text:
The Future of Israeli Haredi Society: Can The Written Word Offer Some Insight? (And Assorted Other Comments)
by Marc B. Shapiro
1. Months ago I was asked to write about the situation in Beit Shemesh that everyone was then focused on (and which will probably heat up again in the future). At the present, I don't have anything to add to the discussion, and if I did it would be with reference to Jewish books, as this is, after all, a site devoted to seforim. While I have in the past given my views on various issues, it was in the context of Jewish books, and this case would be no different. This point was actually sorely missing in discussions of the Beit Shemesh situation and the haredi world in general. While what happens in real life does not always correspond to what appears in the books, knowledge of the latter is a great help in understanding what is going on in the community, at least with regard to the rabbinic elite. For example, if I were going to write something about the Neturei Karta faction that cozies up to Iran and Hamas, I would deal with how these people have tried to justify their actions from talmudic sources. They have even attempted to justify the sending of congratulations to Hamas after the latter succeeded in blowing up Jews in a terrorist attack.
I have also been asked a number of times to write about the more basic issue of haredi ideology and democracy, which is on many people's minds. They are wondering if the Israeli haredi community really believes in democracy and allowing everyone the freedom to live as they see fit. More than one has asked me straight out if a haredi majority would mean the end of a democratic Israel.[1] I can't speak about the haredi man on the street, but examination of the writings of the haredi leadership – and in the haredi world that is what really matters – shows that time and again they have expressed opposition to democratic values as well as democracy as a governmental system.
From the haredi leadership's perspective, while at the present time the haredi world is forced to take part in the democratic process, they assume that if haredim ever became a majority they would dismantle Israel's democracy and institute a Torah state (i.e., a theocracy led by the haredi gedolim).[2] Since that is their goal, stated explicitly, we have to wonder what such a society would look like. To begin with, if haredim were ever the majority, funding for non-Orthodox (and perhaps even Religious Zionist/Modern Orthodox) schools would be halted. There would be massive decreases of funding for universities, with the humanities taking the biggest cuts, and money for the arts, culture, and institutions connected to Zionism would dry up. Freedom of the press would be abolished, artistic freedoms would be curbed, and organ transplants would almost entirely vanish. Public Shabbat observance and separate-sex public transportation would likely be required. There would also be restrictions on what forms of public entertainment and media are permissible and on public roles for women. Of course, women's sporting events would no longer be televised and men would not be permitted to attend them. From the haredi perspective, these steps are all halakhic requirements, and no one who reads haredi literature can have any doubt that these sorts of things are intended when haredi writers refer to the time when it will be possible להעמיד הדת על תלה. How many non-haredim will be affected by this is questionable, because as soon as the haredi numbers come close to a majority, the non-religious and non-haredi Orthodox emigration will begin (followed no doubt by the yeridah of some haredim as well). No one who has lived in a Western style democracy will want to live in a society where cherished freedoms are taken away.
Everything I am saying now could change. It is indeed possible that the haredi leadership could do a complete turn-around and decide that it is not helpful to take the country in a direction which while more "pious" would end up destroying it at the same time. But this would take some incredible acts of courage by the haredi leadership. They would have to break with a message that has been advocated for the last thirty years or so.
Here is what R. Shakh wrote about democracy (Mikhtavim u-Ma'amarim, vol. 5, p. 124):
בל נחשוב, שהשיטה הנקראת "דמוקרטיה" היא דבר חיובי . . . האמת היא שהיא אסון לעולם. היא נותנת הרגשה מדומה של "חופש" בו בזמן שלאמיתו של דבר היא רק הפקר, ותו לא . . . הדמוקרטיה היא דבר טרף, וכל כוונתם לעקור דרכה של עם ישראל ולהרסו
On p. 127 he writes:
ואנו תפילה להרבונו של עולם, אנא פטור אותנו מקללת הדמוקרטיה החדשה שנשלחה לעולם, שהיא ממש כמו מחלת הסרטן שנשלחה לעולם. כי רק התורה הקדושה היא הדמוקרטיה האמיתית.
If the "curse" and "cancer" of democracy is so bad, what would take its place in a haredi dominated society? The answer is obvious, namely, a theocratic state with a religously sanctioned parliament along the models of Iran. Reading the history of Iran in the years prior to and immediately following the revolution provides great insight into how religious figures learned to make use of the mechanisms of power which they had never before had access to. Just like in Iran the theocracy is for the people's "own good", so too will be the case in a haredi theocracy. Here is R. Shakh again, offering the paternalistic explanation as to why people should be denied democratic freedoms, freedoms that are the only guarantee that different types of Orthodoxy can flourish (forgetting for a moment about the non-Orthodox[3]; p. 126):
האדם חייב לחיות בתוך מגבלות, לצורך אושרו וטובתו. ודוקא הדמוקרטיה ההורסת את המגבלות היא המחריבה את האנושות
Do any American haredi leaders agree with these sentiments, that it is democracy that is destroying humanity? I highly doubt it. But by the same token, I don't think there can be any doubt that the Israeli haredi political parties, if they ever achieved electoral success, would put R. Shakh's vision into practice by dismantling Israeli society's democratic protections. So yes, the non-haredi segment of Israel has plenty of reason to be worried about the growth of the haredi electorate, especially when they hear the haredi triumphalist assertions that the future will be theirs. If the comments one sees on Voz is Neias and elsewhere are any indication, there are also many in the haredi world who recognize that the haredi ideology is really only suited for a minority community, and that troubles begin when people attempt to impose this ideology on others, or insist that no matter how large the haredi community is, its young men should never have to go to the army or receive any vocational training.[4] It didn't have to be this way, as there are plenty of precedents even in haredi writers for a different perspective. But those alternative views are entirely forgotten today.
If anyone still has doubts that the future growth of the haredi parties will present a serious threat to Israeli democracy, here is a passage, from R. Yissachar Meir, that appeared in an official Degel ha-Torah publication, Ve-Zarah ha-Shemesh (Bnei Brak, 1990), p. 630 (emphasis added; many other similar passages could be cited). What will take the place of democracy in the haredi state is spelled out right here:
טעות אחת טעו מנהיגיה הראשונים של המדינה, הם חוקקו חוק הנקרא "דמוקרטיה". כל אחד יודע דמוקרטיה זו מהי, על פי השיכורים הנמצאים במדינה – שלוש מאות אלף מסוממים חיים במדינה – ועל פי זקנים מסוידים וכו' נקבע השלטון. כמו כן בכל מיני שוחד, ודרכי כפיה, נקבע ע"י מה שנקרא "בחירות", איך תנהג המדינה בכל הנושאים העולים על הפרק. על פי דרך התורה, גדולי התורה הם הקובעים את המנהיגות.
Meir could have used a little lesson in history, because just like the Islamic world never had a theocracy until the Iranian revolution, Jewish history also does not know of theocracies (and the closest example we had, with High Priests involved in rulership, did not bring good results).[5]
The truth of the matter is that we get no honesty from haredi spokesmen in these matters. They go on about how the non-religious have such a negative view of them. Well, what about the reverse, namely, what the haredim think of the non-religious? One of the leaders of the extremist haredim is R. Moshe Sternbuch. Here is the first page of a responsum he wrote (Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, vol. 1, no. 816) in which he states that if a non-religious store owner makes a monetary mistake (e.g., gives you too much money) there is no obligation to point out the error.
He even quotes a 19th-20th century authority (and one who has a fairly moderate reputation) that there is no obligation to save his life! If this is what a well known haredi posek is teaching his followers, by what right can one criticize the non-religious for what they think of the extremist haredim? Let me pose this question to Avi Shafran and the rest of the apologists: How exactly should the non-religious feel about the extremist haredim when the latter are being taught that they don't have to deal with the non-religious in an honest fashion, and that their lives are not important?
(Quite apart from his religious views, Sternbuch's political views are perhaps even more distasteful. At the recent protest against haredim serving in the army, he said that "the Zionists expelled the Arabs from the Land of Israel." See here).
Here is another responsum, by R. Israel David Harfenes, Nishmat Shabbat, vol. 5 no. 500:4.
I know that people wouldn't believe me without seeing with their own eyes. The author is asked if you can violate Shabbat to save the lives of irreligious Jews who came from the former Communist countries, that is, Jews who never had the benefit of a Jewish education. His answer is absolutely not, and he questions whether it is even permitted to save their lives during the week! Incredibly, he puts the Reform and Conservative in a better position than the secular Russian Jews, seeing the former as brainwashed by a false ideology. There is thus a possible limud zekhut regarding them.
None of this makes any sense, as people can be under the influence of a secular or anti-religious ideology much like they are under the influence of a Reform or Conservative ideology. If you can apply the logic of tinok she-nishbah to one, there is no coherent reason not to apply it to the other. For good measure, Harfenes also throws in that one who doesn't believe in the Rambam's Thirteen Principles is among those who should be killed. Taking a line from the Inquisition, he adds that killing these people is actually good for their souls, not to mention a benefit to the community at large.
In a previous responsum, 400:1, he discusses the same question with regard to the typical secular Jew and concludes likewise that one cannot save them on Shabbat. The only heter he can find is that if the haredi doctors don't save them, then the secular doctors will refuse to save haredi patients. But unbelievably, rather than seeing this as a natural reaction of the secular Jews upon learning how people like Harfenes don't value their lives, and are even are prepared to let them die, Harfenes sees this as an example of anti-Orthodox hatred! You can't make this stuff up.
שאם יתפרסם שרופאים חרדיים אינן מטפלין בשבת עם החולים החילוניים אז הרופאים החילוניים ינקמו נקם ולא ירצו גם הם לטפל להציל חולים מסוכנים מן יהודים חרדיים (כידוע תוקף שנאת הדת הארצינו הקדושה ירחם ה').
Some might assume that this extremist Satmar outlook [6] is not to be found in the non-hasidic yeshiva world. However, this is not the case. I can cite parallels to what we have just seen in non-hasidic authors as well. I will mention just one such text, as it happens to be among the most depressing, and extreme, of the books to appear in recent years.[7] I refer to R. Menahem Adler's Binah ve-Daat. Here is the title page.
This book engages in the most crude incitement of hatred for the non-religious that I have ever seen in a sefer, all packaged as a typical halakhic text. Are the views expressed in this book taught in any heders or yeshivot or held by any but the most extreme in Israel? Perhaps the fact that the standard haskamot from figures such as R. Elyashiv, R. Wosner, R. Scheinberg and others are missing is a sign that they didn't agree with the author. It would take a complete post to cover this book properly (some aspects of the book were already discussed on Hyde Park here).
I will call attention to only some of the points Adler puts forth as halakhah. When I read things like this I wonder, how big can the Orthodox tent really be? When are the various communities in Orthodoxy so much at odds with each other that we must speak of two entirely different communities, much like the Protestants are divided into various sects?
One of the main points of the book is to argue that contemporary non-Orthodox Jews are not to be regarded as tinok she-nishbah, and thus they are subject to all the disabilities of brazen Sabbath violators. This means that they do not need to be treated with any respect or dignity. Those who know the relevant halakhot know what I am referring to, but let me cite some examples that you might not have thought of and which are results of his position. These come from chapter 31 and are stated with reference to most contemporary non-religious Jews (since only very few of them qualify as a tinok she-nishbah). How should the non-religious respond when they hear that this is what a rabbi is saying about them:
אין להקדים שלום לאדם רשע . . . אסור לראות פני הרשע . . . ונראה דהוא הדין תנוק שנשבה
In other words, although he denies that contemporary non-religious are tinok she-nishbah, even if you want to argue that they are, you still can't look at them.
אין נוהג בו איסור אונאת דברים . . . נראה דאין כלפיו איסור "לא תחמוד"
And talking about humrot, how about this one?
יש מחמירים ליטול ידים אחר שנגעו בהם
When I saw this I thought of the following wonderful story recorded in R. Asher Anshel Yehudah Miller, Olamo Shel Abba, p. 415:
פעם ביקר אצל הרבי יהודי חילוני מגולח ובכ"ז הושיט לו הצדיק [ר' ישראל האגער] את ידו וקבל אותו בסבר פנים יפות, כדרכו בקודש. ישב שם אחד מחסידי צאנז, שהיה מוכר כמתנגד לבית-וויז'ניץ. לחש החסיד באזני הרבי ושאל "מדוע פושט הרבי ידו לפושעי-ישראל זה?" אמר לו הצדיק: "עד שאתה מתפלא עלי, תתפלא על הקב"ה, שגם הוא דרכו בכך, כמו שנאמר 'אתה נותן יד לפושעים וימינך פשוטה לקבל שבים
On p. 408 Adler writes:
Avodah Zarah 26a-b reads:
2. In this post I mentioned the outrageous accusation, based on nothing at all, that the telegram from Kobe was actually sent by the Chief Rabbinate in order to be able to pressure other rabbis to accept the Chief Rabbinate's position on the dateline issue. Dr. Dov Zakheim sent me the following valuable email:
[6] R. Asher Anshel Yehudah Miller, Olamo shel Abba (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 308, reports that the Satmar Rav, R Yoel Teitelbaum, once declared that there were 50,000 Jews in the world. When asked how he could give such a figure when there were many millions of Jews, he replied:
On p. 408 Adler writes:
המחלל שבת בפרהסיא (גם אם מחלל לתיאבון) יוצא לענין דינים שונים מכלל "אחיך" עמיתך" "רעך" ומכיון שיצא מכלל עמיתך, אין כלפיו את המצוות הנוהגות "בין אדם לחבירו" וכן אין נוהגים כלפיו את האיסורים, כגון הכלמה ולשון הרע.
Is there anyone in the kiruv world who believes this? Would anyone ever become religious if he even had an inkling that there are rabbis who advocate this position about the future baal teshuvah's parents?[8] Aren't the many haredi hesed organizations that don't distinguish between Jews' levels of religiosity a good sign that the mainstream haredi world rejects the viewpoints of Adler and Sternbuch?
On p. 470 he says that it is forbidden to belong to an organization that has non-Orthodox members, and this even includes charitable organization. The reason given for this position is as follows:
כיון שהישיבה עמהם גורמת קירור בעבודת השי"ת, ומלבד זאת, אופן החשיבה וקבלת ההחלטות אינם לפי דעת תורה.
So we see that it is problematic for an Orthodox Jew to have any dealings with the non-Orthodox. Although the author cites R. Samson Raphael Hirsch to justify this extreme position, this is a complete distortion. Hirsch opposed membership in organizations that were led by the non-Orthodox or even had organizational ties with non-Orthodox groups. He never said that individual non-Orthodox Jews would not be welcome to join with the Orthodox for the betterment of the Jewish community.
On p. 406 Adler tells us that one cannot sell or rent an apartment in a religious neighborhood to a non-religious person. Will the author then complain when the non-religious don't want to sell or rent to haredim (especially if they think that these haredim might hold the same views as Adler)? If it is OK for haredim not to want to live together with secular Jews because of the "atmosphere" the latter bring, why have the haredi Knesset members cried racism when secular residents don't want an influx of haredim for exactly the same reason? In a democracy one can't have it both ways.[9]
Adler is part of a growing trend in haredi writings not to see the secularists as tinok she-nishbah, with all the halakhic implications this entails. While Adler acknowledges the existence of tinok she-nishbah as a category, note what he puts in brackets which pretty much empties the category of any meaning (p. 31):
ולענין הלכה, מכיון שאין בנו כח להכריע, במחלוקות אלו, וגם אין כל הענינים שוים, מתי נקרא בשם "תנוק שנשבה" ומתי לא, ובפרט קשה ההכרעה המציאותית של "שיעור ידיעת כל אחד ואחד" בזמנינו, לכן, בכל הנוגע לדיני תורה, יש להחמיר ולנהוג כלפי מחלל שבת בפרהסיא [שלא ידוע ככופר] ככל דיני "אחיך", כגון לענין דיני גמילות חסד, לבקרו בחוליו, לתת לו צדקה, להלוות לו, להשיא לו עצה טובה. וכן יש להצילו ולהחיותו.
But when it comes to Shabbat, Adler states that it is absolutely forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save a non-religious person, even if he is a tinok she-nishbah! (p. 556).
I realize that, with only some exceptions, Adler hasn't made up any of the material in his book, and even the most extreme rulings can be found in earlier traditional sources. So what does it say about so much of contemporary Orthodoxy, be it haredi, Habad, or Modern Orthodox, that its adherents would never dream of relating to the non-Orthodox the way Adler prescribes?[10] The reason they wouldn't dream of relating to the non-Orthodox this way is not because they can point to other halakhic sources that disagree with the ones Adler cites (although the scholars among them can indeed point to these sources). There is something much more basic at work, namely, the moral intuition of people which even when it comes into conflict with what appears in halakhic texts does not agree to simply be pushed aside. Most Orthodox Jews of all stripes refuse to believe that what Adler is advocating is what God wants. It is impossible for them to accept that the Judaism they know and cherish, which has been taught to them by great figures, would have such a negative outlook, and all the halakhic texts in the world won't be able to change their minds.
Since we are dealing with Adler, let me also note that he gives us advice on how to create anti-Semitism in the world and reinforce the stereotype of the "cheap Jew" (p. 415):
אין לתת לגוי מתנת חינם [כגון "טיפ" (-תוספת) הנהוג לשלם למלצר או נהג מונית]
On p. 417 he writes (emphasis added):
אין איסור לייעץ לגוי עצה שאינה הוגנת ולא זו בלבד אלא שאסור להשיא לו עצה הוגנת
As the source for the underlined halakhah he cites Sefer ha-Hinukh no. 232. To begin with, there is the methodological problem of recording something as halakhah because it is found in the Sefer ha-Hinukh when it is not found in the Shulhan Arukh or any of the classic responsa volumes. This is what I call cherry picking halakhot, and is quite common today. People write books on the most arcane topics and in order to fill the pages they cite opinions from any book ever written, and record all the opinions they find as if they are halakhah. In this case, however, the halakhah cited here does not explicitly appear in the Sefer ha-Hinukh. All the Sefer ha-Hinukh states is that there is a biblical prohibition to give bad advice to a fellow Jew. But who says that this means that it is permitted when dealing with a non-Jew? It could still be forbidden for a variety of other reasons (perhaps even rabbinic), just not from this particular verse. Even if the Sefer ha-Hinukh does mean what Adler says (and the Minhat Hinukh also assumes that this is the meaning), only in the note does Adler reveal that the Minhat Hinukh explicitly holds an opposing position. This is the general trend in the book. He puts extreme positions in the text itself, which are on some occasions based on his own understanding, while only in the notes does he reveal the authorities who disagree.
(R. Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg defends the Minhat Hinnukh's position in his Mishmeret Hayyim, vol. 1, pp. 125-126. But it still makes for uncomfortable reading as he writes:
(R. Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg defends the Minhat Hinnukh's position in his Mishmeret Hayyim, vol. 1, pp. 125-126. But it still makes for uncomfortable reading as he writes:
כיון דבעלות דגוי אינו חשוב כל-כך אין לאו דגזל שייך גבי גוי, וכן באיסור רציחה דהאיסור הוא דנוטל נשמתו וגבי גוי דלא חשוב נשמתו כל-כך לא שייך לאו זה
It would be pretty hard to be an Or la-Goyim while at the same time following Adler's prescriptions. In a previous post I already mentioned that there is no Modern Orthodox synagogue in the country that would hire someone who had his perspective, and this shows a real cultural divide between at least some haredim and the Modern Orthodox. (I say "some haredim" because I believe that in this matter many, and perhaps most, haredim share the Modern Orthodox perspective.)[11]
At the end of the section in which Adler records what I quoted from him about tipping waiters or cab drivers, he adds:
At the end of the section in which Adler records what I quoted from him about tipping waiters or cab drivers, he adds:
מפני דרכי שלום מותר
I would like someone to explain to me how it could ever not be darkhei shalom?[12] Adler is speaking to people who wear black suits and hats, the sort that everyone recognizes as Jewish. So by definition if you stiff the cab driver or the waiter it is an immediate hillul ha-shem? Therefore, what sense does it make to even quote the halakhah mentioned above? Isn't it irresponsible to allow yeshiva students on their own to determine when their actions will cause a hillul ha-shem and when not?
Since this post has dealt with how to relate to the non-religious and non-Jews, let me now turn once again to something relevant in Artscroll. Originally I thought that the example I will now point to was an intentional falsehood, because the Hebrew Artscroll gets it right. However, based upon the note to the passage that we will see, I am now no longer sure. It is one thing to translate a censored passage in the name of good relations, but it is hard to imagine that people who know the truth would go so far as to insert a false note. As thousands of people doing daf yomi have been misled as to the meaning of the talmudic passage we will see, if the distortion is intentional this would seem to be a classic case of ziyuf ha-Torah. When authors added a note at the beginning of their books stating that all references to non-Jews referred to those pagans in China and India, everyone knew it wasn't to be taken seriously, so there was no ziyuf ha-Torah. Yet people who reads the Artscroll translation and note assume that they are getting the Torah truth. As such, I am more inclined to think that what we will now see is a simple error, rather than a "tactical" mistake.
Avodah Zarah 26a-b reads:
העובדי כוכבים ורועי בהמה דקה לא מעלין ולא מורידין אבל המינין והמסורות והמומרים היו מורידין ולא מעלין
Artscroll translates: "Idol worshipers and shepherds of small animals, the law is that we neither raise them up from a pit nor lower them into a pit. But as for the minin, the informers and the renegades, they would lower them into pits and not raise them up."
This is, indeed, a proper translation of what appears in the Talmud. Yet in every edition of the Talmud before the Vilna Shas of 1883 the text states אבל המינין והמסורות והמומרים מורידין ולא מעלין . That is, the word היו, which makes the passage past tense (and thus no longer relevant), is not authentic but was added to avoid problems with the censor. The Oz ve-Hadar edition of the Talmud points out that the word היו was only recently added. Soncino and Steinsaltz also recognize this. What is particularly noteworthy is that the Hebrew Artscroll also knows this, and tells the reader that the word היו is not authentic.
In its note on the passage in both the Hebrew and English editions, Artscroll quotes the Hazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 2:16, that the type of actions referred to in the Talmud are no longer applicable. Why then didn't Artscroll mention in the English edition that the word היו is not authentic? Furthermore, Artscroll's citation of the Hazon Ish is mistaken, although as mentioned, I am not sure whether it is an intentional falsification. Contrary to what Artscroll states, the Hazon Ish's comment was only made with reference to heretics. His "liberal" judgment was never stated with regard to informers.
In its note, Artscroll states: "It goes without saying that the law never applied in places where government regulations would prohibit such an act." Once again, I am not sure whether Artscroll really believes that this is true. As a historical statement it is false. Here is a page from R. Reuven Margaliyot's Margaliyot ha-Yam, vol 1, p. 91b (to Sanhedrin 46a), that shows how even in the not-so-distant past an informer could be killed.
2. In this post I mentioned the outrageous accusation, based on nothing at all, that the telegram from Kobe was actually sent by the Chief Rabbinate in order to be able to pressure other rabbis to accept the Chief Rabbinate's position on the dateline issue. Dr. Dov Zakheim sent me the following valuable email:
I noted in your recent blog you point out that some chareidim are asserting there was never a telegram from Kobe. There was. My father zt"l sent it. He had been the legal counsel of the Jewish community of Vilna (as well as a musmach of Ramailes) and also Reb Chaim Ozer ztl's personal assistant and legal advisor (see his introduction to his sefer Zvi ha-Sanhedrin). He escaped from Vilna in 1941 and managed the Mirer Yeshiva's legal affairs (where my uncle zt"l was a talmid) when they left Vilna, on the trans-Siberian, in Kobe and then in Shanghai.
Also in the post I referred to the letter published by R. Kasher in which lots of great rabbis refer to the State of Israel as the beginning of the redemption. I noted how Zvi Weinman has shown that this is a religious Zionist forgery, as at least some of the rabbis never signed such a letter. I mentioned that we don't know if Kasher was responsible for the forgery (as Weinman appears to think) or someone else. Sholom Licht was kind enough to call my attention to this source from where we see that the letter Kasher published already appeared in Ha-Tzofeh many years prior, so Kasher clearly had nothing to do with the forgery.
3. In the last few posts I have dealt with Artscroll a good deal, as is only proper since Artscroll is the most significant Jewish publishing phenomenon of our time. I still have a lot more to say, but let me now turn to R. Jonathan Sacks' siddur, and give an example where Sacks gets it wrong while Artscroll gets it right.
The blessing to be recited upon lightning and Birkat ha-Hamah is עושה מעשה בראשית This goes back to Mishnah Berakhot 9:2. Although the standard version of the Mishnah omits the word מעשה, it is recorded in various medieval texts and this is how the blessing has come down to us.
What does עושה מעשה בראשית mean? The first thing we must do is figure out if there is a segol or a tzeirei under the shin in עושה. Looking at the siddurim in my house that have English translations, I found that Sacks, Birnbaum, Sim Shalom, and Artscroll, have a segol.[13] This is also what appears in the Kaufmann Mishnah. See here. However, the Metsudah siddur and the Blackman Mishnayot have a tzeirei.
What is the difference between the vocalizations? If there is a segol than the words עושה מעשה בראשית should be translated in the English present, as עושה is a verb. If there is a tzeirei then עושה is a noun, as in the words of Hallel (from Ps.115:15): עושה שמים וארץ, which means "Maker of heaven and earth." Let us see if the translations follow this rule. Artscroll, which has a segol, translates: "Who makes the work of Creation." This translation is correct, although I don't know why the C in creation is capitalized. This translation implies the continuing work of creation, as reflected in the words of the prayer: המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית
Birnbaum translates עושה מעשה בראשית as: "Who didst create the universe." This is incorrect, as the passage is not in the past tense. Sacks, who also has a segol, translates: "Author of creation." This too is incorrect, as עושה with a segol is a verb, not a noun. Sim Shalom, also with a segol, translates: "Source of Creation." This too is incorrect.
Now for the texts that have a tzeirei: Blackman translates: "the author of the work of the creation", which is a correct rendering. Metsudah, on the other hand, translates: "Who makes the work of Creation." Leaving aside the capital "C", this is a mistaken translation. While Metsudah has עושה with a tzeirei under the shin, it translates as if there was a segol.[14]
Artscroll, while being correct when it comes to this blessing, does not get a pass when it comes to the word עושה. In the Artscroll siddur, pesukei de-zimra, p. 70, we find the words עושה שמים וארץ. This comes from Psalm 146:6. There is a segol under the shin which means that it is a participle and should be translated here with the English present tense, as are all the other verbs in this Psalm. Yet Artscroll translates עושה שמים וארץ as "Maker of heaven and earth", which is incorrect. Sacks follows many other translations by rendering the words: "who made heaven and earth". Yet this too is not correct and doesn't follow the model of the Psalm, which has a series of participles that are to be translated as the present tense:
עושה שמים וארץ
השומר אמת לעולם
עושה משפט לעשוקים
נותן לחם לרעבים
מתיר אסורים
פוקח עורים
זוקף כפופים
אוהב צדיקים
שומר את הגרים
What about the word בונה in the blessing בונה ירושלים? There is a tzeirei under the nun in בונה which means that it is not a verb. Artscroll correctly translates the phrase as "Builder of Jerusalem". Birnbaum and Metsudah also get it right. However Sacks (and also De Sola Pool and Sim Shalom) are mistaken in their translation. Sacks renders בונה ירושלים as if the nun had a segol: "Who builds Jerusalem."
Since בונה ישראל must be translated as "Builder of Jerusalem", and all translations are in agreement that גואל ישראל means "Redeemer of Israel", does this mean that the conclusion of all the blessings of the Amidah should follow this model? What about חונן הדעת? Artscroll translates : "Giver of wisdom", seeing חונן as a noun. Birnbaum and Metsudah do likewise. However, Sacks assumes חונן is a verb and translates: "who graciously grants knowledge." This rendering (which I thinnk is in error) is also found in De Sola Pool and Sim Shalom.
How about מחיה המתים? Is the word מחיה a verb? Artscroll assumes yes and translates: "Who resuscitates the dead." Sacks agrees with this, but Metsudah, striving for consistency, translates: "Resurrector of the dead." Metsudah is, in fact, the only siddur that as a rule translates the concluding blessings of the Amidah along this model, while the other translations alternate between verb and noun. Here are some of Metsudah's translations:
רופא חולי עמו ישראל – Healer of the sick of His people Israel
מברך השנים – Blesser of the years
מקבץ נדחי עמו ישראל – Gatherer of the dispersed of His people Israel
שובר אויבים ומכניע זדים – Crusher of enemies and subduer of the insolent
Although Metsudah follows this rule, for every rule there are exceptions, and even Metsudah translates שומע תפלה as "Who hears prayers". Yet perhaps this is not an exception, and even here Metsudah intended "The hearer of prayers", but since this doesn't sound so good in English they came up with a more felicitous wording. It is true that the underlined words of the blessings המחזיר שכינתו לציון and המברך את עמו ישראל בשלום have to be seen as verbs, and Metsudah translates them as such. But I think that these are a different type of blessings than the ones in the middle of the Amidah.
The question to be asked is must we assume that there is a consistency of form in a prayer like the Amidah? If the answer is yes, then Metsudah is the only translation to get it right, and they must be recognized as having picked up on something that eluded all their predecessors and successors.
Finally, let me return to the blessing מחיה המתים. I asked if the word מחיה is a verb, and noted that Artscroll and Sacks indeed translated it this way. However, they are both incorrect for the simple reason that in their siddurim there is a tzeirei under the yud of מחיה. There are siddurim, such as Tehilat ha-Shem, that have a segol under the yud. In such a case, the word should be translated as a verb. However, when there is a tzeirei it must be translated as a noun. Metsudah once again gets it right, translating "Resurrector of the dead." [15] Right before this, we find the words מלך ממית ומחיה. Here there is a segol under the yud, meaning that it is a verb and is to be translated as "Who causes death and restores life".
Artscroll and Sacks also err in their translation of מחיה מתים במאמרו in Magen Avot in the Friday night service. There is a tzeirei under the yud meaning that it must be translated as "Resurrector of the dead with His utterance." Artscroll mistakenly renders: "Who resuscitates the dead with His utterance," using the same translation from the Amidah for the words מחיה המתים.
I can't figure out Sacks' method here. In the Amidah he translates מחיה מתים as: "who revives the dead", but in Magen Avot he translates: "By his promise, He will revive the dead." This is incorrect, as it turns the sentence into the future tense, which it is not. Furthermore, if it was to be translated as such, why not do so in the Amidah as well, as the words are identical? Indeed, Magen Avot is nothing but an abridged version of the Amidah, so by definition the translation must be the same.[16] Translating במאמרו as "By His promise", which I assume means "in accordance with His promise,"[17] is also incorrect, as the passage refers to God's word, or better yet, the power of God's word, not any promise.[18]
3. I want to briefly call attention to three books that have recently appeared and which I hope to discuss in future posts. The first is Gil Perl's The Pillar of Volozhin: Rabbi Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin and the World of 19th Century Lithuanian Torah Scholarship. The second is Eugene Korn and Alon Goshen-Gottstein, ed., Jewish Theology and World Religions. The third is Ben Zion Katz, A Journey Through Torah: A Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis. I know that there are many Seforim Blog readers who will find these books worth reading.
4. Those who want to post (or read) comments, please access the Seforim Blog site by going to http://seforim.blogspot.com/ncr Only by doing this will you be taken to the main site (and not have a country code in the URL). We have recently learnt that readers outside the United States do not have access to the comments posted and in the U.S. We don't know why this is, or how to fix it, but the above instruction fixes the matter.
4. Those who want to post (or read) comments, please access the Seforim Blog site by going to http://seforim.blogspot.com/ncr Only by doing this will you be taken to the main site (and not have a country code in the URL). We have recently learnt that readers outside the United States do not have access to the comments posted and in the U.S. We don't know why this is, or how to fix it, but the above instruction fixes the matter.
[1] As a result of these discussions, which led to investigations of haredi literature and discussions with haredi friends, another point became ever more obvious to me. It appears – and I welcome being corrected – that once someone has been crowned a gadol in the haredi world, it is almost impossible for him to lose this status, no matter what he says (and we have seen examples of this time after time). If, for instance, a recognized gadol expresses racist or misanthropic sentiments, or declares that a known and continuing sexual abuser or wife abuser must not be turned over to the authorities, even that would not be sufficient to "defrock" him. In other words, the "immunity" given to haredi (and hardal) gedolim is much more far-reaching than anything that could be imagined in the Modern Orthodox world.
[2] A January 2012 Avi Chai poll found that 7 percent of the Israeli population defines itself as haredi, 15 percent as dati, and 32 percent as traditional. Only 3 percent defines themselves as secular anti-religious. However, approximately 20 percent of primary school students are haredi, which shows the direction the future is going.
[3] It was actually the Religious Zionists who were responsible for creating the undemocratic situation in which Israel is perhaps the only country in the world in which Jews are not free to be married by the rabbi of their choice. I would like someone to show me where, in the entire history of halakhic literature, it is stated that people who are not observant must be forced, or even encouraged, to have a halakhic marriage. The current situation means that when secular Israelis leave Israel and then get divorced, being that they are secular most will simply get a secular divorce. Thus, any future marriage will be halakhically adulterous and the children will be mamzerim. Outside of Israel this is almost never an issue since non-Orthodox people generally don't get married by Orthodox rabbis, which means that in the event of a divorce we can assume that the first marriage was not halakhically binding. But in Israel, where everyone gets married halakhically, it opens the doors to mamzerut on a massive scale. This was actually recognized by R. Eliyahu Bakshi Doron when he was chief rabbi. He created a big controversy when he revealed that it is a practice among some rabbis that when they perform weddings for the non-religious, they make sure that the marriage is not halakhically binding, precisely in order to prevent future mamzerut. Just this week R. Yaakov Yosef publicly advocated this position. See here.
[4] R. Eliyahu Pinchasi writes as follows in his Dibrot Eliyahu, vol. 1, p. 19:
החכמה נמצאת בגוי אבל היא רחוקה מאוד מלהיות דוגמת התורה. שהרי הוגי דעות נודעים בנו לעצמם פילוסופיה מתוחכמת הממלאים ספרים עבי כרס להצדיק את ההפקרות שנקראת בלשונם דמוקרטיה חופש הבטוי, רעיונות זדוניות מחרבי העולם.
The sheer ignorance of what democracy means is beyond comprehension. Do people like Pinchasi have so little knowledge of basic history that they do not know that it is only democracy that ensures protections for Jews around the world? Does he want the world to go back to the era of dictators when Jews suffered so terribly? Presumably yes, as he feels democracy is destroying the world.. I can easily provide parallels to the language used by Pinchasi in the writings of communists and fascists, especially from Weimar Germany. I was also shocked to read what R. Elhanan Wasserman writes in his Ikveta di-Meshiha, par. 2, published on the eve of the Holocaust.
"ראו כי אני אני הוא". הגיע כבר העת שתבינו, כי בלעדי אין מושיע. אבל העם מסרבים להבין. עוד נאחזים בשולי הדמוקרטיה הגוססת. אף היא לא תועיל, בדומה לעבודות הזרות הקודמות.
I can't for the life of me understand how he could regard democracy as avodah zarah, and why he sees democracy as being in opposition to proper faith in God, as if we are dealing with a zero-sum game. Instead of democracy, what political system did R. Elhanan want the Jews to support?
[5] I have many other sources regarding democracy, including traditional sources very much in favor of it (especially in pre-messianic times). I hope to provide them on a future occasion. Reading the haredi attacks on democracy, I can't help but be reminded of Pius IX's 1864 Syllabus of Errors and the later silencing of John Courtney Murray. The Church identified certain doctrines as false, yet now recognizes that its position in these matters was mistaken. I mention these examples because I am convinced that the American haredi world also rejects the anti-democratic sentiments that I have quoted, seeing them as out of step with where their world is.
[5] I have many other sources regarding democracy, including traditional sources very much in favor of it (especially in pre-messianic times). I hope to provide them on a future occasion. Reading the haredi attacks on democracy, I can't help but be reminded of Pius IX's 1864 Syllabus of Errors and the later silencing of John Courtney Murray. The Church identified certain doctrines as false, yet now recognizes that its position in these matters was mistaken. I mention these examples because I am convinced that the American haredi world also rejects the anti-democratic sentiments that I have quoted, seeing them as out of step with where their world is.
It is worth contrasting the anti-democratic sentiments of haredi leaders with the response of the Church, which fortunately was able to examine its own long history of anti-democratic abuses and come to the conclusion (much later than it should have) that in modern times democracy is the only viable system. As Pope Benedict put it (see here), democracy "alone can guarantee equality and rights to everyone." He continues with the following valuable words:
Indeed, there is a sort of reciprocal dependence between democracy and justice that impels everyone to work responsibly to safeguard each person's rights, especially those of the weak and marginalized. This being said, it should not be forgotten that the search for truth is at the same time the condition for the possibility of a real and not only apparent democracy: "As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism" (Centesimus Annus, n. 46).
[6] R. Asher Anshel Yehudah Miller, Olamo shel Abba (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 308, reports that the Satmar Rav, R Yoel Teitelbaum, once declared that there were 50,000 Jews in the world. When asked how he could give such a figure when there were many millions of Jews, he replied:
בעיני, יהודים הם רק יהודים שששומרים תורה ומצוות כמוני . . . [שאר היהודים] או שיחזרו בתשובה, או שצריך להוציא אותם מכלל ישראל
[8] Alan Brill, Judaism and Other Religions: Models of Understanding (New York, 2010), p. 255 n. 43, has recently noted that since many laws stated with reference to non-Jews apply equally to heretical Jews: "the main problem is the fundamental use of a double ethic as described by Max Weber in his description of an ethnic economy."
[9] Interestingly, R. Avraham Yosef has recently spoken of the spiritual advantages of living together with the non-religious. See here.
For Israeli haredim, there is now a mindset that they can only live among other haredim, and this is why they create exclusively haredi neighborhoods and towns. Such a concept is entirely new, and not only did it not exist in Europe but didn't even exist in Israel in the first decades of the State. Many readers probably recall the time when hasidic rebbes lived in Tel Aviv.
For Israeli haredim, there is now a mindset that they can only live among other haredim, and this is why they create exclusively haredi neighborhoods and towns. Such a concept is entirely new, and not only did it not exist in Europe but didn't even exist in Israel in the first decades of the State. Many readers probably recall the time when hasidic rebbes lived in Tel Aviv.
[10] I have to admit, however, that one sometimes does find even moderate haredim who seem to have sympathy with Adler's approach. R. Moshe Eisemann, who used to have a great deal of influence in the moderate haredi camp, wrote as follows with reference to the Jerusalem fanatics who throw stones at passing cars (not knowing, of course, if the drivers are Jewish or Arab): "If it is true that he who hurls a stone were well-advised to be pretty sure that he is doing the right thing, I believe that the one who feels no urge to do so, must engage in even deeper soul-searching." Tradition 26 (Winter 1992), p. 34. Maybe I was absent that day in yeshiva, but I was never taught that it is normal to have an urge to throw a stone at a fellow Jew (which of course could kill him, as we have seen with the Palestinian stone-throwers). On the contrary, I was taught that I should have an urge to show the non-religious Jew about the beauty of Shabbat, which an invitation to a Shabbat table will accomplish much better than a rock in his windshield.
[11] What is one to make of R. Shmuel Baruch Genot, Va-Yomer Shmuel (Elad, 2008), no. 84, that it is forbidden for Jews to oppose the death penalty in places where Jews are not affected (unless done for reasons of darkhei shalom): דאסור להציל גוף נכרי. This is the sort of pesak (and I can cite many similar examples) that in the Modern Orthodox world is regarded not simply as wrong, but as deeply immoral (especially since during the Holocaust so many non-Jews adopted Genot's position vis-à-vis the Jews!).
While at least since Jacob Katz's Exclusiveness and Tolerance scholars are now no longer deterred from studying the medieval Jewish view of "the other", there is still great reluctance to examine contemporary views, for fear of how this might play into the hands of anti-Semites. I am curious to hear what readers think about this. How long can we keep all of this "under the carpet," and should we even be attempting to do that?
Ruth Langer has discussed the medieval tradition in her new book Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat HaMinim (Oxford, 2012), p. 12:
For Jews engaged in dialogue, it has been much easier to identify the problems within Christianity than to turn that scrutiny back on our own heritage. Jews, after all, were very much the victims, not just of the Holocaust, but also of centuries of Christian anti-Jewish venom and oppression. Consequently, traditions developed among those studying Judaism in the wissenschaftflich mode to obscure embarrassing elements of the tradition rather than to confront them. . . Christian anti-Judaism in its many expressions led to Jewish responses and attitudes that were equally vicious; the power relationships between the two communities prevented Jews from expressing this with physical violence, but Jews still lacked respect for their neighbors. . . . In our time, Jewish publishers are restoring uncensored versions of many texts, reclaiming a difficult heritage. While from an academic perspective, this has merit, there has been all too little discussion about its impact on the Jewish community.
I would, however, dispute the use of the expression "equally vicious." Once Langer assumes that it was Christian anti-Judaism (and I would add "anti-Semitism") that led to the Jewish responses and attitudes, then I don't think it is correct to portray them as "equally vicious." The one who is responding to widespread murder of his coreligionists, and responding only through the pen, cannot be regarded as "equally vicious." Furthermore, considering the oppression that Jews suffered in medieval times, all the anti-Gentile sentiments found in texts from this period are completely understandable.
[12] I have often heard people pronounce דרכי as darkei. This is incorrect. There is no dagesh in the kaf.
[13] The Artscroll Talmud also has a segol but the Artscroll Mishnah has a tzeirei.
[12] I have often heard people pronounce דרכי as darkei. This is incorrect. There is no dagesh in the kaf.
[13] The Artscroll Talmud also has a segol but the Artscroll Mishnah has a tzeirei.
[14] There are times in the Bible where the word עושה with a tzeirei is to be translated as if it has a segol, but these are exceptions. When it comes to vocalizing a text, one should certainly not insert a tzeirei if one is going to translate the word as a verb. The exceptions, where we find a tzeirei under the shin, are Ex. 15:11: עושה פלא, which appears to mean "doing wonders", although, as R. Mazuz pointed out to me, it could also be translated as "doer of wonders"= עושה-הפלאים. Amos 5:8: עושה כימה וכסיל, and Ps. 14:1, 3, 53:2, 4: עושה טוב, could perhaps also be read in this way. However, in Jer. 51:15: עושה ארץ בכחו, the word appears to be a verb.
וכיצד היא ברכה זו מעין שבע, מגן אבות בדברו כנגד מגן אברהם. מחיה מתים במאמרו כנגד מחיה מתים. הא-ל הקדוש שאין כמוהו כנגד הא-ל הקדוש . . .
[18] See Abudarham ha-Shalem, p. 148: מחיה מתים במאמרו על שם (יחזקאל לז) כה אמר ה' הנני פותח את קברותיכם


text:
Light pink orchid
Light pink orchid
Orchid makes an impressive display on it own.
Product Type: Individual stem
Available colour: white, pink, yellow, light pink
Approx Height: 45cm
Our handcrafted paper flowers are:
Ethically produced
100% Handmade
Flower stems can be trimmed or bent to your preferred height.
Paper flower can vary slightly, due to the artisanal, handmade nature of the product.
Care instructions
Paper flowers will last for years without water. They are easy to care for; best to keep the flowers away from moisture and just be aware of direct sunlight could fade the colour. You could use a feather duster or gently shaking the flowers upside down to remove the dust.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Almost all the talk at last week's SAP Business Suite Powered By Hana announcement was about "reinventing enterprise systems." It's SAP's vision that companies will drop conventional databases from the likes of Oracle, IBM or Microsoft and switch to its Hana in-memory database in order to dramatically improve the performance of critical systems like ERP. But SAP has also quietly acknowledged, both at the event and in a follow-up interview, that its execs know that not everything will move to Hana right away.
The most obvious sign of this admission is a dual-database deal whereby SAP is including the Sybase ASE transactional database -- meaning it's a free add-on -- when customers license SAP Business Suite Powered by Hana. SAP executives explained the offer in a follow-up interview with InformationWeek last week.
"Customers could choose to deploy ASE or Hana in whatever mix of configurations they want," explained Prakash Darji, SAP's global VP for data warehouse solutions & SAP Hana platform. SAP customers could use Hana to accelerate certain Business Suite processes while leaving other processes on ASE.
There are two reasons why this move to bundle Sybase ASE along with Hana makes sense.
[ Want more on SAP's big move? Read SAP Moves Core Applications To Hana In-Memory Platform. ]
First, not all Business Suite applications are capable of running on Hana as yet. Major ones including ERP, CRM and supply chain management are, but some apps, like supplier relationship management, are not. Thus, customers will obviously continue to need a conventional relational database. Including ASE -- which SAP touts as an alternative to Oracle, IBM DB2 or Microsoft SQL Server for transactional (OLTP) workloads -- is a lure (or a consolation, depending on your perspective) to companies that would otherwise balk at having to license two databases -- meaning Hana, plus whatever they're currently using.
Second, even if SAP reaches its goal of moving all of its software onto Hana fairly quickly, customers may still be selective about which applications they choose to accelerate or reinvent by moving them onto Hana.
Hana's appeal is extreme in-memory performance whereby transactional and analytic applications can run far faster than on conventional databases. In some cases the performance is such that entirely new applications are envisioned, ones that were never attempted because they would simply take too long. At last week's announcement, for example, BusinessSuite on Hana beta customer John Deere said it's testing financial close and manufacturing resource planning applications that will execute within minutes on Hana, where they used to take many hours or days running on conventional databases.
But in other cases customers either don't see value in dramatically speeding up an application, or they just aren't ready to move it over to Hana. In those cases, they can license only selected apps to run on Hana.
"We would love to see every customer consolidate everything on Hana and not go to a hybrid deployment model, but the reason we've included ASE is that some customers are saying, 'Do I really need an in-memory database for, say, a portal?'" Darji said.
[Editor's note: In a follow-up interview, SAP execs said there are compelling reasons to support real-time personalized dashboards on portals using Hana, and that a payroll app would be a better example of a not-so-critical application where in-memory performance is concerned.]
Why not run everything on Hana? For one thing, there is a price for performance. Hana runs on different, memory-intensive hardware than conventional databases, and the database itself is also licensed based on the volumes of data managed. Hardware prices have come down, but memory is still more expensive than spinning disks. Despite all SAP's promises of being able to deliver "innovation without disruption," its ASE giveaway policy seems like a realistic recognition that it may only be in mission-critical spots -- at least initially -- where companies will want to innovate with Hana.


text:
British entrepreneur Richard Branson, left, poses with AirAsia's Chief Executive Tony Fernandes while dressed up as an AirAsia flight attendant at a low cost carrier terminal in Malaysia, Sunday, May 12, 2013. Branson wore the costume after losing a bet with his friend Fernandes on which of their 2010 Formula One racing car teams would finish ahead of the other. (AP Photo/Vincent Thian)
SEPANG, Malaysia (AP) — British business magnate Richard Branson has lost his latest job because of orange juice.
The Virgin Group founder had his legs shaved, put on lipstick and squeezed into a red skirt to honor a bet by serving as a flight attendant Sunday on an AirAsia trip from Perth, Australia, to Malaysia.
But he earned a reprimand from AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes after he deliberately dumped a tray of orange juice on Fernandes' lap.
Branson lost a bet to Fernandes in 2010 after they wagered that their Formula One racing teams would finish ahead of each other. Fernandes' team landed two spots above Branson's.
Fernandes gleefully declared after Sunday's nearly six-hour flight on his budget airline that Branson's skills as an attendant were "rubbish" and that he was being immediately fired.
A cheerful Branson, who was tasked with pouring beverages, serving meals and making flight announcements, posed with Fernandes and popped champagne after stepping out of the plane at Malaysia's main low-cost carrier terminal south of Kuala Lumpur.
He said in brief remarks that he was "glad to have gotten the bet over with and (was) looking forward to getting back into my clothes."
"I always wanted to be an air hostess, but it looks like I have to get back to normality," Branson said. The flight helped raise money for an Australian foundation for hospitalized children.
Asked how Branson rated as an attendant, Fernandes quipped, "Out of 10, maybe one, for a bit of humor."
"I wanted to kill him actually" for spilling the juice, the Malaysian told reporters.
"He looked at me, I said, 'don't you dare,' and the next thing I know, he tipped the whole tray on me," Fernandes added. "He and the girls mopped it up, but I was walking around the flight in my underwear for a while because I didn't bring another pair of trousers."


text:
I'll stop that.
It has been an interesting week. Some late nights, some good chats, a power dinner, an old friend visiting from Hawaii. Not nearly enough sleep. Lots of plans being made for the next few months. Ironing out the hiccups of some of the book launch plans (keep your fingers crossed for me, please).
I haven't read any Truman Capote, though just this morning on my Goodreads feed I saw that somebody I'm friends with there gave five stars to In Cold Blood, which I've been meaning to read. But I love this photo of him below at his home that I stumbled upon today. I love the warm colours with the pops of turquoise and the mix of patterns and flowers and curios. It's my favourite from this series on Buzzfeed of writers at home.
I admit it: I love brocade wallpaper.
I had ambitions of finishing my hat tonight in front of the television, but I was too zoned out to pay attention and I kept making mistakes as I began to do decreases towards the crown. Oh well.
Right now I'm going to go boil water for Neocitron and get into bed and read Juliet, Naked. This morning on the metro I was wishing that there were enough Nick Hornby books to read every morning on my way to work.


text:
|2012-07-26, 15:22
|Link #21
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|2012-07-26, 16:06
|Link #22
Annie Leonhart
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
So that would make Ceaser a one trick pony. The bad part about that is people adapt and change their tactics. Luffy kicked Ceaser's ass all over the place during the fight. Ceaser only trump card was the one attack. Do you think it will work in round 2? Second give Smoker his body and see how the fight goes. Ceaser was afraid when Vice Admiral Smoker showed up. I also wonder if Smoker is like Enel, in that he does not have to breath? Second Ceaser wanted Law's heart in exchange for Monet's heart. That does not scream strong fighter at all.
|2012-07-26, 16:23
|Link #23
ANEGO Worshiper
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: By the vending machine, drinking tea.
You can in no way say that it was his ONLY trump card...we haven't seen him fight seriously enough for that.
Actually CC could have an advantage...who knows what could happen to Smoker if he returned to normal with poison gas mixed into his smoke.
Even if he can, I dunno if it's an ability that comes with being a logia. Simply put, Enel's race was believed to come from the moon but the in pictures we've seen in the ruins they didn't seem to have any helmets or breathing materials on.
He says it himself that he is stronger than Law...true or not doesn't matter, however he was smart enough to not rely on his strength to take care of Law should he betray him. Why rely only on your muscle to prevent betrayal when you could do it by simply holding something the other guy needs hostage?
If anything, it shows that CC is smarter and much better than most villains we've seen so far.
|2012-07-26, 17:16
|Link #24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|2012-07-26, 17:44
|Link #25
Annie Leonhart
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Response to Link #26 and #27
That is the only one good attack that seemed to work on Luffy. Everything else Luffy was immune to, deflected, or dodged. Yes he was getting owned. Luffy had CC in the grasp of his hand. He was saved at the last minute by the one move.
Has for Smoker, he very observant fighter, and a competent one. He knew the only people who could resist law's powers were ones with haki, he also switched to logia to negate Law's room. I don't think Smoker is a incompetent fighter. I personally think Smoker would defeat CC. Smoker has haki, strength, natural fighting, and Smoke Logia fruit. Smoker has no time limit of how long he can stay in smoke. Why would he shift back if he knows CC is a gas type fruit? He can still fight and grab people with his Logia fruit. Second his seastone tip weapons would give him the advantage of shutting CC powers down. Second CC was a former WG employee who went rogue. So information about him would be attainable for a Vice Admiral Level like Smoker. Smoker has also shown he knows who CC is and the history of this Island has well.
Has for the space in one piece, I will go with space having no air until it is confirmed. Has for the pictures the race were technologically advanced. Look at the robots spaceys they built.
Lastly Ceaser's tactic says a lot about who he is. It shows that he respects law's power if he is willing to go that far.
Last edited by grey_1960; 2012-07-26 at 17:55.
|2012-07-27, 10:25
|Link #26
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
To add my two cents to the CC argument, I'll say that I see him as being similar to Moria in the sense that he relies more on his cleverness than physical strength. I mean, both James and Randrak already made several valid points about how diverse his powers can be. Heck, I've made such arguments myself in past threads (once again I bring up the example of a carbon dioxide overdose being an extremely deadly form of poisoning). I mean damn, the mere fact that Smiley, a product of CC's own powers, has his own DF power speaks volumes about versatile a power the gas fruit is right there. No way in hell is Caesar a "one-trick pony".....
|2012-07-27, 13:37
|Link #27
Annie Leonhart
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Smiley a product of multiple things. He was left overs from the experiments gone wrong, CC condensed it to HS2, and the Devil fruit gave him life.
The main reason I think he is weak is his overall performance with Luffy and his deal with Law over the heart switch with Monet. At first he seemed like a powerful person but the further the arch goes the weaker he seems and the less intimidating of a character he becomes.
|2012-07-27, 17:43
|Link #28
Senior Member
That was kind of a lame chapter. Probably the only real dud I've seen in this arc. Law was pretty cool, but it's kind of boring having Caesar just going on about how his monster slime is so more more deadly.
I wrote a review for this chapter over on HERE.
Something that I have to wonder. Does Caesar know that the Joker he's working for is actually Doflamingo and that Money works for him as a spy?
Seeing how Law has shown up in this story. I'm starting to wonder if this is part of Oda's plan for the Eleven Supernovas. That on each of the islands the crew goes to, they'll be running into the different crews.
|2012-07-27, 18:00
|Link #29
Join Date: Dec 2004
I've been thinking about Kinemons age and to me it looks like he is older near Jimbes age. His hairstyle doesn't look like somebody younger who wear on the Island. The slime is going to merge into something else or blow up. Smoker doesn't need his body to do damage. Good thing he's in Tashigis body now because now he can fight without his DF.
|2012-07-28, 10:49
|Link #31
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
^So you're saying that you see Smiley as a pokemon?
Personally, if CC's beast HAS to be taken down, I still feel it's most likely that Kinemon will be the one to finish the job, or maybe even Brooke. I just don't think that a more "orthodox" form of swordsmanship will be good enough to take down a creature like Smiley (what with him being made of poison gas and all).....
And speaking of strange creatures, I don't think anyone has commented on the SECOND dragon of Vegapunk's we've seen now? This makes me wonder exactly how many other artificial dragons may be lurking on the island. After all, the first dragon we saw is no more since the beast was killed (and later eaten) by Luffy's group. So if this other one bites it, will that mean the Straw-Hats will have driven the Punk Hazard dragons to extinction.....?
|2012-07-29, 11:26
|Link #32
Ultra noob
Join Date: Dec 2004
Or, I guess zorro learns the fire cutting from Kinemon. Which would be a little weird considering he just finished spending 3 years learning from Mihawk.
|2012-07-29, 20:21
|Link #33
Sawa-Chan <3 <3 <3
Join Date: Dec 2004
He is supposed to be a ( mad) scientist so he is probably smart. He defeated Luffy because Luffy kinda lacks in that department compared to his other strengths .
He just goes in and stuff. But any ways based on the past expriences, usually Luffy gets beaten by a trick but then he finds a way to counter it. So now Luffy is smart . Add a few pieces of meats to the solution and he becomes a genius.
My point is i think if they battle again, luffy will beat CC.
As for Smoker i think he will defeat CC easily. He can just use his power and blow away CC's gas. I think he would be like a hard counter against CC.
As Law he is smart and probably smarter than CC but from this chapter imo we learn that at the same time he is a bit too confident on how smart he is( I.E. Maybe a bit arrogant). And that is why he is in the mess he is.
That's My 2cent on this matter. We don't know how strong CC is and as some people are mentioning here, he probably has more tricks but thus far i think he lacks Haki power compared to other 3. It takes time and training to strengthen one's Haki. Being that CC is a scientist i doubt he ever tried to train to strengthen his Haki.
For all we know all of this might be a plan devised by the Straws hats and Law. Imo they might be waiting for something. Maybe Luffy can use Haki to get them out of the situation they are in *_* or Maybe Franky has some thing to get them out of the mess they are in. Luffy is too calm right now and that is not like the luffy we know.
P.S. Chopper is not a pet. He is a Tanuki . I mean a Reindeer .
Last edited by Whitemoon648; 2012-07-29 at 20:33.
|2012-07-30, 09:34
|Link #34
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
But.... eh, I dunno. I still kinda feel that Smiley being made out of poisonous substances sort of throws a monkey wrench into that whole taming idea, but who knows, maybe it's possible.
Anyways, time to put out another reminder that YES, THERE'S A CHAPTER THIS WEEK. And not only that, but volume 67 is released this week, which means SBS info!
|2012-07-30, 09:58
|Link #35
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|2012-07-30, 10:23
|Link #36
Sawa-Chan <3 <3 <3
Join Date: Dec 2004
|2012-07-30, 14:42
|Link #37
Custom User Title
|2012-07-30, 23:07
|Link #38
Annie Leonhart
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Indiana
Enel is the only person I know who does not have to breath air. I am just has curious has you are about the CC vs. Smoker (If it happens) and what the affects each one has on the other. I won't be surprised if you are right about CC affecting Smoker if the battle happens. Smoker is very disappointing in this arch. Every villain is pulling tricks on Smoker and he can not seem to do a thing about it. I think Law pulled off the best one in this arch. I hope Oda will start giving Smoker some street credit. He was stronger then the Straw Hats before the time skip. Both in strength and the fact they could not touch Logia users. He also went to the New World before them. Now after the two years he getting his ass handed to him at Punk Hazard. How did he ever survive two years in the New World and become a Vice Admiral with the kind of performance we are seeing right now? I hope Oda kick starts the fight in this weeks chapter.
|Thread Tools


text:
Major news items this summer evoked nostalgia at every turn: 40th anniversaries of Woodstock and Apollo 11; deaths of celebrities like Michael Jackson, Ed McMahon and Karl Malden. Saying farewell to Walter Cronkite alone dredged up reminiscences of dozens of world events he reported on.
Possibly lost in the news cycle was the death on July 6 of Robert S. McNamara at age 93. He was surely the most influential secretary of defense in U.S. history, serving from 1961 to 1968, during such events as the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis and the massive escalation of America's involvement in Vietnam. While Mr. McNamara accomplished much in his remarkable life, filling top posts at Ford and the World Bank, his name will always be linked with the war in Vietnam ("McNamara's War").
Late baby boomers like Barack Obama and me (we were born in the first year of Kennedy's presidency) mostly knew about McNamara after the fact. By the time I reached college, one could (and I eagerly did!) take courses in diplomatic history and political science that covered the Vietnam conflict and the role McNamara played in it. My interest in moral evaluations of America's role in Vietnam was revived by the fascinating 2003 documentary "The Fog of War," in which McNamara consented to be filmed reflecting at great length, and with no absence of emotion and even contrition, on the quagmire in Southeast Asia.
Several obituaries likened McNamara to a figure from a Greek tragedy, with a tragic flaw intricately related to his greatest attribute: a keen mind dedicated to charting precise courses of action based on the best available facts and figures. President Kennedy lured him into his cabinet with the flattering comment that McNamara was the smartest man he had ever met.
Yet, despite a knack for systems analysis and technical insight, however brilliant and well informed, McNamara and his Pentagon "whiz kids" somehow missed the human factor in modern warfare. For all their precise calculations surrounding America's in-volvement in cold war-era Vietnam, even our best and brightest grossly underestimated the tenacity of those fighting in what they considered a struggle for national liberation from Western colonialism. Add to this miscalculation the loss of support from average Americans due to a vigorous antiwar movement and media exposure to the horrors of war, and the outcome in Southeast Asia now appears inevitable.
To his credit, McNamara in retirement labored to articulate the central lessons to be appropriated for U.S. foreign policy: avoid over-reliance on quantitative data, like body counts and firepower superiority, and do not overlook those pivotal factors that touch the hearts and minds of the people, without which modern warfare is unwinnable.
The most excruciating moral questions, less than fully resolved in his late-in-life memoirs and in interviews that probed his mind, involve what the secretary should have done as he came to the realization, near the end of his Pentagon tenure, that war in Vietnam was an unwinnable proposition. Poring over troubling evidence, he faced the perennial dilemma of the statesman serving a demanding superior. McNamara, however, failed the honesty test, as he was unable to push the point with President Johnson. Hundreds of thousands more civilians and soldiers would die before the United States left Vietnam. The ethics of war haunted McNamara's final decades. His death was met more with pity and scorn than admiration.
The more I ponder the life and times of Robert McNamara, the more I feel a sense of relief that I will never be in a position to send people to their death, whether for arguably good causes or transparently unjustifiable causes. On the larger scale, it renews my conviction that every sane, peace-loving person should be vigilant to press those who do shoulder the burdens of office not to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam.
Of course, Vietnam was not the last dubious land war in Asia that the United States has entered, and many have drawn parallels to our current involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect we will be grappling with the moral lessons tangled up with the life of Robert McNamara long after we have gotten over the summer 2009 deaths of celebrities like Farrah Fawcett and the ad pitchman Billy Mays.
The human factor also figures into any analysis of McNamara at the World Bank, where he made loans to fight poverty in the Third World. From firsthand experience in his budget deparment, I can tell you he supervised the loan-making process like Oscar Meyer must have supervised sausages—counting each step in terms of both dollars and staff time. Sort of the foreign aid version of the body count. While the inputs were thoroughly measured, unfortunately the results of the process were not, with the result that lots of expensive roads to almost nowhere were built, lots of airplane tickets and business suits were purchased, and little was learned about how to do a second project better. After the experts from Washington left, the locals were no closer to repeating the aid project a second time. "Institution building" meant office buildings and conferences, but no long term results other than more deposits in Swiss accounts. But McNamara kept to his top-down approach.
Of course, foreign aid of almost all kinds and types has been an abject failure over the years.
Ya mighta thought, though, that if he was so smart, he might have thought of micro-loans, a program so simple that it works. Takes into account the human factor. Not glamorous, but it works.


text:
Summer might be drawing to a close, but don't worry — there's still plenty of time to squeeze in a few more chills provided by new mysteries and thrillers from Karin Fossum, Tana French and Thomas H. Cook.
The Irish seaside enclave that provides the title of Tana French's latest novel, "Broken Harbour" (Viking: 450 pp., $27.95), has a new name, Brianstown, to go along with all those new post-millennium houses built when Ireland was Europe's economic hot spot. Then the bubble burst, the economy crashed, the developers walked away, and the exurban outpost of upscale homes became a collection of unfinished — and, in most cases, unfinishable — dreams.
Some of the houses are lived in, though the luck of the residents has followed that of the country. Except for the Spain family, whose luck has turned even worse. The two young children lie smothered to death in their rooms on the second floor; downstairs, their father is sprawled dead in his own blood, their stabbed-but-still-breathing mother next to him.
This is the case that falls onto the desk of Michael "Scorcher" Kennedy, the calloused detective with the best solve rate on the Dublin murder squad. It becomes clear early on who the likely killer is, and the revelation some 400 pages later is fairly anticlimactic. But that's OK, because French's focus here is less on the architecture of the crime and subsequent investigation than on the world in which it occurs.
This is a novel about modern life, madness and obsession in a wide range of manifestations. The dead man is Patrick Spain, who lost his job in the financial collapse, then slowly lost his mind as the personal financial pressures built. Scorcher's sister suffers from a debilitating mental illness that sends her scurrying for Scorcher's protective wing during the deepest troughs. One of Scorcher's colleagues is driven by a venal sadism; the key suspect is obsessed with Jenny Spain, the wounded mother, and jealous of the life carved out by Patrick.
And Scorcher himself is dogged by the belief that had he not gone out with his pals during a childhood family camping trip to Broken Harbour, his mentally ill mother wouldn't have walked out into the sea. Dogged too by memories of probing questions by adults, and the cold conversations with schoolmates speculating that beatings by his father had sent his mother to her death — cruel talk that Scorcher ended with fist fights.
"Deep down, I didn't blame them for asking. It looked like plain salacious nosiness, but even then I understood that it was more. They needed to know … Cause and effect isn't a luxury. Take it away and we're left paralyzed, clinging to some raft lurching wild and random on endless black sea. If my mother could go into the water just because, then so could theirs, any night, any minute, so could they. When we can't see a pattern, we fit pieces together until one takes shape. Because we have to…. I knew they were right about this much: things don't happen for no reason. I was the only one in the world who knew that the reason was me."
"Broken Harbour" is French's fourth novel, following up her 2007 debut, "In the Woods," which won an Edgar for best first novel; "The Likeness" in 2008, and "Faithful Place" in 2010. There is powerful, occasionally lyrical writing here, though the novel would be stronger with judicious trimming. The dialogue occasionally drags, and while French paints vivid images of scenes, you get the sense that some of them are unnecessary, the largesse of a loose discipline.
Paradoxically, French's digressions are what make the novel work, as Scorcher follows leads and intuitions as he ruminates on modern life, from the greed that fueled the economic bubble to the shattered dreams when it burst.
"Some people get hit by a tidal wave, dig in their nails and hold on; they stay focused on the positive, keep visualizing the way through until it opens up in front of them," Scorcher thinks as he reviews the Spain family's dismal financial record. "Some lose hold. Broke can lead people to places they would never have imagined."
"Broken Harbour" is a novel, of course, but it's also a headline, both in Ireland and in the U.S. And it's good to see contemporary literature engaging a crisis that has had such an impact on the lives of so many. This is, in fact, what good literature does. It makes us look at our world and perhaps forces us to see what we have chosen to ignore.
— Scott Martelle
Irvine-based writer Martelle is the author of "Detroit: A Biography."


text:
Monday, April 16, 2012
Bright, bright, bright sunshiny day
Can you believe we are already half way through April? I think my current reading obsession is making the days slip away faster because I feel like I've lost time, seriously! And with new releases creeping up in a couple weeks things aren't likely to slow down anytime soon. I guess that's just how it goes though and as long as I'm enjoying myself who am I to really complain. :)
I couldn't resist inking up another of the Lili of the Valley cuties that I got last week. This time I chose Maisie Sitting Pretty and just cut away the mushroom she was sitting on because I was short on coloring time and Maisie on her own was pretty quick to do. I think she looks just as nice resting atop that ribbon. By now I think it is no secret that I love the color orange and it is the orange/blue/green combo that makes these papers probably my most fave line that Making Memories ever released. It's called Chloe's Closet and it was only sold at Michael's stores a few years back. Not having a Michael's anywhere near me, I ended up taking a road trip to Spokane just to get my hands on it. Needless to say, I stocked up, LOL! ;)
Alrighty then, I'm outta here. Hope your day is a crafty one!
Supply list:
cardstock- Bazzill and Copic X-Press It
paper- Making Memories (Chloe's Closet)
stamps- Lili of the Valley (Maisie Sitting Pretty), October Afternoon (sentiment), BoBunny (stitches)
ink- Memento tuxedo black and rich cocoa, Colorbox creamy brown
Making Memories flowers and buttons
Prima flowers
Kaiser Craft pearls
Jenni Bowlin tab punch
Copic markers:
skin- E000, E00, E11, R00, R20
hair- YR12, YR15, YR27, E99
clothes- B32, B34, B37, Y32, Y35, YG01, YG03, E31, E35, E57
21 comments:
- Heidi Brawley said...
AWE this is sooo Darling!!! love those colors all together too! Have an Awesome Week!!!
hugs, Heidi & Brooke
- April 16, 2012 at 5:32 AM
- Janine said...
love the orange
- April 16, 2012 at 5:39 AM
- Creations by Shirl said...
Another cutesie card,love all those oranges and she looks so comfy resting on the edge of that ribbon.... Shucks, to bad they don't make digis....
Have a great week Amy!
- April 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM
- gobeagirl said...
Amy you are a powerhouse! I love this card... She looks so adorable in her special paper and ribbon. I never really considered orange until I met you and now I see the sunshine in it. I wish wish wish I could get a chance to hit Spokane. My friend and I are making our once a year trip to Tri-Cities on the 28th, but I am thinking we'd have a better chance to get different things in Spokane. My baby brother still lives there, but I never make it there anymore. Don't trust my car and I need it for work and to get the kids to school so I don't chance it. Hope you have a great Monday. It is raining here this morning, but that's ok, have to work all day. :O) Hugs, Lisa
- April 16, 2012 at 7:29 AM
- Lau W said...
Oh she's so cute on the ribbon ! Your card is so nice, love these colors !
- April 16, 2012 at 7:33 AM
- Riet said...
What a gorgeous card Amy.
Hugs Riet.xx
- April 16, 2012 at 8:59 AM
- Lou said...
Hi! love this soooo much,such a great idea and your colours/colouring are really lovely too-what a sweetie she is.
This year has flown by so far,hope it slows a bit for the summer :)
hugs Lou.xx
- April 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM
- Rhonda Miller said...
What a bright, happy card. I love the sweet image. TFs.
- April 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM
- Leanne said...
hehehe, this just totally brightened up my day Amy! She's so gosh darn adorable and yes, she looks perfect right there on that ribbon. Very cute!
Have a wonderful day!
- April 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM
- Kelly Schelske said...
Oh my- she's so sweet Amy!!
- April 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM
- Danni said...
It does seem like the month is flying by!
Super sweet card and the colors are so happy and just make you smile!
- April 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM
- kim.scrapper said...
She is such a cutie! tfs
- April 16, 2012 at 1:48 PM
- Denise Marzec said...
Oh my gosh, how cute is that! Great colors and coloring!
- April 16, 2012 at 2:40 PM
- Dangina Martinez said...
I Love Bright! She is too cute!
Tons of Hugs, Dangina
- April 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM
- Holly AKA KopyKat said...
this is so adorable, love the great dp you used with her
- April 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM
- Alyce said...
Aww she is such a cutie Amy! I love how bright and fun all of your cards are and this is no exception :)
- April 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM
- RiNNE said...
Eeeeek! I loooooove her! She is awfully cute! Love your design and lay-out, especially that precious tab!
- April 16, 2012 at 11:10 PM
- Arabella said...
She's so cute Amy! I love the orange and blue combo and I never would have thought to take her off her mushroom... what a great idea!
- April 17, 2012 at 12:02 AM
- Marion E. said...
Totally adore her.... so cute and a little naughty as well...
Can´t wait to get more time to craft again!
- April 17, 2012 at 1:39 AM
- Chelsea said...
- April 17, 2012 at 4:13 AM
- Dora said...
Awww how cute and sweet, love the image and bright colours on your card... you're reminding me that I got a few LOTV images that I still haven't inked up :( time time ...... Hugs xxx
- April 17, 2012 at 7:09 AM


text:
http://www.pawnation.com/2010/01/15/fda ... og-treats/
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning pet owners not to feed their dogs Merrick Beef Filet Squares after routine tests detected salmonella in the treats.
Tests conducted in December first showed evidence of salmonella in the dog treats produced by Merrick Pet Care. Follow-up inspections found problems with both the manufacture and packaging of the snacks, the FDA reports. Yesterday, the agency issued a warning recommending dog owners steer clear of the Beef Filet Squares with a package date reading "Best By 111911."
Dogs that contract salmonella infections can be sluggish and suffer from diarrhea, vomiting and fever, though some infected pets may only experience a decreased appetite. Humans are also susceptible to the illness, and could become infected if they don't wash their hands thoroughly after handling the infected treat, the FDA warns.
So far, no illnesses linked to the treats have been reported in dogs or humans. If you or your dog experience symptoms of salmonella, contact your doctor or veterinarian immediately.


text:
Things I plan to buy with my first paycheck
So I get my first paycheck from work (I got a job a week ago, BTW) for $500. It's only half a paycheck 'cause I started midway through the pay period, but I've never even had $500 to my name before.
I have a plan all laid out for savings, school funds, car funds, etc. for when the proper paychecks come in, but I've decided to just recklessly blow this one on as much random stuff as possible.
So basically, here's what I hope to have in 4 days:
-Sith Infiltrator (newest version)
-Classic TIE Fighter (also newest version)
-Saesee Tiin's Jedi Starfighter
-Skopio (with a few bonus bits courtesy of Iro)
-Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd (Vinyl)
-So Far, So Good... So What! by Megadeth (Vinyl)
-The Final Frontier by Iron Maiden (Double LP picture disc vinyl)
-No World For Tomorrow by Coheed & Cambria (Double LP Vinyl)
-The Afterman by Coheed & Cambria (vinyl)
-Dead Silence by Billy Talent
Also depending on how much I have left over, I may try to snag a vinyl copy of Rush's "2112".
- 0


text:
Webster University Asia
Earn an Accredited Degree
Webster University, a worldwide institution, ensures high-quality learning experiences that transform students for global citizenship and individual excellence. Students have the opportunity to study in Asia while earning an accredited American degree at locations in China and Thailand.
Explore Webster University in Thailand on Instagram @WebsterThailand
Campus Connections:
|Webster University - China
|Webster University - Thailand


text:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
|Why are Roger and Nimashet together?
|by Hank Plantagenet » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:30 pm
Hank Plantagenet
Posts: 50
As we not so patiently wait for the next book in the series to come out, something to ponder.
Nimashet starts off as a Marine Sergeant, nearing the end of her enlistment, as we find out later. She has been in the Bronze Battalion a while, and Roger does not even know her name until they are marooned on Marduk. She knows that he is spoiled and bratty, but with gorgeous hair, and that she, as a bodyguard, is beneath his notice.
Roger finds Nimashet physically attractive, yet he has been fending off good-looking gold-diggers for years now. Certainly times of great stress can produce a linkage between people, but why would he not be attracted to Corporal Hooker, or the Sgt Major, or Dr. O'Casey?
What happens so that they wind up dancing together in Ran Tai in Book Two?
|Re: Why are Roger and Nimashet together?
|by Renegade13 » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:30 am
Posts: 244
Before that fateful trip, Roger had never had very much contact with his guards; had never thought of them as anything except 'part of the furniture' that was to be mostly ignored. He had more contact with the officers and senior NCOs, but otherwise didn't pay any attention to the rest.
Once 'the trek' began across Marduk, he began learning about them and caring about them. Once he got to know Nimashet (and she got to know the 'real' Roger), I think that a natural attraction took over.
As far as Roger's avoidance of 'gold diggers' is concerned, he resists that attraction for a while - but eventually realizes that a) Nimashet is the absolute opposite of all those he avoided over the years; and b) she is his soul-mate and the one that he wants by his side. He might like and respect some of the other females in the Company, but Nimashet is the right one for him.
Why do two people mesh so perfectly?? That is an answer that I don't have!
|Re: Why are Roger and Nimashet together?
|by Hank Plantagenet » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:09 pm
Hank Plantagenet
Posts: 50
I didn't mean to imply that Nimashet was or is a gold digger. Certainly, someone who resisted marriage to the prince, or the emperor, for so long is not interested in money and power for their own sake. I realize that the development of the relationship comes with the development of Roger as a functioning human being, instead of a caricature of a foppish prince, yet I am just curious as to how it happened. Was Nimashet always riding next to Roger on the trail after Marshad? Was she assigned to back him up as he was out hunting for the pot?
There is not much textev that I can recall, unless I am forgetting something.
|Re: Why are Roger and Nimashet together?
|by JenBurdoo2 » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:07 am
Posts: 11
Nimashet is depicted with a crush on Roger from quite early in the first book (still on the ship, IIRC). And Roger's initial attraction to her is also physical; she's described as essentially the most conventionally beautiful person available.
They both fiercely suppress their feelings until the beginning of the second book, then are forced by circumstances (and eventually direct orders on Pahner's and later Kosutic's part - I love those bits) to acknowledge and accept them.
I do feel Roger overreacts a little at the turning point; he doesn't just want a temporary relationship (which would make sense for both of them) - he wants to get married. This might have something to do with the fact that he's very young (significantly younger than Nimashet, I suspect) and has never been subject to these feelings before. He's also rebounding off Kosta's death. Of course he's going to want to go all the way - he's just come face to face with mortality and doesn't want to wait for someone who might be more "appropriate."
Other elements are that he's rebellious and might subconsciously want a consort who would shock the court nobles he scorns. He's also used to having his way, although that part of it is played more subtly.
I rather expect some of this will be addressed in the next book, particularly given the snippets we've had thus far. By Capital standards, he IS overreacting in the ennoblements he's passing out.
|Re: Why are Roger and Nimashet together?
|by Hank Plantagenet » Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:30 pm
Hank Plantagenet
Posts: 50
I guess we may never know what exactly was the genesis of the attraction they have, but once the relationship does get going, it certainly is one heck of a roller-coaster ride.
You are right in that is gets better once Pahner gets involved and sends Nimashet out to Roger on the riverside of despair. The whole scene with Nimashet, the Sergeant Major, and Eleanora is classic.
"Nimashet, I'm going to be blunt," the chief of staff said after a moment. "You have to marry Roger."
"No." The sergeant stood back up quickly, eyes flashing. "If this is what you wanted to talk about, you can—"
"Sit down, Sergeant," Kosutic said sharply.
"You'd better not use my rank when talking about something like this, Sergeant Major!" Despreaux snapped back angrily.
"I will when it affects the security of the Empire," Kosutic replied icily. "Sit. Down. Now."
I do agree that Roger certainly overreacted to Nimashet. I think it stems from his naivete in social relationships that comes from his isolation in the court and no one ever trying to get close to him for other than political advantage, save for Kostas.
I would say, though, that the ennoblements so far depicted in the snippets are not an overreaction. He now has a majority in the house that confirms his appointments, as we saw from the quick acceptance of Julian as IBI director. Also, with the requirement of two-thirds majorities in both houses to get impeached as emperor, it becomes increasingly unlikely that it will ever happen once he stacked the upper house with his friends and supporters. I think he is trying to eliminate the old "Capital standards."
|Re: Why are Roger and Nimashet together?
|by boballab » Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:57 am
Posts: 396
Go back an re read book 1, Roger and Nimashet flirted with each other through the entire book including Nimashet braiding Rogers hair, Nimashet learning why Roger doesn't just jump her bones from Kostas, to Roger being made her Platoon leader before the fight with the Kranolta to fawning over his wounded body after the fight with the Kranolta. Of course who is the first person that Roger asks about after waking up among the wounded? Nimashet. From that point on Roger was her platoon leader and they couldn't be that far apart. Also after the fight with the Kranolta is when the Sergeant Major confronts Nimashet about her pursuing Roger since the ship:
Now remember what happened just after that dance floor? Roger tried to explain, drunkenly, what Kostas told Nimashet way back in the book why he is not pursuing her: Because of how viscous the court is.
So how we got to the Dance Floor was easy it was all through Book 1 they were flirting with each other all the way from space, through the jungle and through a major battle.
"I'd like to think that someone in the Navy somewhere has at least the IQ of a gerbil!" Rear Admiral Rozsak on the officers in the SLN


text:
In the aftermath of an Oct. 29 grain elevator explosion in Atchison, Kan., that claimed six lives and injured two others, Kansas State University grain scientist, Leland McKinney said that while grain and other kinds of dust can be dangerous, steps can be taken to reduce risk.
"It's a real tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people who are affected by this," he said.
McKinney answered questions relating to grain dust explosions.
Q. Why do explosions happen sometimes in grain storage facilities?
McKinney: Several factors must be present for a grain dust explosion to occur. They all have to be present at the same time. These conditions are: 1) an ignition source, such as a hot bearing, welding or cutting; 2) an adequate concentration of low moisture grain dust; 3) the grain dust is in suspension; 4) the presence of oxygen; and 5) the ignition of the grain dust in an enclosure, such as an elevator.
Removing any of those factors reduces the likelihood of a grain dust explosion.
Q. What can grain storage facilities do to minimize the risk of explosions?
McKinney: Grain storage facilities can reduce the risk of a grain dust explosion with good housekeeping practices to reduce grain dust levels and by installing monitoring devices on equipment to detect overheating of bearings.
Most primary explosions occur in a bucket elevator (leg). For that reason, modern facilities are designed with the leg on the outside of the facility in order to reduce risk. Older facilities were built with the leg inside.
The cleanliness of the facility is also a factor. Most of the destruction in a grain dust explosion is caused by secondary explosions, or a series of explosions, that occur through the facility. It's important that grain elevators have a good housekeeping program so that they keep the concentration of dust down and be very aware of any points where ignition may occur.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has recognized that this (grain dust) is a potential workplace hazard, and has grain handling standards in the regulations that address precautions that need to be taken. They address cleanliness of the facility and other hazards that occur in grain handling facilities.
Q. Do these kinds of explosions happen often?
McKinney: During the 10-year period 1995 to 2005, an average of 10.5 explosions occurred per year, according to statistics compiled by Robert Schoeff, professor emeritus here at K-State. He is now retired, but he devoted a major portion of his career toward collecting statistics and finding out why grain dust explosions occur. He was an internationally-recognized expert on the subject and his work resulted in a sharp decline in the number of explosions annually. That work included annual reports from 1980 to 2005 (K-State Research and Extension website: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/historicpublications/Dust_Exp.htm).
Q. Are we seeing more grain storage facility explosions than we used to?
McKinney: The highest frequency of grain dust explosions occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A lot of fact finding went on at that time.
Grain type not an issue
Q. Does it make a difference what kind of grain is stored?
McKinney: All grain dust can be explosive given the conditions described earlier are met. Other kinds of dust can be explosive. I believe it was in 2009 that a sugar mill that exploded in Georgia. Other kinds of dust, when suspended and with a source of ignition, can cause a fire or an explosion.
Q. Does low atmospheric humidity cause dust explosions?
McKinney: There's no data that indicate that low atmospheric humidity causes dust explosions.
Q. Can high atmospheric humidity prevent dust explosions?
McKinney: There's also no data that indicate that high atmospheric humidity prevents dust explosions.
Q. Is there more danger of an explosion in one type of construction – wood, steel or concrete – compared to others?
McKinney: No, there is no evidence to support that the type of construction makes a difference in grain dust explosions.
Q. Could this kind of accident happen in smaller, on-farm grain handling facilities?
McKinney: I would say any time you have a situation where you have an ignition source and grain dust, there's the potential for a flash fire or an explosion.
"You have to stay on top of your maintenance and housekeeping and always have safety on your mind in whatever industry you're in," McKinney said.
Information about grain processing, including how to obtain a video, "Deadly Dust," is available on the K-State Department of Grain Science and Industry website: www.grains.ksu.edu.


text:
Protect Yourself At All Times: Knockout Of The Week!
Marcus "Lelo" Aurelio ( Professor Barraozinho ) of Axe Capoeira Vancouver knocks out Keegan "The Marshall" Marshall at North American Challenge in North Vancouver
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
This is the swashbuckling life story of one of Scotland's greatest sons. Ian Hamilton, born the son of a Paisley tailor in 1925, who made himself world-famous on Xmas Eve, 1950, when he helped to remove the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Ab...$16.95
"A powerful and poignant expression of the Palestinian narrative of exile weaving together the aesthetic and the personal story of longing for home. Rajie Cook's personal account is an intimate revelation of the special bond between fa...$35.00
A few weeks before I was born, sometime that June in 1933 in the small back kitchen of 12, Redford Avenue, Thornton Heath, my father was intent on murdering me...
Since his first novel in 1959, Colin Spencer has written eight more a...$45.00
Jean-Michel Basquiat grew up as the son of an accountant and spent his youth as a graffiti artist. Before he knew it, the young Basquiat had been catapulted to the heights of fame because of his blackness, good looks and lack of formal art trai...$25.00
When Jacob Nammar was a young boy growing up in Harret al-Nammareh, his family, his friends, and the streets of his West Jerusalem neighborhood were the center o...$15.00
Tragedy and innocence coexist in this delicate reconstruction of the author's childhood during Lebanon's civil war
In 1975 I was seven years old, and loved the Bazooka bubble-gums my mother would buy for Walid...$24.95
Who'd have thought a missing bacon rasher and a teaspoon would play a part in advancing someone's career?
It's the late '60s and Jane Yeadon has always wanted to be a district nurse. Staff nursing in a ward where she's ch...$18.00


text:
A tornado warning originally issued around 4 p.m. in central and east central Ontario County has been canceled. As of 4:59, no warnings or advisories were in effect for Canandaigua or Ontario County.
The NWS Doppler radar indicated a severe thunderstorm capable of producing a tornado near Bloomfield at 3:57. Radar then indicated the storm shifted to areas near Geneva and Hall, east of Canandaigua, and was capable of producing a tornado, quarter-sized hail and damaging straight-line winds.
The warning was then downgraded to a severe thunderstorm warning for the Geneva area, but was lifted at 5:08 p.m.