Musings on this year's Boston Marathon

That's musings. Tragically, this year's Marathon was anything but amusing.

But to be quite honest, I have never found much amusement in watching marathons. It's not that I don't respect the athletes who train for and pull off the whopping twenty-six mile achievement. While I might admire their perseverence, I don't enjoy watching someone do something I'd personally have no interest in doing. To me, the thought of subjecting your body to the sheer exertion and wear and tear of a grueling 26-mile run seems rather pointless. No offense to my fellow New Englanders who enjoy participaing in or watching the marathon, but in my couch-potato mentality, to run such an unthinkable distance just in order to cross an irrelevant finish line is hardly a worthwhile pursuit -- meaningless, if not downright eccentric.

Consequently, I did not go to watch this year's Boston Marathon, even though I live on Route 135 not far from the starting line, and work a block away from Beacon St, the last stretch of the race, less than two miles away from the finish line.

However, I too was affected by the horrific bombings in our vicinity. Our school went into lockdown mode, and was on high security alert several days thereafter. (On Friday's city-wide lockdown four days later, our school was obviously closed.) Driving home from work on Tuesday afternoon, I discovered that virtually every single Boston radio station was discussing the tragedy. No one could believe that this atrocity, the likes of which might sound commonplace for warzones like Afghanistan or Iraq, could have happened right here in our city, at the finish line of our marathon. At that point, there were no suspects, so no one could  fathom the motive behind the bloody attack. Like everyone else, I was in a daze, struggling to comprehend what had occured.

I tuned into one station. The talkshow host posed a question to her listeners. "What do you think about what happend yesterday? What do you think about the race now?" she asked. "Has your opinion of the race changed after yesterday's tragedy?"

Only half listening, half distracted in my doleful reverie, I actually thought she was talking about the human race. Sadly I mused, "My opinion of the human race has taken a sharp turn for the worse."

Indeed, I thought, what kind of defective human being seeks to mass-murder and inflict such horrific suffering on innocent and defenseless civilians, including young children and their mothers? What does that say about our race, all of us Homo sapiens, if one of our own is capable of such unspeakable evil? A new low for our race, I muttered under my breath, sitting in Boston traffic spawned by street closures due to the 16-block crime scene.

After several listners called in and expressed their views, that (sic) "next year's race will be better than ever," "Bostonians are resillient," etc., I realized that "race" was referring to the marathon race, not the human one.

That realization did not stop me from wondering about the mindboggling potential for evil that exists in our human race. In fact, it seemed like an appropriate word association. In yesterday's race, I concluded, humanity is the big loser. We have all lost the (human) race. If a fellow human can perpetrate such evil, then we are all losers, since all of us belong to this loser race.

This dismal thought crippled my imagination the entire ride home. I simply could not think of any redeeming argument with which to vindicate our deplorable humankind, a race that produces Hitlers, jihadists, mass murderes, and Boston Marathon bombers. And why stop there? What about all the other millions of defective human beings, like pedaphiles, rapists, pathological criminals, and all the other garden-variety thugs who sully our planet?

(As I now reconsider these morbid thoughts nearly a week later, I recall the recent report of Friday's dramatic capture of the surviving suspect from inside a neighbor's backyard boat, lying in a pool of blood. He had been shot in the neck during the car chase, and was located by the neighbor because of the trail of blood. Red blood, just as red as mine or yours. What does that say about the redness of our blood, and the inexorable human penchant for mercilessly shedding the blood of others?)

Later that day, I sat down at the computer and instictively clicked on the news. Images and video footage of the horrific bombing scenes met my eye. Then I saw something that was unbelievable, so much so that I had to rewind and watch it again. Immediately after the explosion, people were rushing toward the explosion to help the victims. It was incredible to me that people would be running toward the site of one then two explosions, without any regard to their own safety. I continued to read various eyewitness accounts online that all described this very phenomenon.

Then I read the most extraordinary account of a woman who had just completed the marathon herself. As soon as she realized what was going on, she turned back toward the finish line and raced toward the bloody scene to help the victims. Having a medical background (I can't remember now whether she was a med-student or a young physician), her immediate instinct was to assist the wounded in any way she could. Fearing more attacks in the pandemonium that ensued, the police tried to prevent her from entering, but she was able to run around their blockade and reach the victims. The reporter later asked her: "How could you have the strength to run there? Hadn't you just run twenty-six miles?"

She responded: "Yes, I was exhausted. But as soon as I realized there were people in dire need, I sprinted. I simply didn't feel my throbbing legs. It wasn't about me."

I was dumbstruck. In today's post-9/11 world, when a bomb explodes, one's instict is to run and seek cover. To rush toward the site of multiple explosions, amidst fears of yet more undetonated bombs, seems counterintuitive and self-endangering. I was awed by the selfless sense of responsibility displayed by the hundreds of first responders.*

It was at that moment that I realized that this race indeed has winners.I'm not talking about Mr. Benti or Ms. Jeptoo, or all the other athletes who completed the Boston Marathon prior to the bombings. They won another type of race, one that is far less consequential to the future of our human race.

I am referring to these selfless indiviuals who put their lives on the line and rushed to the finish line-bomb scene from all directions to assist and to save. They are truly the winners of the race.

In fact, the very fact that such selfless courage exists and was proudly displayed last week in Boston means that we are all winners. Our race may produce losers capable of unimaginable evil, but it also produces true winners capable of inimaginable and unprecedented good.

But who will ultimately prevail? The losers or the winners? Will the losers make us all lose, or will the winners make us all win?

It is my steadfast belief that the power of good will win.

The Torah teaches that ultimately good always prevails over evil. That's why G-d said that He remembers the evil deeds of an evil-doer until the fourth generation, while the virtues of a good doer is remembered for two thousand generations! (Rashi on Exodus 34:7) Do the math. That means that the power of good is five-hundred times greater than the power of evil.

So the winners will win, and the losers will lose. That's just the way it goes in races. Let's cast our lot with the winners.

A selfless act, a kind word to a neighbor, assistance to a fellow human being in need, a mitzvah, a blessing with heartfelt sincerity, daily tzedakah, an unsolicited act of goodness and kindess. That's all it takes.

It'll get us to that long-awaited finish line, the times of Moshiach, when true peace, harmony and mutual respect will reign supreme. Bloodshed and violence will be but fleeting memories of the distant past, while jealosy and hatred will finally disappear behind the cobwebs of posterity.

In the ultimate victory of the human race, we will learn to love each other. False ideologies and artifical divisions between people will vanish, and we'll finally be able to appreciate the inherent G-dly unity of all peoples. Together we will make this world a home for G-d it was intended to be. Humankind's primary pursuit will be to know G-d according to the highest human potential (see Maimonides, Laws of Kings, chapter 12). "G-d will wipe away the tears from every eye" and heal our broken hearts.

May it be speedily in our days. Amen.


* This is underscored in this past Shabbat's Torah portion, Parshat Kedoshim. The Torah states: "Lo taamod al dam reyecha." Literally that means: "Don't stand over your fellow's blood," i.e. don't stand by inactively "when you see your fellow in life-threatening danger, and you are able to save him" (Rashi). The Rebbe asked: why does the Torah state this commandment in the negative, "Don't stand..."? Why not a positive commandment,"Save your fellow's life!", or something similar? Explained the Rebbe: the Biblical obligation to save one's fellow from danger is implicit and does not need to be stated. The Torah is replete with commandments to help your fellow man in distress, load his donkey, sustain him in his time of need, etc. Here the Torah is alluding to a situation in which one might indeed deem it necessary to "stand by" and refrain from saving one's fellow, for example, if there is possible danger to the rescuer. Should one expose himself to possible harm in attempt to rescue his fellow from certain harm? Here the Torah enjoins us: "Don't stand by when your fellow's life is at stake!" If you are indeed "able to save him," go do it, even if it entails personal risk.

Lesson from the Horsemeat Scandal

A horse is a horse, of course, of course.

But what's in your hamburger? Or should I say, "horse-burger?"

No, I'm not horsing around. Google "UK horsemeat scandal" for a plethora of recent news items.

Horsemeat has somehow entered the European food supply chain and has been fraudulently labeled as beef. From the British Isles to Poland, Spain to Scandinavia, Europe is reeling from shock and disgust over widespread equine consumption. Horsemeat has been found in a variety of food products, including lasagna and TV dinners. In fact, many products sold in supermarkets and restaurants throughout Europe claiming to be 100% cowmeat -- such as Angus hamburgers and meatballs -- were in fact entirely horse.

Where's the beef, you ask? That's a good question. No one's sure what happened to it, and how it got replaced with horsemeat. Interestingly, lots of pork was found illegally marked as beef too, but for some strange reason, no outcry was heard. Europeans must have a soft spot for swine. (Donkey meat has allegedly been found too, and the list may be growing.)

And now, the widening scandal is spreading to Asia and the Wild Middle East. Will it soon be "Giddeyup Morsi?" (I sure hope so.)

It's not just about mislabeling and deceiving consumers. It's also a public health concern. Apparently, a drug called phenylbutazone, also known as "bute," has been found in numerous horses slaughtered in the UK, and is thought to have entered to human food chain. Used as an anti-inflammatory painkiller for sporting horses, bute has been banned for animals intended for eventual human consumption, as it is may be harmful in large concentrations.

Do you think your meat is safer here in the US? I remember back in the seventies when a variety of non-bovine meat was allegedly found in "beef" dishes in fastfood chains across the US. Just last year, US consumers awoke to news reports of so-called "pink slime" in our food chain, labeled as "beef." Although pink slime, officially known as "lean finely textured beef," does come from cow, it does not necessarily come from muscle tissue, what one would normally call "meat," but from cartilage, connective tissue and sinew. Sounds kind of slimy to me.

As far as the current horsemeat scare is concerned, no horsey surprises have been found in the US food supply just yet, but that might just be because there are no horse abattoirs in the US. Americans aren't particularly fond of horses for eating, but just for riding, according to a recent "Gallop" poll (just kidding).

But all horse jokes aside, how can you be sure what you're eating, anyway? Can you trust the USDA (or what ever the British version is) to ensure that you're actually getting what you think you're buying? Well, some folks think that government quality control is infallible, but I say they're backing the wrong horse. And thanks to relying on Euro-govt "quality control," the wrong horse has ended up on their very own dinner plates.

Society has always told us not to put the proverbial cart before the horse. But for crying out loud, don't put the horse into your shopping cart.

I know for some, fast food and frozen dinners are an excuse to "eat like a horse." But for goodness steak, don't eat the horse!!

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to beat a dead horse or anything. Nor am I anti-government. I certinaly appreciate the USDA's efforts to keep us safe, and far be it from me to look the gift horse in the mouth. But all I'm saying is, we cannot rely on government agencies alone to certify what we put into our bellies. Trusting government to keep us healthy might just be a modern Trojan Horse. And health isn't just bodily. There's spiritual health too. If you're Jewish, to ensure maximal spiritual and bodily health, there's only one way to go: kosher.

Several years ago, I had a discussion with a friend about why to only buy strictly kosher meat. After explaining the criteria of kosher animals, the rules of shechita (ritual slaughter) and koshering process, and the spiritual benefit of keeping kosher, I also explained that kosher meat requires constant supervision of a mashgiach (a reliable, Torah-observant Jewish individual who serves as kosher supervisor) until it is packaged, sealed and labeled. We then discussed other foods like dairy and fish that require hashgacha t'midit, constant supervision, in order for the consumer to be ensured that they are indeed kosher.

My friend was sceptical. "What are the chances of pig or horse milk entering the human food supply?" he scoffed.

Quite frankly, after last week's news, nothing would surprise me.

From a kosher perspective, however, no one should be alarmed about the horsemeat scandal. You see, non-kosher beef is every bit as treif (unkosher) as horse, ham or donkey.

If you buy kosher, the hechsher (Rabbinic seal of approval) vouches for the authenticity and kashrut of the beef you're buying. And if you don't buy kosher, well, then you may just as well be eating horsemeat anyway, from a kosher perspective, at least. So quit beefing about it.

We have a giant supermarket here in Northborough that claims to sells kosher meat in its deli. The only problem is that there is no kosher butcher, and the kosher meat is removed from its original packaging, cut up and put on display. The supermarket's butcher does have seperate knives and cutting boards that he claims only to use for the kosher products. But alas, according to the strict laws of kashrut, due to its lack of hashgacha supervision, the so-called "kosher" deli meat is 100% NOT kosher.

I've discussed this with numerous local Jews. Many people have argued that while it may not be authentically kosher, it's (sic) "close enough for me."

Well, to this I say: "close" only counts in horseshoes.

Bottom line: if you really want to avoid horse for your main course, you just gotta just adhere to a higher source -- the Torah, perforce.

It's time to beef up our kosher observance, folks.

Ok, some of you might be thinking: "Hey come on, rabbi! Get off your high horse. You can buy kosher meat galore in Jewishly-saturated neighborhoods like Brookline or Newton, but we live out here in horse country. No kosher butcher here for of miles."

To you I say, whoa! Hold your horses. How do you know there's nothing kosher nearby? Have you checked in your local supermarkets? You may be pleasantly surprised. If they don't stock it, maybe if you apply pressure, they might agree to carry it. I have recently found kosher poultry and beef in the most unlikely of places, like Walmart, Trader Joes and Stop 'n Shop.

If there's a will, there's a way. Throughout our long history, Jews have managed to keep kosher in the most remote and exotic of locations, from the Wild West to the Far East, in the best of times and the worst of times. Certainly in twenty-first century suburban USA with an all-time high percentage of food items sold in average supermarkets being kosher, one can put forth the effort and manage to keep kosher.

No one ever said being Jewish is easy. So stop kvetching and experience the joys of kosher living!

It doesn't have to be "all or nothing." One can begin keeping kosher observances gradually, "yiddle by yiddle," as they say.

A Jewish family struggling to find their comfort level in Jewish observance once confided to their rabbi: "We keep a strictly kosher kitchen, but we sometimes eat out..."

Replied the rabbi: "Then you have kosher pots and a treife boich!" (an un-kosher belly).

When told the same comment by a congregant, Rabbi H. Fogelman of Worcester, MA, once responded : "Then I guess you're dishes will go to heaven."

Sigh. I guess you can lead a horse to the water...

But in all seriousness, Jewish observance doesn't have to be 100% or zero. It's not just "Yea or Neigh."

Take baby steps. Start by cutting out pork, seafood, and shall I say, horsemeat. Then begin to seperate between dairy and meat. Then eliminate treife chickens and beef altogether. In short time, you'll be champing at the bit to "go kosher" entirely.

Don't feel you're too set in your ways to make a change. In Judaism, it's never too late to change horses midstream.

Not surprisingly, in the wake of the horsemeat scandal, kosher meat sales are surging in the UK (according to an article I read today on Algemeiner.com). Here in the US, kosher consumption has been on the rise for years. According to a recent statistic I read, a whopping 85% percent of kosher consumers in the US aren't even Jewish! Everyone's catching on.

So whether you're pedestrian or quedestrian or equestrian, trot over to your local kosher food store and buy Kosher.

If you're a novice, gallop over to a reliable website to learn the rules of kosher, like this one.

Better yet, visit your local rabbi for kosher instruction. It's always better to hear it straight from the horse's -- I mean rabbi's -- mouth.

And while you're at it, why not prance over to shul and attend a crash course on the laws of kosher (but please don't crash on the way, specially if you're horseback).

As for me, I'll continue to whinny until I'm hoarse, "Keep Kosher!"

PS: all this horse talk reminds us to get ready for the two upcoming Jewish holidays: Purim and Passover. Purim -- Mordechai led on king's royal stallion. Passover -- don't forget the horseradish.

The mighty Israeli sheqel

Wow. Check out the latest exchange rate:

1 Israeli sheqel= 1,100,000 US dollars.

But here's the catch. It's gotta be a sheqel from the pre-'67 borders.*

Another catch. It's gotta say "Jerusalem is Holy!" on it and has to indicate that the Holy Temple belongs exclusively to Israel.

Maybe Israel should start minting more of these!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153629#.T11SsoFAutr

PS: I meant 67 CE, a topic we addressed in a previous post.

More on Modern Media

To restate the gist of my previous post:

Measles and societal decadence (apparent in the Eminem video in question) have something in common.

Both are communicative diseases.

Not all communication is benign. Just because an "artist" has the right to disseminate his "artwork" doesn't mean that it is wise or healthy for me or my children to view and absorb the message he is trying to communicate.

If you clicked on every spam email that enters your inbox, you'd infect your computer. No longer would your operating system operate the way it's supposed to.

Why is your mind any less sensitive?

For our $600 dollar laptop, we buy the fanciest antivirus and antispyware protection that money can buy. We delete suspicious or flagged attachments immediately, lest it damage or taint our precious hard drive.

Why don't we regard our psyche with at least the same degree of protectiveness?

According to the Torah, the product manual of the soul, exposure to licentious, immodest or violent imagery and lyrics taints our innocence and leaves an indelible blemish on our soul’s motherboard. It can possibly cause our soul’s most vital applications, i.e. thought, speech and deed, to malfunction.

Perhaps we ought to firewall ourselves from such undesirable communication?

Extreme Makeover

Several months back, I blogged about some of the misleading terms used in our media to describe current events.

Here's another one: extremism. In fact, this one is my pet peeve.

The media's use of this term bothers me. Not because it insults me personally, whom many might consider to be an extremist of sorts.

The reason it's incorrect is because it implies that the extremist's core beliefs are okay. His only vice is that he (or she -- sorry for the gender profiling) is extreme in his convictions. If he'd only become less zealous, a bit more mellow and moderate, he'd be a great guy. "Your views are fine," we are telling the jihadist. "Just don't take them to such extremes."

I remember a decade back, shortly after September 11th, 2001, I was driving in my car listening to a radio talk show host bemoan the "religious extremism" of the Taliban. "As a matter of fact," he ranted, "they are so extreme, so barbaric... why, they even wear beards!" I listened thoughtfully while stroking my unkempt beard -- no, make that: my extremely unkempt beard.

My initial thought was to call the station and complain, but never got around to doing so. Instead, I devoted my Shabbat sermon to it. I explained to my congregants:

Extremism is not bad if you are being extreme about something good. Example: someone who is extemely charitable, excessively peace-loving, exceedingly modest, intensely studious, extraordinarily selfless, ultra kind, giving, humane, just, etc. Even if you're extreme about something that others might consider archaic, aberrant, or defiant of social norms, such as sporting an untrimmed beard, so long as your eccentricity causes no harm to yourself or to others, surely everyone should concede that such hairy "extremism" (if one could rightly call it that) is rather benign. To the smooth-faced moderates who deride bearded males as extremists, I say: "Live and let live."

However, if one is extreme about something bad, i.e. he believes in an extremely evil ideology, is extremely violent, extremely deceptive, extremely malicious, etc... then THAT is bad.

What's bad about this individual is not that he's extreme. It's that he's BAD. What makes him worse than a moderately bad person is that he is EXTREMELY bad.

So when our media refers to a jihadist as a "religious extremist," they are doing humanity a huge disservice.

Their description of the "extremist" masks the real underlying problem. The jihadist's problem is that his views are violent, malevolent and vindictive. By censuring "extremism," we are not confronting the real enemy, but instead are getting sidetracked by focusing on something irrelevant. In fact, we are emboldening him by acknowledging his right to his noxious ideology but merely pleading with him not to be so devout. This only reiterates his opinion of us, that we (i.e. the Western world) are spineless enemies of faith.

Instead of protesting his extremeness, we ought to refer to him by what he is: an Islamofascist hatemonger. Or, if he actualized his ambition and committed an act of terrorism, then he is an Islamofascist genocidal murderer.

He is not merely an "extremist." He is an enemy of G-d, an enemy of mankind.

To describe Ahmadinejad as an extremist is obscuring the facts. Fact: his main vice is that he is blood thirsty and an outspoken proponent of genocide. Why does it matter that he is extremely blood thirsty? And what if he were only moderately blood thirsty? Would we then sigh a breath of relief? Is mild genocide then okay?

So let's be honest and address the real issues. If someone believes that it's okay to murder a non-believer, his vice is not extremism. His problem is his abhorrent beliefs. If his religion sanctions murder, then he has a perverse religion. Calling him an extremist vindicates his blood thirsty religion. Instead, his only shortcoming has now been reduced to a mere lack of moderation.

Furthermore, the media often calls "settlers" like the Fogels' (may G-d avenge their blood) "religious fundamentalists" or "extremists" as well. Why not? The settlers have beards too.

So thanks to our wonderfully unbiased media, we now have moral equivalence between peace-loving Jews who are "extreme" in their views by insisting on their right to live anywhere in the world, including Samaria, and their blood-thirsty Arab counterparts who feel that Samaria ought to be Judenrein, whose stated objective is ethnic cleansing of the entire Levant, and who celebrate the most incomprehensibly brutal form of infanticide, all out of their extremely Islamofascist convictions.

Indeed, the media has created a moral equivalence between all settler Jews (99.9% of whom do not advocate violence or murder of any kind, and would love nothing more than to live in peace with their Arab neighbors) with jihadists (99.9% of whom advocate mass murder of Jews and ethnic cleansing).

In fact, all ultra-Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Protestants, or any other extremely devout individual of another faith or creed, are now lumped together in the same boat as radical Islamists and Jihadists. (ultra = extreme). And since many people might consider me ultra-orthodox thanks to my ultra-non-conformist beard (in addition to the fact that I am extremely opinionated), I guess that makes me a fundamentalist extremist who is capable of hijacking a plane. Thank you media for another job well done at skewing everyone's perspective and corrupting our minds.

As you can see, I'm getting extremely irate. I think I'd better call it a day.

Have an extremely good night! :-)


PS Maimonides does write that extremism in any form, even in the benign sense of being extremely and excessively generous, extremely miserly, etc., are both incorrect, and that one ought to "take the middle path" and do everything in moderation. While this is an objective truth that everyone ought to strive toward, it has no bearing on what I wrote above. Even if someone is extremely serious or extremely light headed, both attributes negated by Maimonides as "extreme," he still is not an evil or dangerous villain. No one is his right mind would equate an extremely self-effacing but harmless hermit with an extremely blood thirsty Jihadist.

Just Say No

Westboro Video Controversy, part II


Well, it looks as though the local controversy surrounding a teacher who showed an objectionable Eminem video to her seventh-grade class is now over.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1781765262/Westborough-teacher-resigns-after-video-incident

However, in reality, this issue is far from over. It continues to jeopardize our youth and our adults of all ages. (See previous post)

What particularly concerns me is the reaction of numerous local parents with whom I have discussed the matter.

One highly intelligent father remarked that he believes some (read: his) kids are mature enough to view anything and not be negatively influenced. Yet in the same sentence, he was infuriated that a teacher dare show such material to his or anyone's children. In his mind, an adult who shows such obscene images to children might well be a predator seeking to cause them harm.

I countered: "And what about the possibility that by simply viewing the video at home they might be causing themselves harm?"

While the dad agreed that not all material out there might be beneficial for children to watch, he emphatically maintained that "mature" kids must be granted the freedom to explore the world on their own. "Preventing their exposure to such videos," he asserted, "might be more damaging to their souls than their viewing of the video itself."

(Parenthetically, it is important to note that the teacher showed the video to students, some of whom had presumably viewed before, without audio. She merely played it in order to point out the unhealthy image of women in today's society. While I agree with the outraged parents that it was inappropriate to show in school, the irony can not be overstated. On one hand, many of these parents are allowing their teens to watch anything they wish, without any supervision or parental guidance. But when an experienced teacher attempts to point out the dangerous attitudes advocated by these videos, the parents are up in arms! If parent mustn't restrict freedom, lest he or she be viewed as too judgmental or controlling, and teachers are forbidden to discuss such issues, who will then teach the children how to discriminate between right and wrong?)

Here is a humorous episode I heard recently that sheds brilliant light on this issue:

A Chabadnik woman was shopping in the supermarket one day when she heard something most peculiar. A young African American child asked his mother, "Hey Mom, are these cookies kosher?" The mom replied no, and her son put the cookies back on the shelf.

The curious onlooker approached the mother, who did not seem to fit the stereotype of your average kosher consumer.

"Excuse me, m'am," she said, "are you Jewish?"

"No," replied the mom.

"Just curious, then, why do you keep kosher?"

"Oh, I don't really keep kosher," answered the woman. "I just borrowed the term."

She proceeded to relate the following:

"For years, my kids have been harassing me at the supermarket that they want this snack, that candy bar, etc. I had a hard time saying no, as the kids would just carry on and whine. One day while shopping, I overheard a most unusual exchange between an Orthodox Jewish mother and her own kids. It was at the check-out line where all the sweets are enticingly on display.

"'Could we get that, Mommie?' her kids asked.

"'Nope, we can't get it. It's not kosher.'

"The kids quietly accepted her response, and the conversation ended there. I was so impressed, I asked the Jewish mother how she was able to raise such obedient kids. My kids would have begun pleading and pouting. The woman explained that it wasn't about obedience, but simply the knowledge that the food wasn't kosher. Her kids knew that if it wasn't kosher, they don't eat it. Period.

"I was so jealous. What a brilliant idea, I thought to myself. From then on, I introduced the idea of 'kosher' and 'not kosher' to my own kids, even though we're not Jewish and don't keep kosher. When they want something and I say 'It's not kosher,' they know that they're not getting it and that's it."

If only modern-day parents could understand this simple idea. You owe it to your kids to teach them right from wrong, to inspire them to make the right moral choices in their own lives.

It's not about being too controlling or judgmental. By teaching your kids that some images and lyrics are simply not kosher, not fit for consumption, you are empowering them to make the right choices later in life.

More importantly than teaching them, we as parents ought to teach by example. If it's not kosher for kids or young adults, it's not kosher for adults either.

It doesn't matter if the viewer is mature or immature, whether or not he is firmly rooted in his values or not. If it is not kosher, we don't consume it. It's not up for negotiation.

And we'll be happier and healthier as a result.


Teacher your kids to "just say no."

Just a Measly Video

Dear Friends and Readers,

By now I'm sure you've read last week's two disturbing news items involving our town, Westborough, MA.
I never imagined my sleepy New England town would make national or even statewide news. Not once, but twice in one day!

Most fascinating is the common theme of these two stories.

Here's news item number one:
A teacher in our local middle school was suspended after allegedly showing an objectionable video called "Superman" to a class of seventh graders.
Click here for Boston Globe story, or here to view all 35 news stories.

News item number two:
A case of measles in Westborough -- an employee at the local Bose Corporation has allegedly fallen ill with the contagious and potentially fatal disease. Here's a link about it.

Now, I must first state that I do not know the teacher or students personally, nor have I ever watched the Eminem video in question. In fact, until today, I didn't even know who "Eminem" was, nor do I care to know. All I know is what I've read, that the video contained lots of immodest, explicit and violent scenes. The superintendent acknowledged that the video was (sic) inappropriate.

As a rabbi in the community where this occured, I would like to make two comments and ask several questions:

Comment #1:
Isn't it uncanny that both news items reflect a contagion that threatens the health and well-being of not just Westborough locals, but our entire modern society?

Comment #2:
We immunize to protect people from diseases like measles. Should we be "immunizing" children to protect them from negative societal influences by exposing them to it in the form of Eminem videos? By doing so, are we immunizing them or predisposing them, or worse, poisoning them? A vaccine contains weakened or dead virus particles. Imagine injecting a healthy patient, child or adult, with live, virulent pathogens. Are you protecting your unsuspecting patient, or infecting him? Perhaps the best way to provide immunity to the diseased behaviors glorified in Eminem's videos is by teaching kids to avoid exposure entirely. Teach them to "Just say No."

Some questions about the video:
1. Is it only inappropriate for children, or is it inappropriate for adults too?
2. Is it only inappropriate for a teacher to show in school, but ok for kids to view at home?
3. Eminem is referred to repeatedly in the news articles as an "artist." Is "Superman" artwork?

A NY congressman recently lost his job and reputation because he sent inappropriate images of himself to a few individuals via electronic media. Why? Isn't he just an "artist" like Eminem? Of course, the latter is a much more seasoned "artist" because he sends similar images to not just several, but millions of individuals. And while the congressman reserved his "artwork" for several adult acquaintances, Eminem's "artistic" imagery and lyrics target minors, and lots of 'em. So why does a teacher and politician get canned, but the "artist" makes millions? What am I missing?

I know some of you are rolling your eyes. Come on, rabbi. It was just a measly video (pun intended) It's not for real. It's just harmless "art."

So let's consider the second news item about measles. What's the commotion? So what if one person caught the disease from a migrant worker in an isolated plant on Route 9. Why is that newsworthy?

The answer is obvious. This is a highly contagious disease. We are all at risk. If it's at Wall Street, it will trickle down to Main Street.

For the youth who is growing up watching videos by Eminem (and others of his ilk), the behaviors showcased in such pieces of "art" are now part of the young viewers' reality. His or her pure mind has now been infected with images of licentiousness, vulgarity, violence and misogyny. And thanks to the wonders of modern media, the contagion now spreads rapidly from friend to friend, tainting the minds of countless other young people.

Will all the young people who watch "Superman" try to emulate that behavior? Hopefully not. But then again, most people will survive measles too. Can we afford to take the risk?

The Torah exhorts us "Do not stray after your heart and after your eyes..."

Watching a video or listening to music is like consumption of food or drink. Just like the food has to be clean, healthy, nourishing and kosher, so too the videos we view need to be fit for consuption. Indeed, every image or lyric we consume becomes indelibly etched into the whiteboard of our mind, conscious and subconscious, in permanent ink.

Ever hear the cliche "You are what you eat?" Well, it really ought to be: "You are what you watch."



PS With regards to the Gibbons Middle School class, the facts have still not emerged, and it is entirely possible that the teacher is blameless. What I have written above is not an indictment against the teacher or school, nor is it an opinion about what has actually occured. Rather, it is a commentary on the reality that children all over (perhaps many children in that very class) are in fact viewing this video (and others like it) at home or elsewhere.