The "Selfie" Syndrome

What in the world is a "selfie?" Does that describe a person, or a photo, or both?

Some "selfies" are somewhat necessary, like
when no one else is present to capture the image.
Say, for example, you happen to be floating in
outer space...

As I mentioned in the previous post, I tend to encounter these new-age expressions and the technologies they represent at the end of the curve, by the time they're already old hat.

Having just recently seen this "word" in print for the first time, I was rather taken aback. Okay, it wasn't in "print" in the conventional sense. But it was used without italics in an article on CNN.

I instinctively opened a new "window" (no, my real windows all remained closed. It's 9 degrees outside. Sheesh!) and attempted to "navigate" to Google.com to search for a definition of this unfamiliar expression. Unfortunately, in my great haste I omitted the second "g" and found myself reading all about a quaint seaside city in Eastern England call Goole. (Read all about it on Goole.com, and no need to Laugh Out Loud.)

Fortunately, I soon realized that I took a wrong turn and navigated my way back to Google with two g's. (I've always been lousy at navigation, and thanks to GPS, have no need for it anymore.)

As it turns out, "selfie" appears in respectable dictionary sites. According to Merriam Webster, a "selfie" is "an image of oneself taken by oneself using a digital camera especially for posting on social network."

Something about this word made me uneasy. I couldn't articulate it at the time.

Shortly thereafter, in family discussion, I mentioned my aversion for this new term, not just the word but the idea it represents. Taking photos of yourself strikes me as self-obsessed and self-absorbed. Whom are you smiling for? Whom are you posing for?

My daughter was quick to show me that my very own mobile device has a self photo option. That means there's a camera lens in front too. 

Needless to say, I have not made use of this option, and have asked my family members not to use it in my presence.

Something profoundly disgusted me when I heard that our president had allowed himself to be filmed taking "selfies" of himself and broadcasted publicly.

When I view examples of "selfies" on the web, there's something oddly different in the eyes of the individual photographing himself. Or maybe it's the way they position their eyes, chin, face. 

Well, in my opinion, a photograph is primarily a means for others to view and remember you, not a means for you to view yourself. If you are so concerned with how others view you and crave flattering photos of yourself, then for crying out loud, let the "other" take the photo.

When one takes self photos and posts it on his profile, he is beckoning me, the "other," to view him as he views himself, with ostensible self-flattery and self adoration. On a more extreme level, an individual who experiences delusions of grandeur believes that the whole world views him in the same "larger than life" manner as he views himself.

When I pose and smile for another, I allow the "other" to view me and capture that viewpoint on photograph. I make room for the other. It is not about me viewing myself. It's not about self-aggrandizement. This is a photo worth keeping. There's benefit in knowing how others view you so you can have a more balanced view of yourself.

Furthermore, the very word "selfie" in somewhat offensive, or at least its inflection. Nouns with "ie" or "y" on the end are typically diminutive or endearing. "Selfie" implies "your little self" or your "cute little self."

Is that how we define a healthy perspective of self? To have self esteem means to appreciate and validate oneself as a self respecting human being. Just as there is something inherently objectionable about someone with an inflated sense of self, so too there is something wrong with having a diminished sense of self.

Referring to a self-captured image as a "selfie" implies that you define yourself by your appearance as depicted in the photo you have just taken. It also implies that you view yourself as a cute little "selfie," nothing more than an object of people's attention or admiration.

Perhaps the deeper lesson here is that "selfie" obsession relates to your more diminutive or "lower" self, a step down from your "higher" self, your more expansive adult mind.

In Hebrew, we refer to this more objective, healthier state of mind as מוחין דגדלות (mochin d'gadlut), your larger mind, as opposed to the  מוחין דקטנות (mochin d'katnut), the subjective "smaller mind."

Superficial faces of Facebook and mindless tweets of Twitter have already distanced us from meaningful relationships in the real world. As we have pointed out numerous times on this blog, iPhones have already given us a phoney and diminutive sense of self. A small and petty i, attached to an upper-case and prominent Phone, implies that the two have morphed into one inseparable entity. I am defined by my phone.*

"Sefie-ness" now brings us to a new low, ever more immersed in the morass of pettiness and lower self, further detached from higher self. I am now defined by a mere image on my phone (or social media page), and even more so by how many "likes" it generates.

In conclusion, I propose we eschew the word "selfie" along with the self-oriented behavior it represents, with all due respect to Merriam Webster. Let's all strive to become less self-preoccupied and more self-effacing. Selfless giving sure beats being self serving. Self sacrifice is far more personally rewarding than self photography.

Parenthetically, it recently occurred to me that the term "cell phone" pronounced quickly actually sounds like "self-phone." Can it be that the phonetic "self" encrypted into the expression "cell phone" explains why its use has become so prevalent in modern parlance? I  have been told that "cell" is abbreviated from "cellular," supposedly referring to short-range radio towers that somehow resemble biological cells. Plus, "mobile phone" or "wireless phone" are both multi-syllabic, as opposed to "cell." But perhaps there's a deeper reason, a subliminal connotation to "self" in the ubiquitous "cell phone" that accounts for its wide appeal.

Come to think of it, maybe there's phonetic significance in both words. "Cell phone" = "self own." Hmm. This raises another questions. Do you own your phone, or does your phone own you?

Okay, enough rambling for one day.

Time to get back to work in the real (non-virtual) world.

Mikey doesn't like it!

As mobile phone technology races ahead at an ever-dizzying speed, I find myself becoming increasingly unfamiliar with new-fangled idioms, expressions and pseudo words.

Some of this new terminology is simply inaccurate.

For example, when my daughter writes "LOL," which presumably means "laugh out loud," did she really laugh aloud? Usually not. Not even a quiet chuckle.

(Oops, I meant "when my daughter 'types.'" No one writes anymore. On further thought, she doesn't really "type" either. What's the correct verb? Texts? Swipes? Punches keys? Actually, it's more like screen tapping. Another correction: she doesn't write "LOL," but "lol." Who uses capitals anymore?)

When you "friend" someone on social media, are you truly befriending him or her? Or are you merely giving that individual permission to view a virtual profile, which really amounts to no more than some electronic ones and zeroes on some unknown computer server somewhere in the world. Does that constitute "friendship?"

Conversely, I recently "unfriended" a certain individual because of some images she had been posting that I deem inappropriate and immodest. Was that "unfriendly" of me? She happens to be a dear friend. Needless to say, our friendship survived the "unfriending" intact. She probably never even became aware of it.

When you "like" someone's post, do you really like it? Someone recently posted frightening information about a gruesome terror attack. I was shocked to read below that this posting received numerous "likes" from well-intentioned individuals who are obviously repulsed by the content of the article.

When you originally "like" something but on second thought "unlike" it, does that mean you dislike it?

Hey, this just gave me a great idea for a new television commercial for Life Cereal, new-and-improved for the internet era. Instead of all the time-consuming footage of Mikey eating the cereal and being observed incredulously by his brothers, the scene can present Mikey "liking" it on social media. "Hey! Mikey 'likes' it!" That's much more cool and contemporary, anyhow.

This hits rather close to home for me, as I grew up in the '70s being called Mikey, and by default, "liked" everything. (Everything except for avocado, that is. Yuck. I never cared much for Life Cereal, either.) But now, over a third of a century later, I cannot get myself to "like" anything, even posts that I do in fact like.

Speaking of unlikeable phraseology, here is the one I find least likeable, or shall I say, most detestable: "selfie." Read more about it in my next post.

Sincerely,
A disgruntled Mikey

Real Antidote to "Radical" Islam

"Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution," asserts Daniel Pipes. Others argue that the only antidote to Radical Islam is secularism.

They are both wrong.

They are wrong not only in their proposed solutions. They are wrong about the problem.

Radical Islam is not the problem. Rather, radical Islam is a problem, albeit a rather formidable one. To be more precise, it is a mere symptom of the problem.

What is the problem?

The problem is the human condition itself, the inexorable human potential for evil.  Radical Islam is merely the most salient manifestation of evil in current times, but by no means the only one.

Islamism in any form, moderate or radical, is a product of human authorship, and hence, subject to human error.

By definition, morality must be based on absolute values, not flimsy man-made doctrine. When a fervently religious society has gone amuck and lost its moral compass, it is because their morals were predicated on an erroneous belief system. As radicals, their values have now become radically erroneous. Their behavior now spirals out of control.

According to conventional thinking, the problem is their radicalism. In reality, however, the root cause is their inherently flawed belief system to begin with. (See my past blog post about "extremism.")

After all, extreme Islam did not develop in a vacuum, but is incontrovertibly rooted in original historic Islam, its dogma and writings. The so-called extremists maintain, and perhaps rightfully so, that their version is in fact the authentic Islam.

It follows that "moderate" Islam is not a solution. It is part of the problem.

Radical Islam has given its misled adherents a cause for which to die and murder, even mass murder. We need to give these morally bankrupt individuals a cause for which to live and help others live.

If our proposed cause for life is on the same footing as the puritan Islamists' cause for death, i.e. it's just another interpretation of the same man-made belief system, but merely a more moderate one, then we are leaving room for more errors. Some people err moderately, some err radically. In a Muslim world racing toward nuclear weapon potential (thanks to our current president's foreign policy), there is no margin for error, even little errors.

What we need here is a complete paradigm shift, a radically new approach (pun intended). Something that will make false dogma irrelevant, not by a weak attempt to modify or reinterpret it, nor by replacing it with some other man-made ideology, like "secularism," for example.

Parenthetically, my grandmother used to admonish us: "Beware the 'isms." She grew up in turbulent times in the early twentieth century during which time many newfangled ideologies were touted as the end to all problems... Socialism, Marxism, Fascism and nationalism, to name a few. But the 'isms failed. In fact, the larger and more glorious the movement, the bigger the failure.

Yes, beware the 'isms. They may be based on lots of good intentions, aspirations and lofty ideals. But they're man-made, subject to the frailty of the human condition cited above.

Replacing one 'ism with another has not proven to work. In fact, the results have been disastrous.

In the Middle Ages, when "extreme" Catholicism reigned supreme, humanity did not fare well. Besides for the dismal conditions of the depraved and largely illiterate masses of Christian Europeans, this era brought untold suffering to our people: wholesale slaughter at the hand of the Crusaders, incitement to violence by the fanatic clergy, blood libels, forced conversions, inquisitions and expulsions, to cite some of the numerous examples that stain the pages the European history.

The Dark Ages were succeeded by reformation and renaissance, followed by revolutions and emancipation that transformed the masses. Or did it? Age-old religious prejudices were replaced with nationalist and ethnocentric ones. Nationalist movements gave rise to extreme nationalist movements. Indeed, the modern era brought us horrific pogroms, widespread persecution and ultimately the Holocaust. More recently, atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union succeeded in creating G-dless societies, replete with totalitarianism, gulags, mass murder, Iron Curtain, extreme human rights abuses, etc.

The Muslim world is still submerged in a Dark Ages of its own. Is our goal to secularize or democratize the Muslim masses? Will that solve their problems? Bear in mind that Hitler initially ascended to power democratically,* as did Hamas, Fatah and Arafat, may all their memories be erased. "Cannibals tend to elect a cannibal king," my mother commented.

No, neither moderate Islam nor secularism are viable solutions. They are still part of the problem. Man-made religions and ideologies invariably end in failure and corruption, often on an Orwellian scale.

What we need here is something different and completely out of the box. Something Divine and immutable, invulnerable to the perils of human subjectivity. Refreshingly new but ever timeless and eternal.

Let's  look back to the beginning of time and rediscover the Code, the Divine Code authored by our Creator that applies to all of Creation, irrespective of race, ethnicity, creed or societal trends.

This Code is know as the Seven Noahide Laws, the seven commandments enjoined by G-d to Noah and his descendants for all times.

1. There is one G-d Who creates all of existence. Don't worship idols.
2. Don't blaspheme G-d.
3. Respect the sanctity of human life, created in G-d's image. Do not murder. Period. Murder is wrong, never justifiable for any religious, pseudo-religious or political objective.
4. Do not engage in immoral (i.e. incestuous, adulterous, homosexual or bestial) sexual unions.
5. Respect human property. Do not steal, rob or deliberately damage another's property. Kidnapping, torture and mutilation are strictly forbidden.
6. Do not eat of a live animal.
7. Establish competent courts/legal system to ensure law and order.

In the words of President Ronald Reagan, this Code is "the historical tradition of ethical values and principles, which have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws, transmitted through God to Moses on Mount Sinai."

The Code can be taught in any language, culture or milieu. It automatically resonates with healthy human conscience. It is inherently ingrained in our spiritual DNA.

To teach it effectively, one does not need to engage in philosophical debate or negate religious dogma or any other belief system. We are simply presenting the Seven Laws as commanded by G-d, or Allah, or how ever the individual refers to our Creator. We ought to underscore that the Seven Commandments are immutable, cannot be revoked or modified by any subsequent prophet or religious leader.

When an individual comes to understand that murder of any kind is abhorrent to Allah, he will automatically reject the violent doctrine of jihad. Armed with the knowledge of what our Creator really wants, he or she has the moral clarity and fortitude to challenge the injustices of the corrupt society in which he or she lives. Individuals empowered with knowledge of the Seven Laws will have no sympathy or tolerance for murder of any kind, nor any other barbaric behaviors rampant in the Muslim world (suicide bombings, honor killings, female mutilation, misogyny, slavery, repression, to name but a few.) They will undoubtedly repudiate theologians and politicians who preach hate and violence, or any other violations of the Code.

Individuals who embrace the Seven Noahidic Commandments are liberated from the oppressive mores of the Islamic world. Together, they can depose corrupt leaders and strive to rebuild a peaceful and free society. Arabs who accept the Code will eagerly make peace with their Jewish neighbors and find enough common ground to live peacefully and respectfully alongside members of other faiths, nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.

To be sure, this will be a drastic departure from the Muslim world of today and will need to be a gradual process, perhaps similar to the growing movement of Noahide communities in the United States.

The Seven Commandments were given in the wake of the Great Food which nearly destroyed mankind and engulfed the entire world. The sole survivors, Noah and his descendants were entrusted with safeguarding future societies from the degeneracy that had led to the world's collapse prior to the Flood.

Today's world appears to be on the verge of collapse once more. Imperiled by depraved genocidal Islamists and a dangerous policy of appeasement, apathy and moral relativism in the West, the future of human civilization hangs in the balance. Now more than ever before, we need the Seven Noahide Laws to safeguard our world from the societal ills that threaten to destroy it. Let's start teaching the Code to all Noah's descendants. Together we can reverse the tide and instead create a deluge of good, flooding the world with acts of goodness and kindness. "And the world shall be filled with knowledge of G-d as water covers the ocean bed."


* Hitler's Nazi Party won a stunning thirty eight percent of German votes and became the largest party in the Reichstag. This led to his appointment as Chancellor and ultimate coup.

More on Obama's Random Remark

Nothing is random.

Not even Obama's seemingly random remark about the mass murderous shooting spree at Hyper Cacher last month.

It is consistent with his agenda of marginalizing and delegitimizing Israel. Jews are denied victimhood. How can they be victims? They are the bullies. Any seemingly antisemitiic attack had to have been random or incidental.

It's fascinating how this whole drama plays out around the time of Purim, the "random" casting of the lots and the reversal that led to the downfall of Haman the Amalekite and his co-conspirators in Ancient Persia, of all places.

Read here or the inner correlation of Amalek and randomness (a past blog post).

The President's Random Comment

Someone named Joel Pollak from Los Angeles recently tweeted:

"Being a Democrat in the Age of Obama requires you to believe cops kill black kids on purpose but radical Islamists kill Jews by accident."

To be more precise, this is an inaccurate characterization of Obama. He never said that Islamists murder Jews by accident. He never even admitted that Islamists murder anyone.

Rather, he made reference to "a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris."

1) Obama never even acknowledged that they were Islamists at all.

2) He claimed that the "zealot" shot "a bunch of folks." No acknowledgment that he shot Jews.

3) He claimed that the "zealot" shot the folks "randomly." That means indiscriminately and casually. Obama agrees that the "zealot" shot them with intent, not by accident, but purports that he did so without premeditation or any one particular target.

4) Obama described the location as some generic or random deli in Paris. No mention of the fact that it was a kosher supermarket on Friday, the busiest day for Shabbat-observant Jews to shop for Shabbat.

So we can rephrase the tweet as follows:

"Obama wants you to believe cops kill black kids on purpose, but when radical Islamists kill Jews, they aren't necessarily Islamists nor are the victims necessarily Jewish per se. It was just some random zealot who randomly decided to go on a random killing spree of random folks in a random deli."

Or: "Being a supporter of Obama requires you to believe that black kids get killed by white cops, but Jews don't get killed by anyone in particular, certainly not by Islamists."

Read more about Obama's not-so-random remark.

World Upside-down

It's confirmed.

Our nation is officially upside-down.

A man is a woman, if he "sincerely" identifies himself as one. Said individual is entitled to use women's locker room, as per gym's "gender identity non-discrimination policy."

Protests made by anyone, even by a woman appalled to encounter said individual in the ladies' room, are deemed "inappropriate" and "disruptive," and protester shall be ousted from gym, according to ABC News.

Indecent exposure is art form, as long as it's on MTV. Pornography is merely "artistic imagery."

Nothing is black and white anymore. It's all been reduced to various shades of grey. Speaking of which, sexually-explicit movies that promote misogyny, exploitation and subjugation of women are artwork too.

Moral deformity is merely "artistic expression" and "freedom of speech." An opera at the Met has every right to dramatize, condone, and perhaps glorify, savage murder of a wheel-chair bound senior.

Mass murder is no longer terrorism. It's heroism, as long as the victims happen to be of the same ethnic or religious affiliation as the much loathed "Occupiers."

Promoting genocide isn't incitement. It's artwork. It's just a video game available at Google Play Store.

Conversely, artwork depicting Muslim "prophet" is incitement, of course.

Hate speech is fine, as long as it's is aimed against "Zionists" and "Zionism," what ever that means.

Beheaded infants are "settlers" guilty of "illegal occupation."

Puny Israel is Goliath. Who is David? Mass murderous Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc., funded by: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

Bloodthirsty assailants are in fact the victims. The assaulted are the aggressors, especially if they fire back.

Islamic State is not Islamic, we are told, just as Crusades had nothing to do with the Cross. Of course, both twelfth century Crusades and ISIS share the same contemporary relevance (!?).

Any attempts to describe Islamic State as "Islamic" are simply Islamaphobic.

Mass murder is merely a misunderstood form of protesting illegal "occupation," "Zionist world domination," blood libels, Crusades, Mohamed cartoons, and other such "crimes," for which the appropriate response is humiliation, rage and murderous retaliation.

"Never again" is a benign slogan, tolerable if used in reference to a defunct and obscure foe of last century. However, if invoked in current times with regard to a modern-day state with stated genocidal goals and nuclear aspirations, then it is an insult to the President of the United States and an insult to US intelligence, or, shall i say, lack thereof.

Even worse, it's repetitive, nonproductive, electioneering and polarizing.

Worst of all, it doesn't offer any alternatives.

Intimidation on campus is par for the course. Especially if the chief intimidator is teaching your course.

Premeditated shooting sprees at Parisian Kosher deli are random. Spike in antisemitism in Europe, US and US universities are all random too, I suppose.

In Gaza, nothing is random. Not even the weather. Winter flooding isn't random, but a deliberate act of aggression. Of course, Israel must have opened its dams in order to flood Gazan villages. (Never mind the fact that Israel has no dams in the south.)

A Gazan fisherman shot dead while breaking an Israeli blockade is very newsworthy. A black man in Wisconsin shot dead by a white policeman is somewhat newsworthy. Ten-fold increase of antisemitic incidents in Wisconsin is not newsworthy.

Thousands of dead Syrians in the past month is not newsworthy, nor is two hundred thousand dead Syrians in past few years. Secret nuclear sites in Iran...not newsworthy. Iran's supreme leader's English tweets calling for genocide ..not newsworthy. Obama insulted by Israeli PM protesting bad deal with Iran? Very newsworthy.

So there you have it, folks. The summary of today's news.

A world upside-down.

Let's turn it back right-side up.

How?

It's high time to teach the world the Seven Noahide Laws.

Read more about it. Let's start promoting it.

Purim at joint session US Congress!

Did you hear the news?

Our government is really getting into the Purim spirit!

A Jew from Jerusalem was invited to tell the story of Purim to a packed joint session of the US Congress... he said the gantzeh megila! He also read a verse from the Torah at the end.

Evidently, the senators and congressmen really enjoyed themselves. They gave him dozens of standing ovations. Too bad they didn't have any graggers with them.

Unfortunately a number of lawmakers missed it due to party reasons, i.e. they must have been invited to different Purim parties.*

The big question is, will YOU be there? Tonight? 6:30pm at Chabad of Westboro. If our Congress & Senate stopped all their regular busy schedules to hear the megillah story, shouldn't we all ought be there tonight?

Benjamin the Jew brings the spirit of Purim to US Congress

And if you object to this email making light of a two-party divide, then we have just the thing for you! Two parties!! Take your pick: tonight (Wednesday) at 6:30pm, or tomorrow (Thursday) at 4:45pm.**

Or, best of all, you can be truly bipartysan and come to both! :)

The whole country is abuzz about it! Even our president weighed in. He criticized that Benjamin (sic) "said nothing new," that it was all repetetive from last year's megilah reading. Well, there's truth to that charge.

But it's as they say, "Old jokes, new audiences."

All jokes aside, there's nothing funny about the Purim story. As long as there are individuals and particularly world leaders who didn't hear or fully appreciate the Purim story, it needs to be retold. Everywhere. From Washington DC to Westboro, MA.

Especially when there are plenty of modern-day wannabee Hamans who didn't get the message, in Persia and abroad.

So please join us and help spread the Purim message!

Am Yisrael Chai! Happy Purim and see you tonight!
Rabbi Green 

* Our president said he unfortunately wasn't able to watch the Purim address, because he was at a Putin party. Close enough.
** We're reading the megila at 6:30 and 4:45 respectively, but you can come later too and join in the festivities!