism, or any other religion for that manner any way they like. Anyone can just be themselves without fearing his peer's reaction.
I have seen the implementation of Blit’z into a community twice, both times resulting in a community with endless possibilities of growth; once in a summer camp, Ya’alozu, and once in a school in Israel that I had visited in a foreign exchange program ran in my school this year called Makor Chiam. I have seen it work, and I have witnessed the detriments its absence causes. This hashkofo is the only one that is all encompassing while at the same time allows for the greatest collective potential of any one community.
The Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum, said “You people with hearts have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful.” The human race used to have a heart. But this heart has been drowned out by what my rebbi, Rabbi Bechhofer, fondly calls the ‘moron factor.’ Recent social stresses on inappropriate subjects and practices have lowered the overall intelligence of humanity. These subjects have now become the subject on kid’s minds before they can find their relationship with their religious beliefs. If I would write a modern Moreh Nevuchim it would directed towards teenagers, the infamous sufferers of curiosity, and on what became the most difficult subject the Modern Jewish Rabbinate had to deal with since the separation of Chabad from the Ultra Orthodox fold.
While the topic seem simple enough, due to the past Rabbinic response of letting this issue fall to the waste side unnoticed, this problem became exacerbated. The topic is too touchy for most inexperienced Rabbis. Teen’s minds have been allowed to wander, and have questions that their religious leaders are afraid to answer. Although some Rabbis have taken this subject head on, such as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, there needs to be a book, or some farther reaching Jewish source that all Jewish teens in America can reach.
Fredrick Nietzsche said, “All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the whole world upside down.” Such a book could be revolutionary. Although I have come to terms with the hypocrisy of the new social attitude towards sex and my religion, many have not. This problem is the definition of endemic, and to all material, spiritual and philosophical parts of our social climate.
However, “What is word knowledge but a shadow of wordless knowledge?” (Khalil Gibran) No book can solve our problem because, as many intellectuals may solemnly admit, you cannot spread ideologies in any venue in the modern age of technology due to my Rabbi’s ‘moron factor,’ something the current Pope himself had agreed to. But the tradition of the tongue is still alive in Jewish day schools. The only real way to solve this problem is on a classroom level, relying on the competence of the Rabbis. As the Roman Catholic Church had realized in the counter reformation, our clergy must keep up with the times, something in which it has failed numerous times, for instance, Germany in the 18th century where the reformed movement prospered towards the end of the century.
Exchange We Can Believe In
Even now that I have returned from my two month exchange program, I still cannot believe I went. Foreign exchange programs seem to only exist in movies, a distant concept that does not occur in real life.
Yeshiva University’s High School for Boys turned this idea into a reality. The vision of the Head of School, Rabbi Mark Gottleib, and Mrs. Tova Rosenberg the head of MTA’s Hebrew Language Department has made the unimaginable a reality.
On January 26th, Rosh Chodesh Shvat, ten sophomores from MTA began their first day at Yeshivat Makor Chiam, an Israeli High School founded on the teachings of Rav Adin Steinsaltz, internationally known for his multivolume translation and commentary to the Talmud.
In exchange for four Israeli juniors, these ten Americans received the opportunity of a life time, a chance to experience and benefit from a culture different from any other Israeli high school let alone an American one. The school’s ideologies have no appropriate label, except unique. There isn’t any place like it. They have a refreshing perspective on educational methods, judiaism and life.
The unique Makor Chiam experience started immediately on the first day, Rosh Chodesh, when the recitation of hallel is customarily said, but their hallel is nothing like any I have ever seen. There, it is done with instrumental accompaniment, and breaks for dancing following every paragraph. The guitar seemed out of place around the neck of the shliach tzibur, the leader of the service, but when the bongo came out the ten Westerners knew immediately that this trip will be interesting to say the least.
This is only one incident that sticks out that would be impossible to find in most modern, Jewish high schools. They have a love for their religion. There is no dress code, nor anything close to a Dean of Discipline. The students there have a great amount of freedom which they use to strive to get closer to God. They sing by halel, not because they are forced to or because it is routine, but because they want to. And they enjoy it.
They have such a love for things we take for granted, and they have worked hard for it too. Last year, only two weeks before the attack on Mercaz HaRav, they had their own terrorist scare. Two extremists breached the school’s security dressed as security personal. The terrorists were even greeted warmly by the faculty when they interrupted a staff meeting, but when one turned a gun on a dorm counselor while another drew a knife all smiles were quickly forgotten.
Luckily, the room the terrorists decided to attack, was where the armed staff members were at the time and not the weakly defended Study Hall where all the children were gathered that Thursday night for the weekly mishmar, the extra learning program. There were only minor injuries among the staff which quickly healed, but you can never heal this fear that these kind of attacks cause.
The most important philosophy that we have learned in Makor Chiam, that makes this passion for torah, and their religion as a whole, possible, is the phrase shortened to Blit"z. It stands for Beli Tzinyot "without mockery." That anyone can do anything without the fear of being made fun of by their peers. Without the worry of onlookers and their judging eyes, or invasive disheartening comments, one is able to experience Judaism any way they like. Anyone can just be themselves without fearing his peer's reaction.
The unique social contract of Blit”z is what allows the Makor Chiam students to observe Judaism in their ‘unique’ way, such as their singing during weekday prayer services, something the typical high school students would immediately alienate. The only way, in my opinion, one can experience Judaism in such an unusual yet laudable fashion is without the fear of whether or not you will receive your peer’s approval.
It is a completely different society there, and this idea and environment is what allows them to find a way to enjoy life and there religion, even if it looks weird or different. They have no need to neither worry about being judged nor find the need to seek approval.
While I traveled around the globe to seek such a society, my friends and I began to wonder why this passion and freedom of worship cannot be found closer to home. Only then did it become apparent to us that this is the exact reason why we were sent. To return and spread our knowledge of what could be, and hopefully it will be.
Yeshiva University’s High School for Boys turned this idea into a reality. The vision of the Head of School, Rabbi Mark Gottleib, and Mrs. Tova Rosenberg the head of MTA’s Hebrew Language Department has made the unimaginable a reality.
On January 26th, Rosh Chodesh Shvat, ten sophomores from MTA began their first day at Yeshivat Makor Chiam, an Israeli High School founded on the teachings of Rav Adin Steinsaltz, internationally known for his multivolume translation and commentary to the Talmud.
In exchange for four Israeli juniors, these ten Americans received the opportunity of a life time, a chance to experience and benefit from a culture different from any other Israeli high school let alone an American one. The school’s ideologies have no appropriate label, except unique. There isn’t any place like it. They have a refreshing perspective on educational methods, judiaism and life.
The unique Makor Chiam experience started immediately on the first day, Rosh Chodesh, when the recitation of hallel is customarily said, but their hallel is nothing like any I have ever seen. There, it is done with instrumental accompaniment, and breaks for dancing following every paragraph. The guitar seemed out of place around the neck of the shliach tzibur, the leader of the service, but when the bongo came out the ten Westerners knew immediately that this trip will be interesting to say the least.
This is only one incident that sticks out that would be impossible to find in most modern, Jewish high schools. They have a love for their religion. There is no dress code, nor anything close to a Dean of Discipline. The students there have a great amount of freedom which they use to strive to get closer to God. They sing by halel, not because they are forced to or because it is routine, but because they want to. And they enjoy it.
They have such a love for things we take for granted, and they have worked hard for it too. Last year, only two weeks before the attack on Mercaz HaRav, they had their own terrorist scare. Two extremists breached the school’s security dressed as security personal. The terrorists were even greeted warmly by the faculty when they interrupted a staff meeting, but when one turned a gun on a dorm counselor while another drew a knife all smiles were quickly forgotten.
Luckily, the room the terrorists decided to attack, was where the armed staff members were at the time and not the weakly defended Study Hall where all the children were gathered that Thursday night for the weekly mishmar, the extra learning program. There were only minor injuries among the staff which quickly healed, but you can never heal this fear that these kind of attacks cause.
The most important philosophy that we have learned in Makor Chiam, that makes this passion for torah, and their religion as a whole, possible, is the phrase shortened to Blit"z. It stands for Beli Tzinyot "without mockery." That anyone can do anything without the fear of being made fun of by their peers. Without the worry of onlookers and their judging eyes, or invasive disheartening comments, one is able to experience Judaism any way they like. Anyone can just be themselves without fearing his peer's reaction.
The unique social contract of Blit”z is what allows the Makor Chiam students to observe Judaism in their ‘unique’ way, such as their singing during weekday prayer services, something the typical high school students would immediately alienate. The only way, in my opinion, one can experience Judaism in such an unusual yet laudable fashion is without the fear of whether or not you will receive your peer’s approval.
It is a completely different society there, and this idea and environment is what allows them to find a way to enjoy life and there religion, even if it looks weird or different. They have no need to neither worry about being judged nor find the need to seek approval.
While I traveled around the globe to seek such a society, my friends and I began to wonder why this passion and freedom of worship cannot be found closer to home. Only then did it become apparent to us that this is the exact reason why we were sent. To return and spread our knowledge of what could be, and hopefully it will be.
A Minor Misconception
The Presidential Candidates have been known to be occupied around this time of year with November rapidly approaching. I think most voters of any party affliliation, would agree when I say that a lack of time is no excuse for not paying attention to what is said in your speeches. I have collected a few of the many contradictions made in both of our potential leader’s acceptance speeches, for your convenience.
Senator Barak Obama, while addressing over 75,000 people in Denver, Colorado’s Invesco Field, on August 29th made quite a few biting statements about his opponent. Not all of them were completely thought through. While critiquing McCain, Barak mentioned that his administration would be able to “pay for every dime” of his spending proposals. The Tax Policy Center reported that both Obama’s and McCain’s plans would “substantially increase the national debt.” Furthermore, Obama said to the L.A. Times that his tax cuts, which would be paid off by closing tax loopholes, would amount to be $130 Million. He also said at another time that closing loopholes would only save $80 Million. He also forgot to mention that he wants to raise taxes for families making more than $250,000, and singles making more than $200,000.
Mr. Obama also over looked that when McCain said he would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year," he meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..." Yet Obama decided that he would hold that comment against him, and as his actual views when he mentioned it in his speech. Might I add that McCain mentioned, right after he said that joke, that he is “sure that comment will be distorted.”
The last mistake of Senator’s, that I will mention, is when he reprimanded McCain for not being the maverick that has "broken with his party," that he said he was. He brought proof to this by revealing that McCain has voted with the Republicans 90% of the time. Although this is true, Obama, whom represents “Change”, has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97% of the time.
Senator John McCain was not so perfect either. He miscalculated when he made the announcement that oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is importing a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom. Not exactly from our enemies, and this does not exactly stress the idea he tried to convey.
Mr. McCain then continued on to promise to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar energy.” Just two problems with this; One, his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. Two, at a Town Hall meeting on June 18th, He said that “renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.” He now fights for what he does not believe in.
He made one more promise. He wants to save us money by "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs." As great as that sounds, he never made a plan to do so. He has never mentioned a single government program that he thought was failing, and that he planned on “getting rid of.”
Considering both candidates made such statements, we can not hold this against either of them. The only morale of this story is to keep our minds open during every polititions’ speech, because everything they say may be false. And it usually is.
Senator Barak Obama, while addressing over 75,000 people in Denver, Colorado’s Invesco Field, on August 29th made quite a few biting statements about his opponent. Not all of them were completely thought through. While critiquing McCain, Barak mentioned that his administration would be able to “pay for every dime” of his spending proposals. The Tax Policy Center reported that both Obama’s and McCain’s plans would “substantially increase the national debt.” Furthermore, Obama said to the L.A. Times that his tax cuts, which would be paid off by closing tax loopholes, would amount to be $130 Million. He also said at another time that closing loopholes would only save $80 Million. He also forgot to mention that he wants to raise taxes for families making more than $250,000, and singles making more than $200,000.
Mr. Obama also over looked that when McCain said he would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year," he meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..." Yet Obama decided that he would hold that comment against him, and as his actual views when he mentioned it in his speech. Might I add that McCain mentioned, right after he said that joke, that he is “sure that comment will be distorted.”
The last mistake of Senator’s, that I will mention, is when he reprimanded McCain for not being the maverick that has "broken with his party," that he said he was. He brought proof to this by revealing that McCain has voted with the Republicans 90% of the time. Although this is true, Obama, whom represents “Change”, has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97% of the time.
Senator John McCain was not so perfect either. He miscalculated when he made the announcement that oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is importing a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom. Not exactly from our enemies, and this does not exactly stress the idea he tried to convey.
Mr. McCain then continued on to promise to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar energy.” Just two problems with this; One, his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. Two, at a Town Hall meeting on June 18th, He said that “renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.” He now fights for what he does not believe in.
He made one more promise. He wants to save us money by "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs." As great as that sounds, he never made a plan to do so. He has never mentioned a single government program that he thought was failing, and that he planned on “getting rid of.”
Considering both candidates made such statements, we can not hold this against either of them. The only morale of this story is to keep our minds open during every polititions’ speech, because everything they say may be false. And it usually is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)