Recently in Culture Category

During Sefirat Ha'Omer, many Jews observe some customs of morning in memory of R. Akiva's students. According to Wikipedia:

The period of counting the Omer is also a time of semi-mourning, during which the Halakha forbids haircuts, shaving, listening to live instrumental music, or conducting weddings, parties, and dinners with dancing.

But even in matters of custom there can be multple opinions. For example, every year I get several e-mails asking about what types of music are permitted during the 'Omer. Some distinguish between live and recorded music, others avoid music with instruments. While I personally find these distinctions inconsequential since the entire practice is a matter of custom, let it not be said that here at YUTOPIA we are completely intolerant of minhagim. And so in honor of Sefirat Ha'Omer, I've decided this year to compile my favorite a capella videos from YouTube.¹

This apocryphal factoid seemed appropriate for Yom Ha'atzmaut. From a 2003 Hadassah article:

According to Jewish educator and comics fan and writer Alan Oirich, artist Gil Kane based his design of the large-headed, balding Guardians of the Universe in DC's Green Lantern on David Ben-Gurion.

You be the judge:

Image from Cracked

Dear Loyal Readers,
I recently decided to cash out my credit card points from my American Express card to move. In my program each point is worth 1/2 a cent. As you could imagine most of the items in their store are "overpriced" at that ratio, but through their "Giving Express" program, AmEx allows for donating points at a rate of 1 cent per point to any charity in the GuideStar database.

I currently have 8,000 points left which translates into one $50 donation and three $10 donations.¹ The question is, where should it go?

A few months ago I wrote a short article for the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals' new journal Conversations. The purpose of this journal is to promote communal dialogue on various issues facing the Jewish community. Unlike the Edah/Meorot journals, the journal is supposed to be more accessible than academic and so I was given two editorial conditions:1. keep it short and 2. no footnotes.

As longtime blog readers know, that last condition was a tough one to overcome.

At any rate, I'm posting my article "A Fair And Balanced Approach To Jewish Social Justice" and I plan on revisiting the motivations for the article at some later point.

I'm still looking for a place to live on the Lower East Side. The rents have really gotten out of control with the economy and many others are trying to sell. To top it off, the co-ops have fees ranging from $1,000-$1,500 just for the right to rent in that building. In fact were it not for parsonage, I'd never be able to even consider living down there.

What's parsonage you may ask? The term originally referred to a rectory or dwelling of the priest on the premises of a church. These days it's more associated with a tax benefit given to clergy members where housing expenses are paid with pre-tax dollars (simplified definition). Quoth the IRS:

A minister who is furnished a parsonage may exclude from income the fair rental value of the parsonage, including utilities. However, the amount excluded cannot be more than the reasonable pay for the minister's services.

The catch is that clergy are also considered "self-employed" which means we get nailed double when it comes to social security, paying both the employee and employer side of things. However, there is one interesting loophole:

The fair rental value of a parsonage or the housing allowance is excludable from income only for income tax purposes. No exclusion applies for self-employment tax purposes. For Social Security purposes, a duly ordained, licensed or commissioned minister is self-employed...However, you can request an exemption from self-employment tax, if you are conscientiously opposed to public insurance for religious reasons.

Even if a Rabbi were to go Milton Friedman in lomdus on the IRS, I'd have to guess that most Rabbis do in fact participate in social security.

Still I'd love to hear from any Rabbi who has in fact used this exemption - and the arguments they've used.

Those of you up on the latest in Kosher food scene probably heard about the new kosher Subway in the financial district on 28 Water Street. While this is not the first kosher Subway - there are locations in Brooklyn, Queens, and Livingston NJ - this one just happens to be conviniently across the street from my office. Like many Jews in the area, I thought I'd give it a shot on its first day as part of the tribe.

Like all good New Yorkers, I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday's game. It was actually the first time in years I can remember watching the game with friends with the intent of actually enjoying the game - as opposed to "parties" where socialization or watching for the commercials¹ takes precedent.

I'll leave the actual football discussion to those more qualified, but I did notice three trends with how people relate to the game. The first trend is historical revisionism and occurs when the media completely rewrites the narrative depending on the outcome. Had Plaxico Buress not made the deciding catch, we would be talking about Wes Welker's inspired performance, how Brady's ankle was a non-story, and how Randy Moss made the difference in the game and achieved redemption. Many football games are decided on one play at the end of the game, and yet that microcosm of football will retroactively influence all which preceded it. This is of course most convenient for media writers who are expected to churn out "analysis" on a moment's notice and likely have two versions of the game written up, and will be ready with either narrative regardless of the outcome.²

Given that sports media rarely have opportunity (or capacity) for insight, talking heads will often resort to glib clichés. One such example is the post-game assertion that the winning team "wanted it more." This is nonsense for two reasons. First, in high-profile games such as the Superbowl, it is safe to assume that both teams desire victory. It's the Superbowl after all! One caller to WFAN similarly opined before the Giants/Dallas playoff game that the winner would be "who wants it more." The host correctly responded that it's the playoffs! Everyone wants to win in the playoffs! Secondly, the assumption is that mere desire wins games, not the ability to execute plays.³ Did Plaxico Burress want to win more than Wes Welker? Tom Brady more than Eli Manning? Jason Tuck more than Teddy Bruschi? Tom Coughlin more than Bill Billicheck? Equating after-the-fact results with desire is disrespectful to the effort of both teams.

Finally, I noticed a gender-based clichés in how men and women approach the game. Naturally the men were more into the game, but were clearly focused on the seriousness of each play and how it would effect the outcome. By the end of the game we were joking that according to our conversations were at least seven "biggest plays of the game right here." On the flip side, the hostess had a less-competitive approach to the game, saying more than a few times, "regardless of who wins, this is a really good game." She gets credit for trying, the guys were having none of it, "no, it's about who wins."

Got any more of your own?

1. With few exceptions (the FedEx pigeon, the balloons, Carville/Frist, and the Terminator assaulting the irrationally irritating Fox Football Robot), this year's commercials were particularly depressing This is not surprising considering that Superbowl commercials have collectively declined in quality for several years. This trend started several years ago when the ads became more tongue-in-cheek postmodern self-referential satires of the institution of "Superbowl commercials." Think of the "we just wasted $1,000,000 on this ad" commercials or GoDaddy's commercial which referenced the previous year's commercial. Since advertisers went for snark and clever over funny there has been no going back to the glory days of talking frogs and Bud Bowl.
2. For an amusing example of such a hedge, see the Amazon page for 19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots which includes the following Amazon marketing line, "Buy this book with New York Giants: 2008 Super Bowl Champions by Sports Publishing today!"
3. Another in a long list of football clichés.

The big Jewish story of Summer 2007 was Professor Noah Feldman's now infamous New York Times Magazine article "Orthodox Paradox" (July 22, 2007) in which Feldman critiques Modern Orthodoxy as being inherently and irrevocably inconsistent. The specific "paradox" to which Feldman points is that on one hand Modern Orthodoxy claims to embrace the secular world, yet simultaneously maintains a religious prejudice against it. Feldman cites examples of Jewish particularism in the Talmudic law that Jews do not desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jew and through the personal ignominy he faced at his high school reunion having been ostracized due to his intermarriage.

Feldman's article generated some of the most vociferous discussion among the Jewish intelligentsia and throughout the J-Blogosphere, with Feldman being vilified for betraying the Jewish people either for intermarrying or through voicing his critiques in a public forum.¹ While the frenzy has died down since the summer, Feldman exposed a nerve in the Jewish community which still rightfully still agitates many. To address some of those issues and the subsequent reaction, on Thursday October 18th NYU hosted a symposium entitled, "Orthodox Paradox: A Debate on Jewish Values" featuring the eclectic trio of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, philanthropist Michael Steinhart, and the aforementioned Professor Noah Feldman.

Despite the event's classification as a "debate", there was little collective coherency among the three panelists. Instead of addressing one area of "Jewish values" each panelist discussed his own approach to the question based on his own individual set of values.

The big Jewish story of Summer 2007 was Professor Noah Feldman's now infamous New York Times Magazine article "Orthodox Paradox" (July 22, 2007) in which Feldman critiques Modern Orthodoxy as being inherently and irrevocably inconsistent. The specific "paradox" to which Feldman points is that on one hand Modern Orthodoxy claims to embrace the secular world, yet simultaneously maintains a religious prejudice against it. Feldman cites examples of Jewish particularism in the Talmudic law that Jews do not desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jew and through the personal ignominy he faced at his high school reunion having been ostracized due to his intermarriage.

Feldman's article generated some of the most vociferous discussion among the Jewish intelligentsia and throughout the J-Blogosphere, with Feldman being vilified for betraying the Jewish people either for intermarrying or through voicing his critiques in a public forum.¹ While the frenzy has died down since the summer, Feldman exposed a nerve in the Jewish community which still rightfully still agitates many. To address some of those issues and the subsequent reaction, on Thursday October 18th NYU hosted a symposium entitled, "Orthodox Paradox: A Debate on Jewish Values" featuring the eclectic trio of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, philanthropist Michael Steinhart, and the aforementioned Professor Noah Feldman.

Despite the event's classification as a "debate", there was little collective coherency among the three panelists. Instead of addressing one area of "Jewish values" each panelist discussed his own approach to the question based on his own individual set of values.

New York has always been a culturally dynamic city, but certain neighborhoods have generally been able to maintain their character over the years. To some extent people follow reputations; once an area establishes an identity it is likely to attract those who find such an area attractive, thus perpetuating the status quo. Economics likely play a larger, but related role, in that certain neighborhoods may attract diversity due to cheaper rents while others will be more exclusive due to the high costs. But even the formerly inoculated communities have been finding that as the economies change, so goes the neighborhood.