There is no doubt that there is a major connection between Jews and money. Even as Jews seek to sweep it under the carpet, it is still the largest elephant in the room, especially in these bad economic times.

Here is an example of this. I contacted a famous young Jewish entrepreneur and asked him to endorse Jewish Wisdom for Business Success. The publisher sent him an advance copy of the book. He looked at it and then said he didn’t like the notion written in the book that Jews are associated with making money. Then he stopped replying to my email. After much persistence on my part, his assistant sent me a message saying he did not have time to read the book and therefore would not endorse it.

Now, whether this particular person likes the notion or not, the notion is out there. From my research talking to people across America, Jews are associated with money in everybody’s mind. And it is not a bad thing. The bad thing is if we allow others to believe that the reason why Jews are good at making money is because they cheat, or because there is some other conspiracy that Jews all share in.

The Israeli Daily Newspaper the Maariv, in an extensive article about Jewish Wisdom for Business Success and the anti-Semitic association between Jews and money, claimed that the book could not have come out at a worse time.

I respectfully and passionately disagree. This is the most important time for this book to come out. At a time when the disgusting anti-Semites are coming out and trying to take charge of the conversation about Jews and money, and as these vile creatures are spreading their hatred and idiotic conspiracy theories all over the internet it is about time that we Jews take charge of the conversation.

This is exactly what my book intends to do. Yes it is a fact that Jews are disproportionally successful in business. We Jews only make up 0.2 percent of the world population (yes less than half of one percent) but we make up more than ten percent of the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people in the world. Also forty six percent of Jews in the United States make over 100k a year while only fifteen percent of the rest of the population make that amount. These are facts not stereotypes.

So why are Jews disproportionately successful? Why are so many of them making more money when compared to the general population? This is a legitimate question and it deserves our attention. Just because the vile anti-Semites use these facts for their own nefarious means does not mean that we should avoid or try and ignore them. If we do they will certainly remind us of them and not in a way we enjoy.

Some have tried to answer this question by saying the Jewish success has to do with the fact that in Europe they were forced to only be involved in finance. But if this was the case then why are thirty percent of Noble Prize winners in the sciences Jewish? Some say it has to do with genetics. But I don’t buy that type of racist ideology either.

The real reason for Jewish success in all areas (not just finance) in my opinion has to do with the Torah. There are wisdom teachings found in the Torah that Jews have imbibed for thousands of years. These wisdom teachings feed directly into successful practices not just in finance, but in the sciences as well as in many other fields.

Now some Jews may not know that there outlook comes from the religion of Judaism. However, I have found that Jews who have never even opened a Jewish book still believe in intrinsically Jewish ideas that stem from the Torah. After probing, often they heard these ideas from a Jewish grandmother they were close with or from a great uncle. But in the end they can almost always be traced back to Jewish ideas that come from the Torah.

The beauty of this theory is that these ideas that feed into successful practices do not have to remain exclusively with the Jews. If we are magnanimous we can share them with others. This is what Sam Jaffe and I have done with our book Jewish Wisdom for Business Success. Now, by reading the book, anyone—even anti-Semites—can learn the secret of Jewish success.

Jewish Wisdom for the difficult economic times:

In the Torah we find Abraham negotiating with G-d. Here is an idea that can help you in the current financial times. Like Abraham don’t always just negotiate over the bottom line. Sometimes other things might be more important and you will win through them. For example keeping your current job may be more important than seeking a raise. If you hear that your company is going to cut jobs you may even suggest to your boss that you will be willing to take less money in order to keep your job in these troubled economic times. In all negotiations in these troubled times where capital is scarce look beyond the dollar signs and try and negotiate on other things (the terms and conditions) that are also very important to you. (Learn how to negotiate in Chapter 5 of the book).

Rabbi Levi Brackman, co-author of Jewish Wisdom for Business Success, is guest-blogging on Jewcy with fellow co-author Sam Jaffe. He'll be here all week. Stay tuned.

Before certain papers report a cardboard trend story of the following fact, allow me to state it first: Debate parties are the latest ticket du jour. The Box, the oft decadent lounge more apt to stage strippers, fire eaters, midgets, Madonna, and Jude Law, hosted one last night. I won't add a lot of stale quotes to support this trend. You can get that in Sunday's paper.

So moving on, as pundits on PBS call for more debate poetry rather than prose and prescribed politics, I call attention to one Canadian poet moving around Europe right now: Leonard Cohen. The man who wrote, "So Long Marianne, Suzanne, and Hallelujah" still looking sharp in a fedora and jacket, still brings us together in a deep husk via words and stories and feelings that tie humanity across the globe.

L- R: Charley and Hattie Webb: My pick for style "it girls"When Tom Ford threw a party for the launch of his fragrance two years ago, one of his PR reps asked me who would be an A list musical act to feature in a sophisticated salon. "Hands down, Leonard Cohen." I answered. Ford's original choice was Justin Timberlake. He went with Jennifer Hudson. Cohen didn't even strike a cord. I probably spent too many afternoons on a porch swing in Tours France hearing my foreign host, a hippie graphic designer named Daniel sing Suzanne too many times. Still, I hope that Cohen opens an American leg of his tour, especially since he's employed two gals called the Webb sisters to sing along with him. I submit that these twentysomething ladies-- both British musicians, a harpist and a pianist among myriad other instruments -- replace the Olsen twins as style icons.

Not only are they gorgeous, they sound like angels or Kate Bush, whichever comes to mind first. (Any of you boys remember the ethereal Ms. Bush? How many wet dreams happened under her guise? So many of you kept her posters over the bed in the late Eighties and early Nineties! Puts lip synching Britney Spears to shame!)

I know Vogue will rip me off on this one. I'll be winking when that March issue features these two lovely Webbs. But I'll also be smiling that talent reigns out, as will hopefully happen in this presidential election. Remember, you heard it here first! Talent, not image or mainstream might should prevail. The only Bush we should recall fondly is Kate.

[Cross-posted from It's That Time Again!, a blog by Susan Miriam Kirschbaum, the art and fashion world's Jewciest commentator.]

Tonight brings the final debate in the Democrats' nominating contest before the crucial primaries of Ohio and Texas, and possibly the final Democratic debate period. Jewcy is here to liveblog all the action. How will Hillary Clinton attempt to knock Barack Obama off his stride? By killing him with kindness? By insinuating that he's a substanceless phony (p.s. his middle name is 'Hussein')? By attacking the media? All three at once?

Palpable tension is in the air; the anticipation is feverish. Check back at 9pm EST, when the proceedings kick off, and don't forget to hit the refresh button.

8:45 (pre-show): Keith Olbermann is warming things up announcing the worrsssst perrssson in the worrrllllld. Here are the crucial questions going in: Will Obama simply try to coast, or will he take the offensive? How far out on a limb will Hillary go trying to bring Obama down? Presumably, if we're going to see the vaunted "kitchen-sink strategy" in action, it'll be in a free media venue like tonight's, since the Clinton campaign can scarcely afford to waste their remaining paid-media funds on aimless scattershot attacks.

Substantively, how much time will be given over to yet more soporific bickering on health care mandates? Hillary Clinton evidently believes this is the big issue where she can put daylight between herself and Obama, but there are a couple of problems with this line of attack. For one thing, David Cutler and Ted Marmor, the two best health care economists of the center-left in this country agree that mandates just don't matter that much for achieving universality (and also, ceteris paribus, more economic freedom is better than less --- not that that's a catchy argument among Democratic primary voters). For another thing, Obama has proven perfectly capable of holding his ground and defending his non-mandate position. Maybe Clinton believes there's a massive constituency that's clamoring not only for universal health care, but also a specific health care mechanism, but she's, um, wrong about that.

8:55: Chuck Todd plays up the interrogative skills of Tim Russert. If your idea of an argument is the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says, rather than a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, then Todd's got a point.

8:58: Todd says take a drink when Clinton says "shame" or Obama says "we agree." I say take a drink when someone says "mandate" (see above).

9:01: It's another sit-down debate. That usually makes them more reticent to launch attacks.

9:02: No opening statements? Williams launches right in with video of Clinton's schizophrenia strategy.

9:04: It's the Mark-Penn-Hillary right out of the gates. She became very disturbed over the last few days by fliers that have been circulating at least since the beginning of February.

9:05: Clinton again claims Obama's plan would leave people out. It's true; so would Clinton's plan.

9:05: Clinton denies any connection to the Somali-garb photo. Says she would fire anyone who plays that sort of politics. So she'll tell Stephanie Tubbs-Jones to take a hike?

9:07: Obama gets the first mention of "mandate" (and the second and third). Drink!

9:08: Have I mentioned that Obama is substantively right about this? The meta-point: Clinton's sent out plenty of anti-Obama fliers too; Obama hasn't been whingeing about it.

9:09: Clinton points out Obama includes a mandate for children. Is the ability to give consent that difficult a concept to grasp?

9:10: This is getting really nasty, really fast.

9:11: Obama says they agree, but doesn't say "we agree." Drink?

9:12: Like I said, average voters simply aren't equipped to sift through the minutiae of health care policy. The only relevant point is that Obama is holding his own, so the whole thing becomes a wash, and undermines Clinton's claims to be better-versed in policy.

9:13: Clinton goes back to Obama's "mandates for children" again. Honestly, adults can consent to things, children can't, it's not difficult.

9:14: Last point about health care: If you're going to propose a meaningful mandate, you have to propose an enforcement mechanism. Saying you have a mechanism (which Hillary does) is not the same as proposing a mechanism (which she doesn't).

9:16: Ah, onto NAFTA. They're both free-traders and they're going to lie their fucking heads off.

9:17: Awesome, Clinton whinges about the format, references a dumb SNL sketch. There's your kitchen-sink. A handful of boos, well-deserved.

9:18: Clinton claims she's always been an opponent of NAFTA. Um, right. She proposes a "trade timeout." What could be better for an ailing market?

9:20: Obama claims "the net costs of trade agreements can be devastating if they're not properly structured." The last qualifier is broad enough to make almost anything that comes before automatically true. But he's trying to pretend he's not a free-trader.

9:23: Russert confronts Clinton with her litany of pro-NAFTA remarks. She splutters, vows to renegotiate or pull out of NAFTA.

9:24: I'm obviously very biased. Does this look to anyone else like the most desperate effort ever? She can't decide whether to hate Russert, Williams, or Obama the most.

9:26: Russert asks Obama whether to opt out of NAFTA. Obama says they agree again. Drink!

9:27: Obama's really hedging hard on his past support of trade agreements. In the interest of balance and all that.

9:28: Russert's definitely going easier on Obama than Clinton. Much easier. Wow.

9:31: Clinton finally calms down and gives a good answer on the loss of jobs in upstate New York. Not good in the sense that she actually made any informative points, good in the sense that she hits the right keywords and has stopped looking like she's there for a streetfight.

9:33: Williams asks Obama about Clinton's comparison of Obama to Bush on foreign policy experience. Obama: I have better judgment than Clinton; I voted against the war. Kind of a softball --- will she ratchet up the attacks?

9:36: Williams to Clinton: are you prepared to say that Obama is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief? Clinton: Obama gave a good speech in 2002; there, there.

9:37: Wow, Clinton claims that "Obama threatened to bomb Pakistan." This is getting surreal. Incidentally, the subtext of her argument is that they have precisely the same issue-profile on foreign policy. Even if it were true, how is that a point in her favor?

9:39: Obama rightly points out that he did a lot more than give a speech; points out Clinton criticizes George Bush's judgment while trumpeting her own agreement with George Bush's judgment. Again, I can't look at this without bias, but this seems to be getting more embarrassing by the moment for Clinton.

9:41: Russert asks Obama whether we can make good on his pledge to withdraw from Iraq. He says yes we can.

9:42: Same question to Clinton; only Russert won't let her answer. He asks Clinton whether she would reserve the right to reinvade Iraq in the event of a disaster. She calls bullshit on Russert's Tomclancying. Good for Hillary.

9:45: The next Clinton attack: Obama hasn't held oversight hearings on the NATO commitment in Afghanistan. Obama: I became head of the oversight committee at the beginning of this campaign. That might not play well, but the fact is that any senator campaigning for president is going to be derelict as a senator.

9:47: Williams tries to cut to break, Clinton tries to cut in, Williams cuts her off and cuts to break.

9:49: First break. Maybe this just seems to be going fast and everybody seems to be agitated because I'm trying to watch and blog at the same time. On the other hand, apart from the gang-tackling the Republicans did on Mitt Romney in January, there hasn't been anything remotely like this in this campaign. Hillary is using every question to take a personal swipe at Obama. Will that win votes?

9:51: To be sure, Williams and Russert are doing their best to provoke a fight. To be further sure, nobody made Hillary trot out that stuttering sarcastic attack on "change."

9:54: Okay, the real problem with the kitchen-sink strategy is that it doesn't involve any themes that Clinton hasn't been hitting the whole campaign, she's just getting a lot nastier about them. But these are the very same attacks Obama has been practicing replying to for over a year, and he's gotten pretty good at it. So he comes off looking confident, she comes off looking like Ross Perot ("Can I finish? Can I finish?").

9:57: More economic bullshit from Clinton on interest rates. She is really, dangerously wrong about this.

10:00: Obama: "Clinton said in a previous debate that she voted for a bill, but hoped it wouldn't pass. Generally, when you hope a bill won't pass, you vote against it." Not exactly verbatim. Expect that to get replayed a lot.

10:02: Russert asks why Obama won't keep his word on public financing. Specifically references the McCain attack. Obama comes back pointing out McCain's own public finance waffling (McCain's, unlike Obama's, is probably illegal). Clinton is sketching out a note. I sense an attack coming. From a candidate financed by a rolling international financial crimewave.

10:04: Russert asks Clinton why she won't release her tax returns. Interestingly, Clinton for the first time floats the possibility of releasing her tax returns before becoming the nominee. She will "work towards releasing."

10:06: Just as I was about to point out how slanted Russert has been towards Obama, he tries to grill Obama on (unsolicited) support from Louis Farrakhan. And then tries to stick in the Jeremiah Wright shiv. And somehow brings Israel into it. This is disgraceful.

10:11: After Obama repeatedly repudiates Farrakhan and anti-Semitism, Clinton suggests Obama courts anti-Semitism. And there go the last dredges of her shame. She did just win both the VDARE and the Weekly Standard primary, so, congrats on that. (The subtext here is a Likudnik campaign to pretend Obama is an anti-Israel fifth columnist, based on the fact that he gets advice from --- cue sinister music --- Zbigniew Brzeziński.)

10:23: After Russert decides spreading innuendo about Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam is a good use of his time, there's a relatively pacific discussion of Russia and the succession from Putin. Neither of them knows the successor's name. It's Dmitry Medvedev.

10:26: Both are asked if they'd take back any decision. Clinton says she'd take back her Iraq vote. Yet it's still not a mistake. Obama says he should have stopped the Terri Schiavo circus. He should have.

10:28: Obama pre-empts Clinton and takes the high road: "I've been absolutely honored to be campaigning with Senator Clinton." Sure.

10:32: Clinton's last opportunity to show some class. Will she take it?

"It's been an honor to campaign with Barack Obama?" But, but....

10:34: No buts, she touts her own record. Reasonably decent way to go out, but anybody who watched this disaster needs a shower, stat.

Afterword: The defining moment of the night was the first one, Hillary Clinton citing Tina Fey to launch an attack on the press and the entire nominating process. It only got more petulant and off-putting from there. Give her credit for trying. But it failed, on pretty much every score. And there was the moment in which she insinuated that he's a covert anti-Semite. It's hard to see how this could have gone worse for her.

Etymologically, the word symposium means a convivial meeting, usually involving food, drink, and intellectual conversation. The Intelligence Squared U.S. debate series, made possible by philanthropist Robert Rosenkrantz, may yet restore this classical sensibility to public discourse. Last night was the 12th debate of the series, hosted at Asia Society and Museum, and if conviviality was evidenced in the buzzing pre-debate cocktail hour, civility and intellect prevailed during the Oxford-style main event.

Which is not to say things didn’t get heated.

Somehow, no political or cultural topic provokes in Americans the unease that accompanies discussions of race and policy. People don’t whisper in neutral terms when hashing it out over, say, the Iraq War, or healthcare. For all the civil progress and legislative change, racial differences persist insidiously as the core tension in the heart of our republic. No subject could benefit more from a thoughtful airing in such a forum.

The proposition before the house was “It’s time to end affirmative action,” a declaration provocative in both how much it says and how little it elaborates. The debaters, however, addressed racial preference only as it plays out in university admissions. Supporting the proposition were John McWhorter, linguist, author, and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute; Terence J. Pell, president of the Center for Individual rights (CIR); and Joseph C. Phillips, actor and writer. Those opposed were Khin Mai Aung, staff attorney at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF); Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, law professor at UCLA and Columbia, and executive director of the African American Policy Forum; and Tim Wise, writer and educator. Whether consciously in the spirit of meta-sensitivity or not, IQ2 pulled together an ethnically diverse cast of luminaries, and this conferred a sense of real-world immediacy upon the proceedings.

NPR’s Robert Siegel moderated, and in so doing served as a reminder that to moderate is an active verb. A debate can be called civil not because there’s a lack of fury, but rather there’s an avoidance of the ad hominem and a respect for the structure of the format. The debaters kept the cheap shots to a minimum, and Mr. Seigel moved things along admirably.

Before the debate began the audience voted electronically on the proposition. Results were: 34% for, 44% against, and 22% undecided. A second round of voting was held after the debate.

First up was Joseph Phillips in defense of the proposition. He delivered a personal attack on the idea and practice of racial preference in school admissions. I’ll reproduce a portion of Phillip’s opening remarks so as to convey the effectiveness of his approach.

My wife was at a birthday party with our children...The mothers are grouped and they’re talking about their children, where they go to school and it comes to light, that my oldest boy attends a magnet program, uh, for highly gifted students. Without missing a beat one of the other mothers says, well, you know, now, with this Supreme Court decision they won’t be able to accept, uh, kids in these programs for diversity. Well, my wife was kinder than I would have been. After she picked her jaw up off the floor she explained to the woman, look. He’s not in this program because he checked some box. You can’t get in this program unless you score 99.9 percent on the test. And he’s making straight A’s. In this program. And what is more ironic, is that the woman she was talking to, is a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District. That. . .is the evil of racial preferences. That is the real-life impact of racial preferences. Teachers who lack faith in the academic abilities of their students, and children, who no matter how hard they work, no mater how broad their gifts, are stained with stained with preference.

Continue reading...

Kathy Sierra's weblog: Creating Passionate UsersThe blogosphere can be a cruel and vicious place. But there has been much hand-wringing lately among bloggers after a series of online death threats against technology blogger Kathy Sierra.

For the past month Sierra has weathered threats of physical and sexual violence in the comments section of her blog and on other blog sites. Anonymous correspondents have threated to slit her throat and hang her. Come this weekend, Sierra was so in fear of her life that she withdrew from a speaking engagement at an ETech conference in San Diego, called the police and announced her retirement from the blogging community:

Continue reading...

Okay, not all Orthodox rabbis, but a select and nauseating few. Know why? Because making girls cry at your Shabbat table is a lame little trick you only pull to make yourself feel powerful. Everyone can see this, and everyone can also see that you’re weak, and it would only take about thirty five seconds of level one kung fu moves to transform you into a black-hatted lump of soft moaning flesh, cowering on the floor beneath your oversized table. Watch yourself, buddy. I got a pair of steel-toed boots that are calling for blood.

Allow me to explain my wrath.
This Rabbi: Is About to Suffer the Wrath of Tamar
This weekend I heard yet another instance of an Orthodox rabbi inviting a college student over for a Shabbat meal, and then attacking her background, level of observancy, and life choices over the soup course, while his enormous family looked on coolly. Not surprisingly, said student burst into tears, and was, among other charming results of the meal, completely humiliated. Never mind that she’d walked more than two miles to attend services at the Orthodox synagogue this guy heads. Never mind that she keeps Shabbat and kashrut, and is very active at Hillel. Since her clavicle was visible and she hadn’t devoted her nineteenth year to a seminary she was, clearly, worthy of a stern talking-to. Everyone knows that if you just yell at someone about how the Torah has come directly from Sinai, unchanged by humans, and throw in indiscriminate criticisms of the Reform and Conservative movements, you can really change some minds. What everyone secretly wants is to be told everything they learned and studied growing up was a conspiracy of self-hating Jews trying to rob them of their rightful tradition. More kugel?

Seriously, is this how you get your kicks, rabbi? Making college girls cry—is that what makes you feel like a big shot? Now, this phrase may not mean anything to you since you shun the world outside of your beis midrash, but it sure sounds to me like somebody’s overcompensating. Just a guess, though.

I wish this was the first time I’d heard a story like this, but actually it’s a narrative I hear at least twice a year. I have been that embarrassed weeping girl who gets her theology crapped on during the salad course, and so have my friends, and members of my family, and a range of people I’ve met at Hillel dinners. This is the normal MO for some guys, and I can hardly blame them. Reducing your debate opponent to tears is a pretty convincing victory.

There’s not really much more to say about the guys (and it’s always guys, and their wives always sit there quietly and listen, because rhetorically beating up guests is, apparently, a prize component of hachnasat orchim, welcoming guests). While their arguments are sometimes somewhat convincing, it’s hard to believe that any girl in her right mind would go back to a house where making people cry is a Shabbat tradition.

What makes me really crazy about this kind of thing is that even someone who went to Jewish day school for her entire life, someone who is dedicated to Torah and Mitzvot, is liable to be put in this situation. And why? Because non-Orthodox Jewish schools don’t teach kids how to stand up for their own theological choices. The message in Conservative schools these days seems to be that you have to figure your shit out on your own, and if you want to look at the scholarship that agrees with you you’ll have to make a trip to JTS yourself, because no one is reaching out to help you.

When someone comes at me with their bullcrap about how they KNOW that the Torah and Talmud came down from God on Sinai and haven’t been changed since, I should have fighting words ready. I should be able to defend my views just as strenuously as Mr. I’m-Wearing-A-Black-Hat-And-I-Have-A-Degree-From-YU-So-I-Know-What-I’m-Talking-About. But I don’t and I can’t because no one has sat me down and taught me precisely why Divine inspiration makes more sense than the straight up revelation this whackjob is bringing. I have a pretty good idea since I’m friends with half the Judaic studies department at Vandy and I’ve pursued a lot of this stuff in my own time, but that makes me an exception. If youth groups routinely have seminars on how to fend off Jews for Jesus, why didn’t USY teach me to hold my own in a theological debate?

So while I’m pissed at these rabbis for being overzealous and rude in their tactics, I’m even more angry that thirteen years of full time Jewish education didn’t afford me (or any of the people who get hit with this crap) a few flip and persuasive comments of my own. Are there any Jewish educators out there? You guys need to get on this problem ASAP. Because while I advocate beating up obnoxious rabbis who make teenage girls cry, I admit it’s probably not the best solution to the problem…

Loyal and talented Jewcy contributor and Faithhacker scribe Laurel Snyder posts in “The ‘New’ Jewish Antisemitism” an endorsement of the progressive rabbi of the Jewish community, Michael Lerner, and his crusade to highlight the “silencing of debate about Israeli policy” exposed in a recent publicity blitz that includes prime time television spots and well-placed newspaper editorials. Some silence.

Laurel’s endorsement – and those like it – only helps to further marginalize the Jewish religious left by perpetuating Lerner’s lousy leadership. Progressive politics in the Jewish community deserves a new representative.

The justifiably-loathed Smarm King has made a cottage industry out of co-opting the fable of censorship in defense of his politics. Carrying with him the lessons learned during his 60’s anti-war days, Lerner understands that one of the best ways to engender support for a cause – or, say, transform pious, well-meaning peaceniks into unquestioning apparatchiks – is to evoke a Big Brother-like opposition sinisterly suppressing the truth. That such a thing doesn’t exist isn’t important; what matters is that it remains an effective tool of persuasion.

The fact is debate about Israel is not being silenced on college campuses or anywhere else. On the contrary, there is no country more openly criticized, supported, or argued about than Israel.

What campus could Laurel or Lerner be referring to that suppresses debate because of their Zionist agenda? I suspect the healthy handful of institutions that stir up campaigns for Israeli divestment on a near-annual basis are not among them. Nor could they possibly be referring to the field of Middle East Studies such as it is, peopled by tenured leftists and pervaded by an attitude that one would be hard-pressed to describe as pro-Israel (see Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle East Studies in America).

And really, how is any debate of any kind silenced these days? It’s not possible -- especially with the young demographic in question, who are expertly skilled in exploiting all the new forms of participatory media to vent and dialogue and find information of any and all persuasions.

Frankly, I’m amazed Lerner still has any credibility at all after being busted some years back for pseudonymously penning a few self-congratulatory letters to his own barely-read magazine, Tikkun. His letters included exquisitely swaying rhetoric, such as: "Your editorial stand said publicly what many of us are feeling privately but dare not say."

Always the fearless prophet willing to speak the forbidden to the shadowy, censorious force of hawkish barbarians, so what if Lerner fibs a little here and there. So what if the Rabbi tends to make things up when it comes to popularizing and pushing his own agenda. The level to which Lerner will stoop isn’t as surprising as the failure of his imagination to create new and original fabrications over the years. The man sticks with what works.

I will say, Laurel, that while the debate about Israeli policy is certainly not being silenced, it is marked by a uniquely dysfunctional quality that says more about the strange relationship between American Jews and Israel than it does about Israel’s political behavior.

After all, what could be more strange than the fact that when you muddle through all the rhetoric and hype, the majority of American Jews and Israelis are in general agreement; we agree we want Israel to survive; we agree any eventual reconciliation between the two peoples necessitates a Palestinian state and even what the general parameters of what that state will look like; we agree that Israel’s action are, at times, unnecessarily forceful and have too often violated human rights. So many of us agree on so much that the extreme polarization of the debate seems strange.

I tend to agree with Jeffrey Goldberg who says that American Jews view Israel as “a place of myth and hope and fantasy and crushing disappointment and embarrassment and pride, but it's not a real country populated by real people…” For that reason, Israel lends itself to serving as proxy for all the other real disagreements – religious, cultural, and otherwise – that the American Jewish community is confronting right now.

That’s a whole lot of layers of obfuscation and the one thing we need more of right now is brutal and unblinking candor. We don’t need more tribal sentinels reflexively branding the mark of “self-hater” on every perceived dissenter and we don’t need indignant leftists masquerading as kumbaya-singing spiritual leaders who view their criticism of Israel as radical.

In his book, The Left Hand of God, Lerner rightly complains that the “Left's hostility to religion is one of the main reasons people who otherwise might be involved with progressive politics get turned off."

No, Mr. Lerner, it’s your hostility to truth that keeps me away. It's time to stop endorsing the Rabbi; it only encourages him to keep making things up.

If you haven’t had the chance to attend the original Latke Hamantaschen Debate at the University of Chicago, well, that’s sad for you, because it’s brilliant. But if you’ve missed any of the last seventy years’ debates you can still buy the book, which is pretty sweet.

I bring this up because I made hamantaschen last night, and I feel strongly that my particular recipe is Divinely inspired. Hamantaschen and hummus are pretty much the reason I believe in God.

But just for the sake of argument let’s assume your hamantaschen are the dry crumbly kind and are void of all inspiration. Are you going to write them off entirely as just one of those dumb things Jews make because we like an excuse to make sweets?
Hamantaschen Baking at the Foxhole: Poppyseed, the godfather of Purim treats
Well first of all, we probably didn’t come up with it on our own. There’s a Swedish Cookie that’s eerily similar, called Napoleon’s Hat. Were the cookies around before Napoleon? How far back do Hamantaschen go? I have no idea, and I just spent 45 minutes looking for an academic article about it on ProQuest to no avail.

But if you are looking for some spiritual backing for hamantaschen look no further than this article from Aish titled, “The Deeper Meaning of Hamentaschen.” The accompanying graphic is a hamentaschen in outer space. Deep space, one assumes. Heavy.

I don’t have any particularly exciting graphics, but I do have a Jewish food theory. First of all, food is holy in any form. I mean, we have to say blessings and everything, so we know that we have to have a certain respect for what we eat. And on Purim in particular we’re supposed to give each other little packages of food and then come together for a big feast. Food is a reasonable way for us to share and come together. And yeah, we’ve got some wacky ideas about how our cookies are related to the holiday, but ultimately just making food and sitting down together…Well, that ends up being pretty spiritual.

Unless you have those dry crumbly hamantaschen, in which case you probably hate God. So in the name of Kiddush Hashem (making God look good) here’s my recipe:
1 cup OJ
1 cup margarine
1 1/2 cup sugar
2 egg yolks
1/2 t vanilla
1/2 t lemon extract
6 c flower
2 t baking soda

Combine butter and sugar, add egg yolks, OJ, vanilla and lemon. Mix and add dry ingredients. Roll out dough and using biscuit cutters or the edge of a can make circles of dough. In each circle spoon a half teaspoon or so of your topping of choice. Traditionally there are poppy seed, strawberry, raspberry, apricot, and occasionally chocolate. (I believe prune hamantaschen are the work of the devil, but suit yourself). Pinch the corners in three places so that you have a triangle shaped cookie with walls that hold in the filling. Bake on greased cookie sheets at 350 for 15 minutes.

Put your feet up, and eat the fruits of your labor while watching The Chosen and drinking a Sepharadi. Congratulate yourself for being so Jewish.