Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Donald Trump Requests Security Clearance for Son-in-Law Jared Kushner: The problem of nepotism


Donald Trump has taken the unprecedented step of requesting his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, receive top-secret clearance to join him for his Presidential Daily Briefings, which began Tuesday.

Multiple sources tell NBC News Trump received his first briefing on Tuesday and designated both Kushner and Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn as his staff-level companions for the briefings going forward.

While Flynn has the necessary security clearance, Kushner does not, and it could take weeks — or even longer — for him to receive it.

It's the latest in a series of unorthodox developments in Trump's transition process that have cast a pall over his first week as president-elect.

On Tuesday, former Rep. Mike Rogers announced he was leaving the transition team, as part of what sources close to the transition process told NBC News was a "purge" of loyalists to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was demoted from leading the effort last week due in large part to grudges held by Trump and Kushner, sources say.

Naming Steve Bannon, founder and chairman of controversial conservative Alt Right-leaning outlet Breitbart, as a chief strategist in his White House sparked backlash from Democrats and gave Republicans on Capitol Hill a new headache, as many dodged questions about Bannon's controversial comments about minorities, among other things.

And on Tuesday Trump also rolled out his Presidential Inaugural Committee leadership, a list that was packed with many of Trump's biggest donors and fundraisers and as such raised further questions about his pledge to "Drain the Swamp" and rid Washington of corruption.

While it's unclear when Kushner would receive security clearance, the legality of such a move is murky as well, as it raises questions about whether Trump is contravening the anti-nepotism law that bars presidents from appointing family members to cabinet positions or formal government jobs.[...]

Still, experts note the purpose of the 1967 anti-nepotism statute is to prevent nepotistic favoritism in the wielding of federal power and benefits, so any notion of granting such an important federal power to a non-employee family member contradicts the purpose and spirit of that law, as well as standard practice.

It's unprecedented for a "child or family member" to receive security clearances, said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer who has held that kind of security clearance and clerked for the National Security Archive.

He added, "You can't hold a security clearance as an informal advisor — there is no such concept."

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

It is claimed that there is a 40% drop out rate from Israeli yeshivos - what is the solution?

BHOL

אחד הסודות הרגישים ביותר בחברה החרדית הוא שיעורי הנשירה ממערכת החינוך החרדית. מחקר של מכון ירושלים לחקר ישראל, שפורסם בקיץ, בדק את נתוני הנשירה מהישיבות הקטנות — התיכונים החרדיים לבנים. על פי המחקר, מספר הנושרים מהישיבות הקטנות נע בין 2,000 ל–3,000 בשנה, 3.5%–6% מהמחזור. בחישוב שש־שנתי מדובר בשיעורי נשירה מצטברים של 20%–40% מהמחזור. אלו הם שיעורי נשירה עצומים. לשם ההשוואה, לפי השנתון החרדי של ישראל — שנתון שמפורסם במשותף על ידי מכון ירושלים והמכון לדמוקרטיה — אלה הם שיעורי נשירה כפולים עד גבוהים פי ארבעה משיעורי הנשירה במערכת החינוך הממלכתית.

ההסבר לשיעורי הנשירה העצומים הללו הוא אופי הלימוד התובעני והנוקשה של הישיבות הקטנות: במהלך שלוש שנות הישיבה (כיתות ט'־יא'), הנערים לומדים לימודי קודש בלבד, בדרך כלל בלימוד עצמי בחברותא, בימי לימוד שנמשכים משעות הבוקר המוקדמות ועד שעות הלילה המאוחרות. לכן מרבית הישיבות הקטנות מציעות תנאי פנימייה. תנאי הלימוד התובעניים מעודדים מצוינות — ואת ההצלחה של מתי המעט שהם "תלמידי חכמים" אוטודידקטיים — אבל מקשים מאוד על הבינוניים והחלשים. התוצאה היא נשירה גלויה או סמויה ניכרת בישיבות הקטנות.

משרד החינוך זיהה לפני כמה שנים את נקודת התורפה הזו של מערכת החינוך החרדית, ופתח מוסדות חינוך טכנולוגיים לנוער חרדי נושר. פתיחת המוסדות הללו מסבירה את הקיטון במספר הנושרים מ–3,000 ל–2,000 בשנה (שיעור הנשירה של הבנים ירד מ–6% ל–3.5% מהמחזור).

ואולם לדברי הרב בצלאל כהן, מדובר בפלסטר לבעיה עמוקה בהרבה: "משרד החינוך נכנס עם תקציבים גדולים לבתי הספר הטכנולוגיים — זה אינטרס של החברה החרדית, והיו גם כספים קואליציוניים לכך — ולכאורה מקטין את היקף הנשירה. בפועל, מדובר בנוער שכבר מתרחק מהדת, עם דימוי עצמי ומוטיווציה נמוכים, ועם יעדים חינוכיים נמוכים. בתי הספר הללו מציעים בגרות טכנולוגית חלקית, וזה לא מאפשר אופק מקצועי מרשים מדי".

=====================================================

הרב הירש במתקפה חריפה: לימודים באקדמיה - חשש כפירה

הבוקר מתפרסמים דבריו של חבר מועצת גדולי התורה של "דגל התורה" וראש ישיבת סלבודקה הרב משה הלל הירש, שיוצא נגד הלימודים האקדמיים לגברים ולנשים • "אם יש מרצה שאינו מאמין בתורה, זה מכניס קרירות ביראת שמים"


"אין חסינות. בכל לימודים בסביבה אקדמאית יש סכנה. אנחנו לא מדברים  על דבר דק ועדין, אלא על דברים חמורים, הרחק מעליה דרכך זו מינות" - כך התבטא הגאון רבי משה הלל הירש, ראש ישיבת סלבודקא וחבר מועצת גדולי התורה של 'דגל התורה'. 

הדברים החריפים פורסמו הבוקר (שלישי) בעיתון 'יתד נאמן', כחלק ממסע הסברה וקמפיין שעורך אחד הארגונים בשבועות האחרונים כנגד מה שהוא מכנה "פגעי האקדמיה". הבוקר, כאמור, הובאו דבריו של ראש ישיבת סלבודקה, שמשתמש בשפה חריפה מאד נגד הלימודים במסגרות האקדמיות. 

הגרמ"ה הירש ציטט בדבריו מהגמרא ואמר כי - "צריך להתרחק מכל שמיעת דיבור מינות אפילו קל שבקלים... נכנס לקורס פרופסור, זה גורם בהכרח קרירות בעבודת ה'. יתכן שהאב יאמר על הבת שלו: "היא בחורה חזקה" – זו טעות חמורה... יתכן בחורים מצויינים ביותר בלימוד, בתפילה, וכו', ויש להם בליבם הרהורים אפילו בעיקרי אמונה, שאף אחד מבחוץ לא יודע". [...]

On quest to clear Kasztner, historian ‘shocked’ to prove Nazi collaboration


But for British Jewish historian Paul Bogdanor, his ambition to find material defending the controversial wartime Zionist leader, Rudolf Kasztner, was cruelly thwarted.

Bogdanor was “extremely shocked” to find that everything pointed towards Kasztner’s having been “a collaborator” with the Nazis, and a “betrayer of the Zionist movement and the Jewish people.”

Bogdanor’s new book, “Kasztner’s Crime,” published in October, sets out the case against the Jewish leader in damning detail. Even the most devoted defender might have second thoughts after reading his book.

Ironically, Bogdanor set out to work on the book almost a decade ago in a bid “to prove Kasztner’s innocence.” He was tired of seeing Kasztner’s name come up repeatedly in anti-Zionist propaganda.

Kasztner was a leader of a small Zionist grouping in Budapest towards the end of World War II. He led a Jewish rescue committee which, before the Nazis entered Hungary, did succeed in saving the lives of a number of Jews. But once the Nazis arrived, Kasztner, an ambitious lawyer, became embroiled in prolonged negotiations with the Nazi leadership, particularly Adolf Eichmann.

After complex dealings with Eichmann, Kasztner succeeded in getting the Nazis to agree to the deportation of a group of 1,684 Hungarian Jews, the so-called “Kasztner Train,” who eventually ended up in freedom in Switzerland.

But thousands more continued on the doomed path to Auschwitz. Bogdanor says that not only did Kasztner know they were being sent to their deaths, but that he actively kept such information secret from other Jews in Hungary and the wider Jewish world.

Kasztner himself did not get on the train, but survived the war and made his way to Palestine. By 1952 he was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and a would-be member of Knesset, though he did not succeed in obtaining a place high enough on the Mapai list to become elected.

Nevertheless, when, in 1953, an embittered Hungarian Jew named Malkiel Gruenwald distributed a pamphlet about Kasztner, naming him as a Nazi collaborator, the Israeli government thought highly enough of him to bring a libel suit on his behalf, accusing Gruenwald of defamation.[...]

On March 3, 1957, right-wing extremists shot Kasztner dead. The following year, too late for him, the court verdict was reversed, suggesting that much of what was claimed against him was not correct. Leading the campaign in ensuing years to rehabilitate Kasztner was journalist and political Tommy Lapid, himself a Hungarian Jew and father of Yair Lapid, the leader of today’s Yesh Atid party.

“Kasztner didn’t start out as someone evil,” says Bogdanor. “He started out as someone who wanted to rescue Jews, and before March 1944, he did rescue Jews. But when the Nazis occupied Hungary, he began negotiating with them and, very quickly, I argue, he became a collaborator.” [...]

Bogdanor makes it clear that while the case against Kasztner is damning, the anti-Zionist claim “that Kasztner was part of a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe, is nonsense.”

“He was not acting on behalf of the Zionist movement, he betrayed it. This is proved in my book by the fact that he was feeding his contacts in the free world Nazi disinformation. If there had been a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis, Kasztner wouldn’t have been feeding the Zionists Nazi disinformation,” says Bogdanor.

Joel Brand, who traveled to Istanbul, only to be arrested by the British. (Courtesy)
Joel Brand, who traveled to Istanbul, only to be arrested by the British. (Courtesy)

Kasztner was “drawn into this web of collaboration,” says Bogdanor, by degrees. Part of it was his own sense of aggrandizement and vanity that he was the sole conduit for the Nazis to deal with the Jews of Hungary.

Bogdanor notes members of Kasztner’s rescue committee were the only Jews in the country who did not have to wear a yellow star. They were permitted to continue to use their own cars and telephones and Kasztner, within a month of the occupation, was the only Jew allowed to travel from the capital to the provinces.[...]

The central charge made against Kasztner by the surviving Hungarian Jews was, says Bogdanor, “not just that he failed to warn them [of the Nazis’ intention]. It was that Kasztner had instructed local Jewish leadership to mislead them, and to deceive them into boarding the trains to Auschwitz. After Kasztner had visited the local communities, the leadership spread false information — which he had given them — that the Jews were going to be resettled inside Hungary. Agranat and the other judges overlooked this matter of deception.”

Bogdanor admits to being profoundly shocked by the depth and extent of what he found out about Kasztner. It would have been bad enough, he argues, if Kasztner had passively collaborated with the Nazis. But he actively collaborated, he says, taking steps to mislead both Jews inside Hungary and his Jewish contacts in the outside world.[....]

Bogdanor has met Holocaust survivors from Hungary “who are extremely distressed by the campaign to rehabilitate Kasztner. I felt a greater obligation to them to do what I could for them… Kasztner did know that Jews were being exterminated, he knew and he repeatedly admitted it. His defenders have to say he didn’t know, which is contrary to the facts.”

He saw “a tsunami of pro-Kasztner sentiment,” which had spurred him to write the book, and next year playwright Motti Lerner’s eponymous Kasztner is set for a revival production by Israel’s national theater.

Paul Bogdanor says he constantly asked himself during the decade it took him to write the book, “Am I wrong? Am I sure?”

“But yes,” he concludes. “I am as sure as it is possible to be. Kasztner was guilty.”

Monday, November 14, 2016

As expected Trump seems to be walking back promises about moving embassy to Jerusalem and dismantling Iran deal

update CBS News - how says he is not sure he wants to carry out his threat of appointing a special prosecutor to get Hillary Clinton

Times of Israel

Appearing to walk back statements made by president-elect and other advisers, Walid Phares says nuclear pact will be ‘renegotiated,’ US mission will only be moved to Jerusalem under ‘consensus,’ brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace deal will be top priority

A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump said the new US leader will “review” the Iran nuclear agreement, but will stop short of ripping up the landmark international pact.

Walid Phares, one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers, also signaled that Trump might not move the US Embassy to Jerusalem immediately and indicated he would make negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal a priority right off the bat

The comments appeared to represent a break with some comments made by other Trump advisers and the president-elect himself, and highlighted persisting confusion over what the contours of a Trump administration’s foreign policy may look like.

Speaking to BBC Radio on Thursday, Phares said the nuclear deal, which Trump has railed against and vowed to dismantle, would instead be renegotiated with Tehran.

“Ripping up is maybe a too strong of word, he’s gonna take that agreement, it’s been done before in international context, and then review it,” he said, according to a CNN recording of the interview.

“He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore a few issues or change a few issues, and there will be a discussion,” Phares added. “It could be a tense discussion but the agreement as is right now — $750 billion to the Iranian regime without receiving much in return and increasing intervention in four countries — that is not going to be accepted by the Trump administration.”

During the election campaign, Trump described the nuclear deal as “disastrous” and said it would be his “number one priority” to dismantle it.

Yet he also sowed confusion when he said he would demand greater oversight over the deal and enforce it, at a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC in March. In that same speech, he also said he would dismantle the deal.

“We must enforce the terms of the previous deal to hold Iran totally accountable. And we will enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before, folks, believe me,” he said then.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner warned that nothing was stopping Trump from tearing up the agreement, rebuffing comments from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that the pact was enshrined by the United Nations Security Council and could therefore not be canceled by one party.

The agreement, reached in July 2014 to thwart suspected work toward an atomic weapon, requires Iran to curb its nuclear enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel was and remains the world’s leading critic of the deal, calling it a “historic mistake” and arguing that it falls woefully short of preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Toner said if Trump pulls out of the agreement, it could fall apart and lead to Iran restarting work toward a bomb.

It’s not clear if Iran, which remains deeply distrustful of the United States and has complained of receiving a raw deal under the nuclear pact, would be open to renegotiating the agreement, the hard-fought result of years of intensive diplomatic activity.

Will move embassy ‘under consensus’

Phares also told the BBC that while Trump was committed to moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as other presidential candidates have vowed, he would not do so unilaterally.

“Many presidents of the United States have committed to do that, and he said as well that he will do that, but he will do it under consensus,” Phares said.

Phares did not elaborate on what consensus would be sought for such a move, which would break with decades of precedent and put Washington at odds with nearly all United Nations member states.[...]

The moral saviour waffles: Trump says 17-month-old gay marriage ruling is ‘settled’ law — but 43-year-old abortion ruling isn’t


Donald Trump sent a message about his priorities to social conservatives Sunday on "60 Minutes”: On abortion, I'll keep fighting. On gay marriage, not so much.

But his justification was confusing — and likely will be to some of his biggest supporters in the evangelical community. Trump basically said that the Supreme Court's 17-month-old ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide is over and done with, but its 43-year-old decision legalizing abortion — Roe v. Wade — shouldn't be. And he did all of this in the course of a few minutes.

Here's the exchange on gay marriage:

LESLEY STAHL: Do you support marriage equality?

TRUMP: It — it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

STAHL: So even if you appoint a judge that —

TRUMP: It’s done. It — you have — these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.

Just prior, though, Trump said he would appoint “pro-life” judges in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states:

STAHL: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint — are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: So look, here’s what’s going to happen — I’m going to — I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very —

STAHL: But what about overturning this law —

TRUMP: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be — in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment, and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment, and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and —

STAHL: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

TRUMP: No, it’ll go back to the states.

STAHL: By state — no some —

TRUMP: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

To put it mildly, these two positions are irreconcilable. Trump could make the case that the country favors gay marriage more than it does abortion. He could argue that one is simply more important to him because it involves issues of life. He could say it would be easier to overturn one than the other.

But those aren't his arguments. Instead, he props up a 17-month-old decision on gay marriage as settled law, but a 1973 decision on abortion as something that could be overturned. That's having it both ways.[...]

Dovid Lichtenstein's interview with Rav Sorscher about abuse in Lakewood


From Jewish Community Watch
Former Rav of Whispering Pines Shul in Lakewood Rabbi Aharon Sorscher opened up on "Headlines with Dovid Lichtenstein" about his firsthand experience with community backlash after confronting a perpetrator who abused someone in his family.
Rabbi Sorscher confronted the predator, demanded he leave his post as teacher/camp counselor, and demand that he seek counseling. After initially admitting to abusing the child, the perpetrator denied the acts and members of the community started a campaign defending the man. Rabbi Sorscher then moved with his family to Michigan because members of his family were being harassed and no longer felt comfortable in their Lakewood community.
"'There's not enough awareness of the tremendous danger a molester brings [to the community]" Rabbi Sorscher said. "If the people [defenders of child abusers] realize that they wouldn't be able to justify their actions."
"If people would have empathy, they would think straight, and understand what they have to do."
During the in-depth radio show on abuse, Lichtenstein also interviewed survivors of notorious pedophiles Mondrowitz and Kolko. Their testimony is heartbreaking.

Convicted Sex Offender Yona Weinberg Sues Rabbi for Tweets Alerting Families in Israel


Israel has no national sex offender registry, so Rabbi Horowitz thought he was helping by tweeting to families about a convicted sex offender in their midst.

One would think that a convicted sex offender might want to stay out of the courts in his new country of residence.

Not so with Yona Weinberg.

The Brooklyn sex offender who moved to Israel in 2014 the day after police knocked on his door over new charges, is suing a New York rabbi for defamation after the rabbi, Yakov Horowitz, tweeted Weinberg’s whereabouts in Jerusalem. Israel does not have a public sex offender registry so the rabbi, a child advocate, warned residents via Twitter that Weinberg was a dangerous presence in their midst.

Weinberg’s Brooklyn-based lawyer Samuel Karliner, who helped him manage sex-offender registry requirements while he was in the United States, said his client did not flee to Israel, as Horowitz’s tweets contended, and that he had been planning to move there with his family for some time.


Few days ago, I tweeted warning from magainu
Har Nof residents:

Beware of Convicted sex offender yona Weinberg.
http://
-jason-weinberg/ 

deeply troubled some Har Nof ppl suppressing efforts to warn residents of Convicted sex offender yona Weinberg.
http://
-jason-weinberg/ 

After more than a year of legal wrestling, the two are set to appear in a Jerusalem court on November 23 for a preliminary hearing.

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz is flying to Israel to defend himself.

“The ticket is purchased. Let the games begin,” said Horowitz, founding dean of Orthodox yeshiva Darchei Noam in Rockland County, about 25 miles north of New York City

The rabbi feels he must fight the charges to avoid setting a dangerous legal precedent in a country that has become a destination of choice for some Orthodox child molesters due to its open door policies toward all Jews.

A loss would mean, “Every sex offender would be given the script: molest kids, move to Israel, sue anyone who posts anything about you,” said Horowitz, who is also the founder and director of the Center for Jewish Family Life/Project Y.E.S., a mentorship program for at-risk teens in New York.

Israeli courts leveled a $55,000 default judgment against Horowitz in June 2015 after he didn't show up in court. He said was unaware that he was being sued because he never opened the documents that a stranger threw at him while he was in the middle of teaching hundreds of people in a Jerusalem lecture hall at late at night.

“I assumed it was threatening stuff for my advocacy, which has happened before,” he said of the papers.

He ended up paying several hundred dollars to have the judgement removed, money he could have spent settling the case, he said. But that would have required him to admit wrongdoing and remain quiet.

He refused. “I will fight this until the end,” he said. Otherwise, “People will be terrified to post information about sex offenders.”

To win a defamation case in Israel, a plaintiff must only prove that degrading things had been said or written about him. Unlike in the United States, he does not have to prove his reputation, livelihood or social standing have been harmed, according to legal experts.[...]

Indeed, Weinberg silenced Jerusalem’s Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn by threatening him with a defamation lawsuit in May. The psychologist and child advocate, who had posted newspaper accounts of his 2009 conviction and warnings that included Weinberg’s address in Har Nof, immediately deleted all mention of the convicted sex offender from his blog. [...]

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says Trump tries to "silence his critics with the threat of legal action."


Several hours after Donald Trump's campaign manager warned Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to be careful "in a legal sense" after he released a statement calling the president-elect a "sexual predator," Reid's spokesman criticized Trump for trying to "silence his critics with the threat of legal action."

“It only took five days for President-elect Trump to try to silence his critics with the threat of legal action. This should shock and concern all Americans," Adam Jentleson, Reid's deputy chief of staff, said in a statement released Sunday.

“Trump has always used threats and intimidation to silence his critics," Jentleson continued. "Now he wants to silence a discussion of the acts of hate and threats of violence being committed in his name across the country. Silencing this discussion normalizes hate and intimidates the victims."

On Sunday morning, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" with host Chris Wallace, said she found Reid's public comments about Trump and other Republicans "to be beyond the pale."

"He should be very careful about characterizing somebody in a legal sense. He thinks — he thinks he's just being some kind of political pundit there, but I would say be very careful about the way you characterize it," Conway said to Wallace.

Conway then tried to backtrack from her comments, saying she was not suggesting Trump would sue the Nevada Democrat but was calling "for responsibility and maturity and decency for somebody who has held one of the highest positions in our government, in a country of more than 300 million people."

Daas Torah's voter recommendation: It has damaged the claim of Divine inspiration and truth. Please talk me off of a religious cliff

I received this letter before the elections and just obtained permission to post it. It is a further extension of the weakening of emunas chachomim that resulted from the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter and is a genuine problem.

Hi
I've been a regular reader of your site for some time. One thing which is unique about your blog is your willingness to stake out unpopular opinions. I was further heartened to see you take a critical stance on Trump.
So, I'm turning to you. Perhaps you can talk me off of this ledge.
'Daas Torah' has been heavily involved in this election. I've heard at least 4 different versions.
1. R Yeruchem Olshin said to vote for Trump. He compared it to Dovid and Shaul. Shaul sinned in public and lost the melucha, Dovid sinned privately and retained the melucha. Hilary is publicly corrupt, so don't vote for her. Trump sinned privately so vote for him.

2. R' Shmuel Kamentsky. R' Edelstein called America 'asray d'mar' (mar indeed) and r' Kamenetsky' view should be followed.

3. R' Yitzchok Yehuda Blum, respected rov in cleveland. He said Hilary is a rotzayach (apparently there are some conspiracy theories that have her murdering up to 50 people). He also said that she will put Jewish lives in danger; therefore it's pikuch nefesh. 
4. Satmer rebbe. Trump is a supporter of Israel. Since Israel is bad, Trump is bad too.
 5. Skvere rebbe. Vote for Hillary.

None of these views reflect the Torah's outlook. They are riddled with logical inconsistencies and rooted in hate. How has Trump sinned privately? Everything the man does is l'fnai kol aam v'aydah. How is giving an irresponsible demagogue access to nuclear bombs not pikuch nefesh? Satmer and Skver are hoping to capitalize on their existing relationships with Hilary to keep the gravy train rolling. 
I'm left with this: The concept of Da'as Torah is a farce. It's a masquerade. It allows rabbanim to take their personal political views and package it a divine mandate. I used to think that we're a nation of smart people. Now I see that we're just like everyone else. We are just as susceptible to bias and hate as all the other nations. 
And so, how can I rely on anything I hear? How can I trust anything I hear from our Rabbanim? How can I be sure that every utterance is not influenced by personal beliefs? Where is the limit to blindness and bias? How can we claim the halachic process is pure? How can we claim to authentically transmit our heritage? How can we be sure it has been shaped and molded by personal opinion and prejudice? How can we be sure personal opinion hasn't infiltrated our halacha? 
And if the masses blindly follow the rabbinic dicta, how can we trust mesorah at all? Instead of critically evaluating issues, like sheep, the masses just followed along. I used to rely on the Kuzari to explain Sinaic revelation - no one would make such a claim etc. Now I see that the opposite is true. The bigger the claim, the more outlandish, the more exaggerated something is, the higher the chance of people accepting it. Instead of using reason and truth as guiding principles, people rely on bias and superstition and exaggerations that align with their deeply held prejudice. 
I'd like to somehow still believe. Please help me walk away from this cliff

Sunday, November 13, 2016

In a recent post heading I mentioned Donald Trump as the Saviour of America - and I meant this literally

The following is a post regarding how to understand my post "I want to belief in the tooth fairy, killer clowns, Satanic abuse rings, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America."

I meant the title to mean exactly what it says. A criticism of those who view Trump - not as potentially good and competent president but one who will literally save America in some mysterious manner. There was a similar attitude to Obama at the beginning of his presidency when he won the Nobel Peace Prize - even though he hadn't done anything to deserve it. It just was assumed he would get around to it because the expectations about him were so high. My correspondent disagrees and says that my readership understood it to be that I rejected the possibility of Trump being even a competent president. In short this is a question of reading comprehension. I had reiterated that I had meant this literally and was not rejecting Trump's potential to be a good president in a comment to the post. Nevertheless my correspondent asked that I explicitly bring up this issue.

============================================

Guest Post
I sent the following ‘warning’ in an email to Daas Torah regarding the Post, ‘I want to belief in the tooth fairy, killer clowns, Satanic abuse rings, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America.’:
A Warning
Rabbi, conflating the hope people have for Donald Trump, the President Elect of the United States with belief in ‘killer clowns, the tooth fairy Satanic abuse rings, and the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter’, damages your credibly vis-à-vis the Heter. With the Heter issue, you have been careful to distinguish between opinion and fact. As certain as you are that Trump is ‘insane’, unfit for the Presidency; your certitude is just an opinion. On a subtextual level, the above mentioned conflation relegates a Halachic certainly, i.e., the worthlessness of the Heter, to the realm of speculation.
Dass Torah wrote a new Post challenging my ‘warning’. DT posted my warning and responded:
An example of concerns which motivated my publishing of this post is an email I just received in response to this post. My unwillingness to accept that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America - is viewed as undermining my credibility that has been established by what I have published here - most of which is carefully documented. I find it unsettling that belief in Donald Trump as Saviour is the litmus test of a person's integrity and intellectual achievement. We are not talking about Donald Trump as a possibly competent president but as Saviour!
I responded with the following email:
I realize that I should have been more explicit in the ‘warning’ I sent you regarding your Post, ‘I want to belief in the tooth fairy, killer clowns, Satanic abuse rings, the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter and that Donald Trump is the Saviour of America.’. Please give this a fair reading. You are blogging, not submitting a treatise on Eschatology; thus, your readership understands your use of ‘Saviour’ in a colloquial sense, in an informal, conversational manner. This would lead to the logical conclusion that you were referring to Trump supporters in general, and would assume that you are conflating, comparing those who have hope and faith in Trump (like me) with those who believe in the ‘tooth fairy' and the legitimacy of the 'Heter’. This explains the push back you experienced. 
Obviously, you used the term in its explicit, formal sense, meaning “…those who in fact think he is the Saviour…”, as you posted in a reply. That is your opinion. However, Trumps negatives are so high, that this group of ‘meshiachists’, if it exists at all, are a miut of a miut. Thus, those who respect your ‘integrity and intellectual achievement’, as I certainly do, took it as a dvar pshut that you meant ‘Saviour’ to be understood implicitly, colloquially.
In the last sentence in the ‘warning’, I used the term ‘subtextual’ with great care. Subtext refers to the implicit meaning of a text. Thus, I repeat, “On a subtextual level, the above mentioned conflation relegates a Halachic certainly, i.e., the worthlessness of the Heter, to the realm of speculation.”
My Daf Yomi shiur is a bit behind. We learned the other day, on daf 30 or 31 the source that one is permitted to give tochacha to his Rebbi. I feel that unfortunately I am in that position here. I submit with great respect and fondness, that you damaged your credibility with the Post in question. You are a very tenacious man. However, tenacity can be confused with obsessiveness. In my humble opinion, continuing to issue Posts regarding Trump is not in your best interests.

Dass Torah response:

I understand what you are saying - but I disagree with your ready assumption that Saviour wasn't meant literally. After all the same thing happened with Obama. He wasn't viewed as just a positive person and I think that Trump is viewed by many in the same way. I didn't think that you meant it literally either but it provided a basis to illustrate the issue.
My response:
Rabbi you misunderstood my email. Your readership is sophisticated enough to think that if one truly believes that Trump is the Savior in a literal manner, that such a deranged individual would also belief in the 'tooth fairy', etc. Thus, if they assumed you meant Saviour in a colloquial way, there would have been no disagreement. However, your readership pushed back, taking issue with you, Why?, Because they assumed you meant Saviour in the literal sense. . I think you should reread the email I sent earlier in this new light.
DT’s response which led to my Guest Post is as follows: 
The only way this will be resolved is if you post a response on the blog and ask the question as to how my heading was understood. Now let’s hear from Daas Torah’s readership.

Donald Trump keeps up media attacks with lies about New York Times


President-elect Donald Trump sounded very much like presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday morning in a pair of misleading tweets about the New York Times.


Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Wow, the @nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the "Trump phenomena"
4:16 PM - 13 Nov 2016


Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it?
4:43 PM - 13 Nov 2016

According to the New York Times Co.'s latest earnings report, the number of print copies it sold in the third quarter was down from the same period in 2015, but the decline was more than offset by 116,000 new digital-only subscriptions. Overall, third-quarter circulation revenue rose 3 percent; through the first nine months of the year, circulation revenue was up 2.8 percent.

Since Trump launched his White House campaign in June 2015, digital-only news subscriptions to the Times have increased 35 percent, to more than 1.3 million.

Trump's suggestion that the Times is bleeding readers because of “very poor and highly inaccurate coverage” does not square with the numbers.

The president-elect's interpretation of a letter to subscribers as an apology for bad coverage is a stretch. Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wrote Friday that one of the “inevitable questions” in the aftermath of the campaign is: “Did Donald Trump's sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?”

“As we reflect on this week's momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism,” Sulzberger added.[...]

Yet Sulzberger's full letter makes clear that he was simply renewing a promise that he believes the Times fulfilled during the campaign.

“We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign,” he wrote. “You can rely on the New York Times to bring the same level of fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”

We’ve seen two Donald Trumps. Who will show up at the White House?


We’ve seen two Donald Trumps in the past week. Which one will arrive at the White House on Inauguration Day?

The combative Trump who called President Obama “a disaster” and Hillary Clinton “a criminal,” or the gracious Trump who praised them after he won?

The vengeful Trump who vowed that Paul Ryan would pay if he didn’t support him fully, or the party-unifying Trump who met cordially with Ryan last week?

The prickly Trump who tweeted on Thursday about “professional protesters, incited by the media,” or the statesmanlike Trump who tweeted on Friday that he loved the demonstrators’ passion?

We won’t know for a while. It’s possible that Trump hasn’t decided yet.

More than most presidents-elect, Trump is still something of a blank slate — despite the millions of words he has spoken over the last year. He’s never held public office. He’s still an outsider in his own party. His attachment to his purported policies is unclear and subject to constant revision.

Almost the only thing we know for certain about Trump is that he is driven by a boundless will to win whatever competition he’s in. “My life has been about winning,” he told an interviewer last year.

But “winning” was easy to define in the heat of a presidential campaign, with an election as its goal.

The test Trump faces now is an essay question, not a zero-sum contest: What will his definition of “winning” be once he’s president?

We’ll get an early clue from one of his first decisions: whom he names as White House chief of staff.

Trump aides last week said two of the leading candidates were Stephen K. Bannon, the chief strategist for his presidential campaign, and Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

They represent a clear choice between two versions of Republicanism in the new Trump era. Bannon, head of the Breitbart News organization, is an apostle of the downmarket, blue-collar populism that helped Trump win millions of votes in the Rust Belt — and a defender of the “alt-right” camp that attracted white nationalists to the campaign. Priebus, by contrast, is a more conventional conservative, a Wisconsin party operative who built an effective organization at the RNC. Bannon has suggested that Ryan should be ousted as speaker of the House; Priebus is a Ryan fan.

The divide is more than ideological. Bannon and Priebus represent competing definitions of what a Trump presidency would be about and how it would govern.[...]

Trump was remarkably flexible during the campaign, even on issues at the core of his candidacy. His proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States turned into a milder suggestion for “extreme vetting.” His vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants became a decision for “a later date.” His threat to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe, he said, was mostly a negotiating chip.

But in the weeks before his inauguration, he has to make real decisions that aren’t so easily undone: the appointments to his White House staff and other top jobs. An ancient rule in Washington holds that personnel is policy. Through his choices, we will soon discover what kind of president this chimerical man may turn out to be.

Is it legal for the Chareidi paper "HaPeles" to lie and slander others to promote its ideological agenda?

BHOL

בית המשפט יכריע: האם ל'הפלס' מותר לשקר בשביל 'השקפה'

פרסום ראשון ב'בחדרי חרדים': תביעה שהגישה עמותת ידידות טורונטו נגד עיתון 'הפלס' מגיעה לשלב הסיום, לאחר שהעיתון סירב להצעת השופטת לפרסם התנצלות וטען כי מתקפות ארסיות הן טון מקובל לקהילה הרואה את עצמה מיעוט נרדף


פרסום ראשון ב'בחדרי חרדים': תביעת הדיבה שהגישה עמותת ידידות טורונטו נגד עיתון הפלס על הפרסומים נגדה הגיעה לשלב הסיום. הדיון האחרון בעניין התקיים לפני כשבוע ב-3.11.2016 בבית משפט השלום בהשתתפות הצוות המשפטי ונציג של כל צד. 

בדיון מחוץ לפרוטוקול, השופטת תמר בר-אשר צבן, דנה בתביעה על בסיס תצהירי ההוכחות שהוצגו עד כה. היא ציינה כי הפלס לא סיפק כל ראיה כדי לסתור את טענתה של ידידות טורונטו שהכתבה הכילה מספר אי דיוקים עובדתיים וכן כמה השמצות בלתי מבוססות בעליל. 

כתוצאה מכך, השופטת ציינה בפני הנתבעים (עיתון הפלס ובכירי צוות העריכה שלו) שלמרות שעיתון אינו נדרש בדרך כלל לחשוף את המקורות שלו, במקרה הנידון העיתון לא יוכל ליהנות מההגנה כי הטענות בכתבה הן נכונות. 

עורכי הדין של הפלס העלו את הטענה כי מקורותיהם חוששים להיחשף כיון שידידות טורונטו הינה ארגון חזק ורב עוצמה. בהמשך, ניסו לטעון כי ההתקפות הארסיות הינן הטון המקובל בקרב קהילה הרואה את עצמה כמיעוט נרדף. 

הצוות המשפטי של ידידות טורונטו השיב כי ידידות טורונטו הינו ארגון צדקה פילנתרופי, שנועד לסייע לאנשים במצוקה. הצוות אף הדגיש כי החוק אינו מחריג מיעוטים מציות לו, וכי טענות הפלס חסרות בסיס משפטי ומעודדות אלימות. 

[...]
השופטת הציעה לעיתון הפלס הזדמנות אחרונה לפרסם התנצלות מקיפה ובכך להגיע להסכם פשרה עם ידידות טורונטו. העיתון דחה את ההצעה וכתוצאה מכך, המשפט עובר לשלב הסופי והמכריע של חקירה נגדית, שתתקיים בדיון הבא בעוד כשלושה חודשים.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Donald Trump and the end of history


The last time we blew up the international system, it took two World Wars, a Cold War, and a Great Depression before we were able to get it back to where it'd been in 1913. With any luck, it won't require quite as much this time around.

That, make no mistake, is what Donald Trump's election might mean. I say "might," because we really don't know what he'll do in office. He's gone back and forth and back again on almost every issue. But if he's serious about jailing his political rivals, about cracking down on the free press, about potentially abandoning our allies, about encouraging them to get nuclear weapons of their own, and about ripping up free trade agreements, then the liberal international order that has bequeathed us a relative Pax Americana the past 70 years will be no more. It'll be the end of the end of history.

That's become a familiar theme the past year. From Europe's anti-immigrant parties edging closer to power to Britain's all-but-winning it with the country's vote to leave the European Union to Trump's ascension to the White House, Francis Fukuyama's famous idea that free-market liberal democracy had vanquished all its ideological foes and was the "final form of human government" seems to be, well, a little more temporary. Just as he could have told you himself. Fukuyama, you see, believed that just because we'd reached the end of history didn't mean we'd stay in the end of history. That peace and prosperity might not be enough for some people who would, "struggle for the sake of struggle" simply "out of a certain boredom" from living in a world that doesn't seem to have meaning or identity any more. And so we might see a 227 year-old republic succumb to someone who evinced only the slightest respect for constitutional norms and even less for minority groups.

How has it come to this? Well, the white working class is letting out a wail across the Western world against a political system they don't think recognizes them, and a society they don't recognize themselves. Add in the monotony of day-to-day life—why not smash it up just to see what happens?—and you've got a global revolt against the global order. Really, though, it's white men who are the ones rebelling against an economy that they feel like devalues their work, against a culture that they fear is devaluing their once-preeminent place in it, and against a mundane existence that devalues any kind of meaning. In other words, it's about economic anxiety, it's about racial resentment, it's about misogyny, but it's also about a general ennui.

Now, by a happy coincidence, the first 25 years of the postwar liberal order had maybe the best and most broadly-shared growth in all of human history. We built the UN to keep the peace, NATO to defend Europe, the IMF to help countries out of economic trouble, and a middle class that, if you were white, got the help it needed to own a home and go to college. And then it was over. Productivity growth stalled in the 1970s, and, at least in the United States, what economic growth there was overwhelmingly accrued to the top 1 percent in the 1980s and beyond. Part of this was due to Western workers having to compete with billions of Chinese, Indian, and Indonesian ones after the Berlin Wall came down. An even bigger part was good-paying jobs being automated into obsolescence. And the rest was policy—tax cuts for the rich, deunionization for the rest, and deregulation for Wall Street—which is why inflation-adjusted median incomes stagnated even more in the U.S. than in Europe.

But it's not as if Trump only won the people who have been hit hard by technology and globalization. Sure, exit polls show that he did 16 percentage points better with people making $30,o00 or less than Romney did in 2012. But in general, Gallup economist Jonathan Rothwell has found, Trump supporters aren't any more likely to have come from places that have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs or have a lot of immigrants. The opposite, actually. Nor are they just people who are barely getting by. They tend to be a rung or two above that—decently middle class or more—who nonetheless might feel economically insecure because they haven't gotten a raise in a long time, and see everyone else around them doing even worse. Indeed, their towns are the ones where white people are dying younger than they used to due to the ongoing epidemic of suicides and drug overdoses.

It's no surprise that these kind of economic grievances can ratchet up racial ones. After all, as Harvard economist Ben Friedman found in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, "a rising standard of living for the clear majority of citizens more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness, and dedication to democracy." So a stagnant one can make people meaner, less generous, and more suspicious of people who don't sound, look, or worship like they do. But it's important to point out that a weak economy isn't necessary for this kind of backlash. Any time white people—and really white men—feel like their position in society is being challenged in any way, this has happened. Like it did, for example, even when the economy was booming during the civil rights movement.

Or, it turns out, when the country's share of immigrants got close to an all-time high this year. The fact is that a lot of white people don't like being around minorities who haven't assimilated, and they don't want to assimilate to a culture where they'll soon be a minority themselves. Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos, for one, found that even white liberals who aren't used to hearing Spanish in public became much more opposed to increased immigration and much less in favor of letting kids who were born here stay here if their parents were undocumented once they were exposed to Spanish-speakers during their morning commutes. Which seems to explain why, as the Wall Street Journal found, the counties that experienced the fastest minority growth between 2000 and today voted so heavily for Trump. His promises to keep Muslims out, kick Mexicans out, and, as his crowds will tell you, build the wall, are what a white majority that's scared of no longer being one want. As researchers Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson found, all you have to do is remind them that the country is on track to being majority-minority to make them endorse these kind of racially conservative policies.

But it's not just minorities who white men are worried about. It's women too—or one woman in particular. That was clear enough if you listened to Trump's supporters. They weren't chanting that they wanted to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but rather that they wanted to "Lock Her Up." And in case you didn't get the message, they were wearing shirts emblazoned with "Trump That Bitch," "Hillary Sucks But Not Like Monica," and "Don't Be A Pu**y, Vote For Trump." Now, this isn't the only reason they hated Hillary Clinton so much—far from it—but it is part of the reason. There's still a socially-accepted hostility to women being in charge, a fear that this would make a man not a man, and a feeling that women shouldn't even try to act like men. Researchers Tyler Okimoto and Victoria Brescall found that people experienced "moral outrage" when they were told that a hypothetical female politician was ambitious, but nothing when they were told a male was.

The last part is harder to quantify. It's that life at the end of history can get, well, kind of tedious. You get up, you go to work, you come home, you watch TV, you go to sleep, and then you repeat 20,000 times. For a lot of people, there is no great cause, no great conflict, no great meaning to it all. The big battles have already been won, and now there are just bills to pay and weekends to look forward to. The problem with this, Fukuyama wrote, is that "if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because the just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause." There are hints of this reality TV-ification of our politics in the Trump supporter who admits he "could be as bad as Hitler" or the one who thinks Trump is actually "a blend of Hitler and Hirohito." What, they wonder, is the worst that could happen? Tune in tomorrow to find out!

The answer, of course, is that the world as we've known it might cease to exist. From Turkey to Poland to Hungary, democratically-elected leaders who don't believe in liberal democracy have already consolidated power by curtailing the freedom of the press, the courts, and the opposition. Now that might happen here. Trump's threats to "open up" the libel laws, his attacks on a judge because of that judge's ethnic background, and his praise for Putin even when it's been pointed out to him that Putin has almost certainly been behind the murder of journalists and political opponents are something dark and new in our politics. And it's something that his supporters don't seem to mind. Earlier this the year, 84 percent of them said that "what we need is a leader who will say or do anything to solve America's problems." Constitutional conservatism this is not.[...]