There are instances of words that have outlived their usefulness: good and nice are two such words. They have been so overused that whatever specific meaning they may once have had is long gone. They have become “placeholders”—words that fill in in some hazy, general way for a more specific word that we have not thought of yet, or are too lazy to think of. Our job is to give these words a decent burial so that the “real” words can finally come to light.
The following is fairly typical of how good and nice are used in writing and speaking.
When I woke up this morning I could tell it was going to be a good day. I glanced out the window and the weather was nice. I took a long shower, which made me feel good. Then I stared into my closet; I was looking for something nice to wear. Finally I settled on my good denim skirt and my new t-shirt. I got a good bargain on that shirt; it looks much nicer than you would think for the price that I paid for it. Besides, the look didn’t matter as much as the good feeling that wearing new clothes gives me.
Since it is a good idea to eat breakfast every day, I grabbed a coke and a doughnut as I ran out the door to school. A surprise awaited me at school—my first class had been canceled. That’s always a nice thing to hear on a Monday morning. I headed for the cafeteria to find my friends.
“Sarah,” I yelled, when I spotted her. “How was the vort? Was it good?”
Sarah waved as she came toward me. “It was really, really nice. I can’t remember having such a good time before.”
“What was so good about it, Sarah?” asked Rivka as she came over. “ I didn’t think it was a nice vort at all.”
“Why didn’t you have a good time?” Sarah asked. “I thought the food was good, and the music was definitely good. And the people? They were more than good.”
“Good for you maybe,” Rivka complained. “What’s so good about getting food poisoning from the sushi? Or finding out that the girl you thought was being so nice to you is only being that way because she wants to marry your brother?”
Here are just some of the possible words that you can substitute for good.
Righteous, upright, virtuous, honest, true, just, benevolent, moral, chaste, pure, fine, incorruptible, unspotted, untainted, sinless, stainless, tasty, scrumptious, honorable, conscientious, sound, serviceable, real, valid, reputable, proper, fit, suitable, useful, valuable, agreeable, pleasant, satisfying, satisfactory, complete, strong, reliable, healthy, invigorating, nutritious, appropriate, gratifying.
Here are just some of the possible words that you can substitute for nice.
Fine, handsome, pretty, comely, beautiful, lovely, attractive, fascination, captivating, exquisite, dainty, refined, delicate, charming, fair, graceful, elegant, good-looking, well-formed, pleasing, amiable, agreeable, winning, winsome, precise, particular, fastidious, exact, correct.
Since nice and good are sometimes used interchangeably, the words in the two lists above may also fit the intended meaning of either nice or good.
Each of the words above has a specific meaning and usage—look up a word in the dictionary if you are not sure of exactly what it means or how it is used. Remember that a synonym is not an exact replacement for a given word in all possible circumstances of usage.
Note: Anyone who thinks that nice and good don't need replacing should try being a shadchan and having the following conversation with a single.
Shadchan: So, how was the date?
She: It was nice.
Shadchan: I see. What was the boy like?
She: He was nice.
Shadchan: You went out to eat?
She: Yeah, but the place wasn't so good.
Shadchan: Did you at least get to converse with him?
She: Yeah, the conversation was good.
Shadchan: So, would you go out with him again?
She: No, I don't think so.
Friday, June 20, 2008
What I did on my Summer Vacation
What do frustrated English teachers do when they have no classes to teach? You're looking at it. They post about the sad state of English language usage. They inveigh against the use of certain words. They advocate the use of a broader vocabulary.
The postings that are coming up are intended to make me sleep better at night, knowing I've done something to eliminate some verbal culprits that have crept into the English language and that, in many cases, sap it of its inherent vitality.
The postings that are coming up are intended to make me sleep better at night, knowing I've done something to eliminate some verbal culprits that have crept into the English language and that, in many cases, sap it of its inherent vitality.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
On Four-Letter Words
A comment by D on another posting raised a topic deserving of its own topic: frumkeit and four-letter words. Let's dispell that popular myth that frum people 1) don't know any four-letter words and 2)never use those words.
My main teaching job is at a college under Jewish auspices, and I teach the males. I'm around before classes, during breaks and when classes let out. The only place to get a breath of fresh air is in front of the building and students congregate there regularly. I've heard every one of the four-letter words used that I've heard in the colleges where I've taught and teach that aren't under frum auspices, and have even heard a few I have never heard anywhere else. Frum Jews are not immune to using curse words.
But why does anyone use curse words? Let me share an exercise I did with a class at a well-known college under Catholic auspices. (The idea for the exercise was not mine but I thought it was brilliant and adapted it for my purposes.)
Well before class began, I put up standard sheets of paper on all the walls of the classroom with each sheet having a different curse word or phrase printed in large block letters. I added in also all those stereotype words that we use when referring to people from other countries, cultures or religions. I literally papered the room with these words. Then the students arrived.
To say they were in shock is a vast understatement. Not only in shock but with nowhere in the class to look to avoid being faced with the words. And then I began class.
"What's the problem?" I asked. "Don't like my redecorating?"
"It's not what you expect in school and from a teacher," one student volunteered.
"Yeah, they're not school words," another said.
So I asked where the words did belong. A few, a very few students argued that the words don't belong anywhere. I asked these students if they had EVER used the words. Embarrassed silence. One student said that she never curses. I asked if she had ever said "What the f___" or "What the h___", leaving the words unverbalized. She admitted she had. "What," I asked her, "were your listeners going to fill in the blanks with?" She finallly nodded her head and admitted that she may not have verbalized the full curse word but she had used it nonetheless.
Then I asked what was wrong with the curse words on the walls. Answers poured in. They were vulgar. They were about body functions that aren't polite to mention in public. They were attempts to denigrate someone's place of origin or their religion. They were profane. I let the answers flow and then I continued.
"What course is this?" I asked. "English" was the answer. "Why do you suppose an English teacher would be interested in curse words?" came from me. Silence. So I continued.
"Using curse words is an 'English' problem. Using curse words shows a lack of vocabulary. Using curse words is a hallmark of ignorance. Curse words are place holders in our speech for when we are too lazy or too unknowledgeable to think of a more correct word, a better word to use. They're verbal shortcuts that add nothing of substance to conversation. They're emotional rather than rational or logical."
"People use curse words to show that they are "cool," or "hip," or "with it" or any other term that makes you a bonafied member of a group you want to belong to. People think that using curse words makes them "in." Wrong, wrong, wrong."
The students' first assignment was to bring in sheets of paper on which they had written substitutes for those curse words and phrases that would be acceptable in general conversation and that would have specific meanings.They were to use a dictionary and a thesaurus. They were to think of the specific instances where they would have used the curse words and the specific emotion or meaning that they were trying to convey, and then they were to actually convey that emotion or meaning in "proper" English.
The next class period we had enough sheets to paper the entire building. There were grumblings about the amount of work they had to do but they had learned the first important lesson: to speak and write in an educated manner you have to actually be educated, not ignorant. Education takes some effort on their part. Our English language is blessed with an abundance of words that let us say specifically what we want to say, words that are effective. It is so not necessary to resort to curse words.
And this brings me to the crux of the matter. Far too many people are speaking English, but only very rudimentary English. They are substituting slang for standard English. Their vocabulary is poor. Their skills in writing and speaking are not fully developed. They are not readers, or they read material written by those whose skills are also not of the highest. Some believe that the truncated English seen in text messaging or emails is the "new English" of the future. It matters not at all what the excuses or reasons are: the end result is that too many people speak English that is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
And the next time that you hit your finger with a hammer just try saying "ouch." Perfectly intelligible, conveys a specific message and won't have me glaring over the top of my glasses at you.
My main teaching job is at a college under Jewish auspices, and I teach the males. I'm around before classes, during breaks and when classes let out. The only place to get a breath of fresh air is in front of the building and students congregate there regularly. I've heard every one of the four-letter words used that I've heard in the colleges where I've taught and teach that aren't under frum auspices, and have even heard a few I have never heard anywhere else. Frum Jews are not immune to using curse words.
But why does anyone use curse words? Let me share an exercise I did with a class at a well-known college under Catholic auspices. (The idea for the exercise was not mine but I thought it was brilliant and adapted it for my purposes.)
Well before class began, I put up standard sheets of paper on all the walls of the classroom with each sheet having a different curse word or phrase printed in large block letters. I added in also all those stereotype words that we use when referring to people from other countries, cultures or religions. I literally papered the room with these words. Then the students arrived.
To say they were in shock is a vast understatement. Not only in shock but with nowhere in the class to look to avoid being faced with the words. And then I began class.
"What's the problem?" I asked. "Don't like my redecorating?"
"It's not what you expect in school and from a teacher," one student volunteered.
"Yeah, they're not school words," another said.
So I asked where the words did belong. A few, a very few students argued that the words don't belong anywhere. I asked these students if they had EVER used the words. Embarrassed silence. One student said that she never curses. I asked if she had ever said "What the f___" or "What the h___", leaving the words unverbalized. She admitted she had. "What," I asked her, "were your listeners going to fill in the blanks with?" She finallly nodded her head and admitted that she may not have verbalized the full curse word but she had used it nonetheless.
Then I asked what was wrong with the curse words on the walls. Answers poured in. They were vulgar. They were about body functions that aren't polite to mention in public. They were attempts to denigrate someone's place of origin or their religion. They were profane. I let the answers flow and then I continued.
"What course is this?" I asked. "English" was the answer. "Why do you suppose an English teacher would be interested in curse words?" came from me. Silence. So I continued.
"Using curse words is an 'English' problem. Using curse words shows a lack of vocabulary. Using curse words is a hallmark of ignorance. Curse words are place holders in our speech for when we are too lazy or too unknowledgeable to think of a more correct word, a better word to use. They're verbal shortcuts that add nothing of substance to conversation. They're emotional rather than rational or logical."
"People use curse words to show that they are "cool," or "hip," or "with it" or any other term that makes you a bonafied member of a group you want to belong to. People think that using curse words makes them "in." Wrong, wrong, wrong."
The students' first assignment was to bring in sheets of paper on which they had written substitutes for those curse words and phrases that would be acceptable in general conversation and that would have specific meanings.They were to use a dictionary and a thesaurus. They were to think of the specific instances where they would have used the curse words and the specific emotion or meaning that they were trying to convey, and then they were to actually convey that emotion or meaning in "proper" English.
The next class period we had enough sheets to paper the entire building. There were grumblings about the amount of work they had to do but they had learned the first important lesson: to speak and write in an educated manner you have to actually be educated, not ignorant. Education takes some effort on their part. Our English language is blessed with an abundance of words that let us say specifically what we want to say, words that are effective. It is so not necessary to resort to curse words.
And this brings me to the crux of the matter. Far too many people are speaking English, but only very rudimentary English. They are substituting slang for standard English. Their vocabulary is poor. Their skills in writing and speaking are not fully developed. They are not readers, or they read material written by those whose skills are also not of the highest. Some believe that the truncated English seen in text messaging or emails is the "new English" of the future. It matters not at all what the excuses or reasons are: the end result is that too many people speak English that is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
And the next time that you hit your finger with a hammer just try saying "ouch." Perfectly intelligible, conveys a specific message and won't have me glaring over the top of my glasses at you.
Speaking of Watching our Language
By my reckoning I have not gone on a rant since before Purim, when the subject of overindulgence in alcohol came up. I am overdue so fortunately something occured this week that "lit the fire" so to speak.
Over the months I have been blogging I've come across one label that has had me gritting my teeth. This week was just the final straw.
We Jews are proud of the fact that we have the concept of Shmiras HaLoshon. Unfortunately, in far too many cases all it is is a concept, not an actual way of behaving and of speaking. We "talk the talk" but we don't "walk the walk." The gossip surrounding shidduchim and dating couples is so out of hand that it is interfering with the ability of people to get married. We indiscriminately throw labels at each other and act towards each other as if those labels have actual intrinsic meaning. We use MO and RW and assume we have said something perfectly clear when we have said nothing at all. And then there is the label that has me seeing red.
A vort. Far flung family and friends meeting in NY to celebrate the engagement of two people. And then the talking began. And what label did people choose to put on the kallah? Was she a fine girl? Was she an aidel girl? Was she a pretty girl? Was she a bright girl? None of the above. Instead the label going around was the kallah is a "Hot Channie." Hot Channie! If offends me to even have to type these two words together. And nor was the kallah the only one so labeled. In describing the choson's best friend's wife she was the "hottest Channie in Lakewood." (And isn't her mother kvelling right now--she raised a "Hot Channie.")
Ladies and gentlemen, do you really think that affixing a Hebrew name to "hot" changes the label into something that is acceptibly Jewish? Yes indeed, there is a label that all Jewish women ought to be striving to achieve. Centuries of Jewish feminism all encapsulated in that perfect encomium. Forget about striving for positive midos ladies. Forget about developing your mind. Forget about learning how to be a balabosta. Forget about being a good mother. What's going to get you noticed in Klal is plain, old fashioned SEX and sexiness. Do I have your attention now? You bet I do. Being a "hot Channie" is not about being attractive but about attracting, a whole world of difference. And it's not attracting because of your scintillating personality either.
When the men of Klal use the term it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is going through their minds or other parts of their anatomy. Oh yes some of them shake their heads in a "what is our world coming to" way, but their eyes are firmly glued on what is so obviously on display. And so are the eyes of the ladies. And while they might "tsk tsk" most don't. They stare too. And both groups breathlessly expell the words "Hot Channie," each group envious in its own way.
"Hot Channie" conjures up a lot of images but none of those include a Bas Yisroel of impeccable midos. "Hot Channie" plays to the lowest common denominator of male/female relationships. "Hot Channie" places women firmly in the class of objects. "Hot Channie" blurs the lines between public and private. "Hot Channie" is about being/having a trophy and displaying it for all the world to see, comment on and be envious of. "Hot Channie" is nothing but another four-letter curse word, given an imprimature of acceptability because it uses a Hebrew word.
You want to think "Hot Channie" in the deep, dark recesses of your mind, well go ahead and indulge your prurient interests. But keep those thoughts well to yourself, because if I hear "Hot Channie" on anyone's lips in public again, I refuse to be responsible for the explosion that will result. And that includes you ladies too. It's not more acceptable when a woman says it than when a man says it.
Over the months I have been blogging I've come across one label that has had me gritting my teeth. This week was just the final straw.
We Jews are proud of the fact that we have the concept of Shmiras HaLoshon. Unfortunately, in far too many cases all it is is a concept, not an actual way of behaving and of speaking. We "talk the talk" but we don't "walk the walk." The gossip surrounding shidduchim and dating couples is so out of hand that it is interfering with the ability of people to get married. We indiscriminately throw labels at each other and act towards each other as if those labels have actual intrinsic meaning. We use MO and RW and assume we have said something perfectly clear when we have said nothing at all. And then there is the label that has me seeing red.
A vort. Far flung family and friends meeting in NY to celebrate the engagement of two people. And then the talking began. And what label did people choose to put on the kallah? Was she a fine girl? Was she an aidel girl? Was she a pretty girl? Was she a bright girl? None of the above. Instead the label going around was the kallah is a "Hot Channie." Hot Channie! If offends me to even have to type these two words together. And nor was the kallah the only one so labeled. In describing the choson's best friend's wife she was the "hottest Channie in Lakewood." (And isn't her mother kvelling right now--she raised a "Hot Channie.")
Ladies and gentlemen, do you really think that affixing a Hebrew name to "hot" changes the label into something that is acceptibly Jewish? Yes indeed, there is a label that all Jewish women ought to be striving to achieve. Centuries of Jewish feminism all encapsulated in that perfect encomium. Forget about striving for positive midos ladies. Forget about developing your mind. Forget about learning how to be a balabosta. Forget about being a good mother. What's going to get you noticed in Klal is plain, old fashioned SEX and sexiness. Do I have your attention now? You bet I do. Being a "hot Channie" is not about being attractive but about attracting, a whole world of difference. And it's not attracting because of your scintillating personality either.
When the men of Klal use the term it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is going through their minds or other parts of their anatomy. Oh yes some of them shake their heads in a "what is our world coming to" way, but their eyes are firmly glued on what is so obviously on display. And so are the eyes of the ladies. And while they might "tsk tsk" most don't. They stare too. And both groups breathlessly expell the words "Hot Channie," each group envious in its own way.
"Hot Channie" conjures up a lot of images but none of those include a Bas Yisroel of impeccable midos. "Hot Channie" plays to the lowest common denominator of male/female relationships. "Hot Channie" places women firmly in the class of objects. "Hot Channie" blurs the lines between public and private. "Hot Channie" is about being/having a trophy and displaying it for all the world to see, comment on and be envious of. "Hot Channie" is nothing but another four-letter curse word, given an imprimature of acceptability because it uses a Hebrew word.
You want to think "Hot Channie" in the deep, dark recesses of your mind, well go ahead and indulge your prurient interests. But keep those thoughts well to yourself, because if I hear "Hot Channie" on anyone's lips in public again, I refuse to be responsible for the explosion that will result. And that includes you ladies too. It's not more acceptable when a woman says it than when a man says it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On Choice
What do we really mean when we use the word choice? I'm not referring to the dictionary definition here but how choice actually works out when we use it to describe an action.
It's an hour before dinner and you walk into the kitchen and tell your mother you're starving and need something to hold you over until dinner is ready. She says you can have a piece of fruit--no other choices presented. Okay, you really, really wanted a warm, puffy chocolate-laden doughnut but that was not one of the things available for you to choose from. In fact, you had two choices--eat fruit or don't eat at all. Since your stomach is telling you that eating is the only choice to make, you head for the fridge. In the fruit bin you find apples, lots and lots of apples. There are sweet yellow apples, sour green apples, juicy red delicious apples. There are apples to be eaten raw and apples that are best eaten cooked. There are small apples and large apples. There are apples that have more juice and some that are more mealy. There are dozens of named apples. You've got a huge variety to choose from. The only problem is that they are all apples. And apples are only one type of fruit. But hey, you're still hungry so you take an apple. Your appetite is satisfied until dinner. And truthfully you liked the apple that you ate, but you still wish that you had a choice that was more than apples.
Next week the same scenario plays itself out only this time your mom says that you can have fruit and in the bin are apples and grapes. There are seeded and seedless grapes in there. Some are red, some are green, some are black. Some are small and some are large. Some are sweeter and some are more tart. But you really don't like grapes, no matter which kind they are, so you are back to picking an apple.
The week after that you have the same scenario only this time there are dozens of types of fruit to pick from. Now you have a dilemma. You can still only pick one fruit but how to choose? The pineapple looks interesting but it's too large to eat at one sitting and you don't know what to do with what will be leftover. Maybe someone else will want some also and maybe they won't. You could put it away for tomorrow and the day after that but what if you're not in the mood for pineapple tomorrow, or what if it is not as fresh tasting and appealing when it's been sitting around cut up for a while? The kiwis also look interesting, and you know they taste great, but they're awfully small, and what if eating one won't appease your hunger? The bananas have little brown speckles on their peels and you don't want to take a chance that there is bruising on the fruit under the peel. The pear you pick up has a soft spot near the stem so you put it back. The raspberries are not ripe enough for you. You won't touch strawberries under any circumstances, and you don't care how healthy they are. Finally there are only two fruit choices left--apples and papayas.
Now, you've never eaten a papaya before but you have heard that they can be delicious. Okay, it looks a little strange in shape. There only seems to be one variety of papaya available. You stare at the papaya and then at all the different types of apples. You're in a quandary. Do you go with the tried and true apples or do you try something new?
Some people will opt for the papaya. They eat it and discover that papayas are yummy. They eat every morsel and wish that there was more. Some people will say the papaya is okay and if no other choice was available they would eat the papaya with no problem. Some people say "no way" and wouldn't eat another papaya even if it was the only choice available; they'd do without fruit.
Some people will opt for the apples. They like apples well enough so why take a chance on something that they might or might not like as well? Some people are real apple fans and consider everything but apples to be second best. Some people think that choosing a papaya over an apple would be settling rather than choosing.
Four weeks later you come home and are assaulted by the aromas wafting out of the kitchen. You walk into the kitchen ready to grab something to eat and now face a real dilemma: how will you choose only one thing? There are bags of fruit on the table. There's a fresh cake coming out of the oven, and freshly baked bread cooling on a rack. There's a platter of doughnuts. There's a box of cookies you've never tried before. There is a bag of pretzels. There's a bowl of nuts. There's candy in a container in the pantry. There's leftover chicken and rice in the fridge. There are ice cream bars in the freezer. Choice at last! Only...the cake has cinnamon sugar topping on it and you'd have to scrape that off, thus losing part of your snack. Besides, it could take forever for the cake to cool to eating temperature and you're hungry now. The bread smells delicious but there is no cream cheese in the fridge and you won't eat bread without cream cheese. The doughnuts catch your eye and your hand reaches out for one until you realize that all the doughnuts have lemon glaze on them--no chocolate in sight. You read the cookie box and find out that a portion is only one small cookie, and that won't solve your hunger. The pretzels are unsalted and you only eat salted pretzels. The nuts are mixed nuts but you really only like the almonds and cashews and there aren't enough of them to cover up the peanut taste. The candy bars are made with sugar substitute and you go "yuck!" The chicken and rice will do just fine until you discover there is only dark meat in the container and you are a white meat person. You reach into the freezer for an ice cream bar and discover that they are all strawberry and you won't eat strawberries in any form. So you head for the fruit bags and rummage around until you find the bag containing apples. You pass over the green ones and pick a juicy yellow one.
The week after that you head for a supermarket when you get hungry. Zillions of choices available. You prowl the aisles on the lookout for "the" choice. You're in the cookie aisle and your hand reaches for a box with an amazing picture of cookies oozing chocolate on it. And then you put it back because there is no hashgacha on it. Or maybe there is only a K on it. The bakery aisle has a whole selection of doughnuts smothered in chocolate, only they cost $2.00 per doughnut. Some people will decide that that is too much money to spend on a snack. Some people won't have that much money to spend. Some people will grab the doughnut believing that the product is worth the price. You head for the frozen food aisle and there are the ice cream sandwiches. Some people will not buy those sandwiches because what if they aren't really that good--what will they do with the leftover ones? Some people won't buy them because they only like ice cream once in a while but they'll be stuck eating those sandwiches every day for a week. Some people look at the price and say that the sandwiches are simply not worth what you have to pay for them. Other people won't look at the price because price isn't important when you are talking about ice cream sandwiches. And some people, after having gone through the whole market, will come home with a bag of apples. They're tried and true, the price is right and there are no strange surprises that come along with buying apples.
In every scenario above our hungry person has had choice available. Sometimes what could be chosen was severely circumscribed; other times the choice was seemingly unlimited. Sometimes the "real" choice was made by others--the mother who said fruit or nothing. Sometimes the choice was a partnership--mom's purchases and the hungry person's personal feelings. Sometimes the choice was completely the person's to make, but still circumscribed by experience, by habit, by money, by religious beliefs and by personal preferences.
A comment that was made about "flourishing and vibrant" communities out of town was that to be called thusly a community had to have stability and had to have choice. But "having choice" is an ephemeral statement; choice can mean so many different things to so many different people. Choice of what? When? Where? How? Based on what experience, what habits? Who or what is circumscribing our choices? And is what we choose today going to work for tomorrow or the next day? The next month or the next year? Do we even want it to? Are our preferences when making a choice carved in stone or are they flexible? Should they be non-changing or should they be able to adapt? And are our choices affected if we are hungry when we make them? Would they be different if we weren't hungry but merely planning for our next meal?
Choice--a word that can mean all things to all people or nothing at all. Beware when you are offered a choice--what are you really being offered?
It's an hour before dinner and you walk into the kitchen and tell your mother you're starving and need something to hold you over until dinner is ready. She says you can have a piece of fruit--no other choices presented. Okay, you really, really wanted a warm, puffy chocolate-laden doughnut but that was not one of the things available for you to choose from. In fact, you had two choices--eat fruit or don't eat at all. Since your stomach is telling you that eating is the only choice to make, you head for the fridge. In the fruit bin you find apples, lots and lots of apples. There are sweet yellow apples, sour green apples, juicy red delicious apples. There are apples to be eaten raw and apples that are best eaten cooked. There are small apples and large apples. There are apples that have more juice and some that are more mealy. There are dozens of named apples. You've got a huge variety to choose from. The only problem is that they are all apples. And apples are only one type of fruit. But hey, you're still hungry so you take an apple. Your appetite is satisfied until dinner. And truthfully you liked the apple that you ate, but you still wish that you had a choice that was more than apples.
Next week the same scenario plays itself out only this time your mom says that you can have fruit and in the bin are apples and grapes. There are seeded and seedless grapes in there. Some are red, some are green, some are black. Some are small and some are large. Some are sweeter and some are more tart. But you really don't like grapes, no matter which kind they are, so you are back to picking an apple.
The week after that you have the same scenario only this time there are dozens of types of fruit to pick from. Now you have a dilemma. You can still only pick one fruit but how to choose? The pineapple looks interesting but it's too large to eat at one sitting and you don't know what to do with what will be leftover. Maybe someone else will want some also and maybe they won't. You could put it away for tomorrow and the day after that but what if you're not in the mood for pineapple tomorrow, or what if it is not as fresh tasting and appealing when it's been sitting around cut up for a while? The kiwis also look interesting, and you know they taste great, but they're awfully small, and what if eating one won't appease your hunger? The bananas have little brown speckles on their peels and you don't want to take a chance that there is bruising on the fruit under the peel. The pear you pick up has a soft spot near the stem so you put it back. The raspberries are not ripe enough for you. You won't touch strawberries under any circumstances, and you don't care how healthy they are. Finally there are only two fruit choices left--apples and papayas.
Now, you've never eaten a papaya before but you have heard that they can be delicious. Okay, it looks a little strange in shape. There only seems to be one variety of papaya available. You stare at the papaya and then at all the different types of apples. You're in a quandary. Do you go with the tried and true apples or do you try something new?
Some people will opt for the papaya. They eat it and discover that papayas are yummy. They eat every morsel and wish that there was more. Some people will say the papaya is okay and if no other choice was available they would eat the papaya with no problem. Some people say "no way" and wouldn't eat another papaya even if it was the only choice available; they'd do without fruit.
Some people will opt for the apples. They like apples well enough so why take a chance on something that they might or might not like as well? Some people are real apple fans and consider everything but apples to be second best. Some people think that choosing a papaya over an apple would be settling rather than choosing.
Four weeks later you come home and are assaulted by the aromas wafting out of the kitchen. You walk into the kitchen ready to grab something to eat and now face a real dilemma: how will you choose only one thing? There are bags of fruit on the table. There's a fresh cake coming out of the oven, and freshly baked bread cooling on a rack. There's a platter of doughnuts. There's a box of cookies you've never tried before. There is a bag of pretzels. There's a bowl of nuts. There's candy in a container in the pantry. There's leftover chicken and rice in the fridge. There are ice cream bars in the freezer. Choice at last! Only...the cake has cinnamon sugar topping on it and you'd have to scrape that off, thus losing part of your snack. Besides, it could take forever for the cake to cool to eating temperature and you're hungry now. The bread smells delicious but there is no cream cheese in the fridge and you won't eat bread without cream cheese. The doughnuts catch your eye and your hand reaches out for one until you realize that all the doughnuts have lemon glaze on them--no chocolate in sight. You read the cookie box and find out that a portion is only one small cookie, and that won't solve your hunger. The pretzels are unsalted and you only eat salted pretzels. The nuts are mixed nuts but you really only like the almonds and cashews and there aren't enough of them to cover up the peanut taste. The candy bars are made with sugar substitute and you go "yuck!" The chicken and rice will do just fine until you discover there is only dark meat in the container and you are a white meat person. You reach into the freezer for an ice cream bar and discover that they are all strawberry and you won't eat strawberries in any form. So you head for the fruit bags and rummage around until you find the bag containing apples. You pass over the green ones and pick a juicy yellow one.
The week after that you head for a supermarket when you get hungry. Zillions of choices available. You prowl the aisles on the lookout for "the" choice. You're in the cookie aisle and your hand reaches for a box with an amazing picture of cookies oozing chocolate on it. And then you put it back because there is no hashgacha on it. Or maybe there is only a K on it. The bakery aisle has a whole selection of doughnuts smothered in chocolate, only they cost $2.00 per doughnut. Some people will decide that that is too much money to spend on a snack. Some people won't have that much money to spend. Some people will grab the doughnut believing that the product is worth the price. You head for the frozen food aisle and there are the ice cream sandwiches. Some people will not buy those sandwiches because what if they aren't really that good--what will they do with the leftover ones? Some people won't buy them because they only like ice cream once in a while but they'll be stuck eating those sandwiches every day for a week. Some people look at the price and say that the sandwiches are simply not worth what you have to pay for them. Other people won't look at the price because price isn't important when you are talking about ice cream sandwiches. And some people, after having gone through the whole market, will come home with a bag of apples. They're tried and true, the price is right and there are no strange surprises that come along with buying apples.
In every scenario above our hungry person has had choice available. Sometimes what could be chosen was severely circumscribed; other times the choice was seemingly unlimited. Sometimes the "real" choice was made by others--the mother who said fruit or nothing. Sometimes the choice was a partnership--mom's purchases and the hungry person's personal feelings. Sometimes the choice was completely the person's to make, but still circumscribed by experience, by habit, by money, by religious beliefs and by personal preferences.
A comment that was made about "flourishing and vibrant" communities out of town was that to be called thusly a community had to have stability and had to have choice. But "having choice" is an ephemeral statement; choice can mean so many different things to so many different people. Choice of what? When? Where? How? Based on what experience, what habits? Who or what is circumscribing our choices? And is what we choose today going to work for tomorrow or the next day? The next month or the next year? Do we even want it to? Are our preferences when making a choice carved in stone or are they flexible? Should they be non-changing or should they be able to adapt? And are our choices affected if we are hungry when we make them? Would they be different if we weren't hungry but merely planning for our next meal?
Choice--a word that can mean all things to all people or nothing at all. Beware when you are offered a choice--what are you really being offered?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Speaking of Jews in America
A comment made by Lion of Zion in which he asked about vibrancy and the flourishing of communities outside of Brooklyn elicited a question as to how Lion defined these terms. One word he used was "stability." Having just that little bit of free time to indulge in one of my favorite pastimes--research--lead me to the following site.
http://www.ajlegacy.org/
I admit to being fascinated.The founder and executive Vice President of the group is one R' Yaakov Horowitz, the Bostoner Rebbi's grandson. The following is the why behind the formation of the organization: "All members of the American Jewish historical community acknowledge that the important story of the American traditional Jewish experience has never been told. For over 350 years, American traditional Jewish individuals and communities have had an indelible impact on the fabric of American industry, culture and society.The American Jewish Legacy (AJL) is a national effort to preserve and document the unique, rich history of traditional Jewish congregations, individuals, and communities in the United States from Colonial times to the present. Working with noted academicians, public and private archives, regional and national historic organizations across the country and abroad, the AJL has initiated projects and activities which seek to save this important historical resource and to gather archival information which is in imminent danger of being lost."
You might enjoy just looking at some of the offerings on the site. The newsletters offer some pretty fascinating views of American Jewish history. The Jews in America have a 354 year history here. Many of those Jewish communities that we think of as so new and so very out of townish have long and stable histories in their home towns. Just for example, the Jewish community in Seattle dates back to 1888, hardly a newcomer on the Jewish scene.
Anyway, I thought that some of you might find the site worth a visit. And some of the material on it raises some interesting questions vis a vis Lion's "stability" requirement for a flourishing community.
http://www.ajlegacy.org/
I admit to being fascinated.The founder and executive Vice President of the group is one R' Yaakov Horowitz, the Bostoner Rebbi's grandson. The following is the why behind the formation of the organization: "All members of the American Jewish historical community acknowledge that the important story of the American traditional Jewish experience has never been told. For over 350 years, American traditional Jewish individuals and communities have had an indelible impact on the fabric of American industry, culture and society.The American Jewish Legacy (AJL) is a national effort to preserve and document the unique, rich history of traditional Jewish congregations, individuals, and communities in the United States from Colonial times to the present. Working with noted academicians, public and private archives, regional and national historic organizations across the country and abroad, the AJL has initiated projects and activities which seek to save this important historical resource and to gather archival information which is in imminent danger of being lost."
You might enjoy just looking at some of the offerings on the site. The newsletters offer some pretty fascinating views of American Jewish history. The Jews in America have a 354 year history here. Many of those Jewish communities that we think of as so new and so very out of townish have long and stable histories in their home towns. Just for example, the Jewish community in Seattle dates back to 1888, hardly a newcomer on the Jewish scene.
Anyway, I thought that some of you might find the site worth a visit. And some of the material on it raises some interesting questions vis a vis Lion's "stability" requirement for a flourishing community.
There's Needy and then there is Needy
We have a fairly large mailbox. Every day that mailbox is full. Considering that we pay most of our bills via the Internet, so those are not among the envelopes, who is sending us so much mail? One answer is an easy one: we're frum and those envelopes are coming from frum institutions and organizations asking for money. They come from local groups and individuals and from groups across the country and in Israel. The come, and they come, and they come.
Every family has its own method for handling how they respond to these envelopes. And I'm sure that every family is sometimes puzzled as to how to respond. There are books out there dealing with how to give tzedaka specifically (I know, I edited one last year), but even if you follow the suggested ordering of priorities in giving tzedaka, how do you decide within those categories? And how do you know that what you are reading is a legitimate request? How do you know that the details you are being given are really true? How do you know that an organization is really doing with the money you send what it says it will do? How do you know how much of your money is going towards its intended use? How do you know if an appeal is legitimate or not?
One possible way to check is to go to http://www.charitynavigator.org. If a charity is registered with the IRS/state you can find it there. You can imagine my dismay at finding out that a tzedaka that I had given to for years, that had what seemed to be legitimate leadership and a worthwhile mission, spent 73% of the money donated on its overhead--73%! Only 27 cents was really going to tzedaka work. That's not what I expect when I donate to a tzedaka.
There is a different category of money requests that drive me crazy. These are the letters that begin "_________, a choshuvah Torah scholar is in dire straits. He has the happiness to have a daughter/son engaged but what sorrow that he cannot hope to make a wedding or buy the household necessities." Usually either this scholar or his wife also happen to have a serious disease or medical condition, when there is a spouse. Sometimes they tell me that the kallah/choson is a yossom or yossomah. They have at least 10 children. They have fallen on hard times because the wife (usually) has lost her job or a business has failed. At least one of the other children is special needs. They can't put food on the table, never mind make a wedding. I'm left to draw the conclusion that Torah scholars have some strange genetic failing that leaves them vulnerable to every tzurah possible.
I so would like to be l'chav z'chus, but it's getting harder and harder. I've solved my personal dilemma by donating only to hachnosas kallah organizations that I've checked out and that are legitimate. I've stopped even reading the "personal" appeals. I asked myself how much money was spent on postage and printing up these letters, and how much of a wedding you could buy for that cost. One meshulach from Yisroel was here collecting for his own wedding. Just how much wedding could the cost of his airplane ticket to the US have purchased? Because he was standing in my doorway I gave him a couple of dollars, and then he said the magic words: "It's not enough. We have to buy an apartment, it's not like here."
Needy, for us, is the child c'v injured in a rocket attack or bombing who needs major reconstructive surgery that is not performed in Israel and who needs to come here to have it done. Needy is the family that legitimately works hard and through no laziness or fault of their own cannot put food on the table. Needy are the elderly trying to live on social security who have nothing else. Needy are the special needs children who require costly services that really can bankrupt their families. Needy is a lot of things for us. Producing wedding spectacles is not in our category of needy.
So please Mr. Torah Scholar, read up on that part in the Gemorah where it states that a father is obligated to teach his son a trade. And if your father didn't fulfill his obligation, then get out there and do it yourself. And if you have made the decision to still be sitting and learning when you are at the point of marrying off children, keep in mind that a chasoneh is still perfectly legitimate if it consists of nothing more than a chupah and a meal for 10 men.
Every family has its own method for handling how they respond to these envelopes. And I'm sure that every family is sometimes puzzled as to how to respond. There are books out there dealing with how to give tzedaka specifically (I know, I edited one last year), but even if you follow the suggested ordering of priorities in giving tzedaka, how do you decide within those categories? And how do you know that what you are reading is a legitimate request? How do you know that the details you are being given are really true? How do you know that an organization is really doing with the money you send what it says it will do? How do you know how much of your money is going towards its intended use? How do you know if an appeal is legitimate or not?
One possible way to check is to go to http://www.charitynavigator.org. If a charity is registered with the IRS/state you can find it there. You can imagine my dismay at finding out that a tzedaka that I had given to for years, that had what seemed to be legitimate leadership and a worthwhile mission, spent 73% of the money donated on its overhead--73%! Only 27 cents was really going to tzedaka work. That's not what I expect when I donate to a tzedaka.
There is a different category of money requests that drive me crazy. These are the letters that begin "_________, a choshuvah Torah scholar is in dire straits. He has the happiness to have a daughter/son engaged but what sorrow that he cannot hope to make a wedding or buy the household necessities." Usually either this scholar or his wife also happen to have a serious disease or medical condition, when there is a spouse. Sometimes they tell me that the kallah/choson is a yossom or yossomah. They have at least 10 children. They have fallen on hard times because the wife (usually) has lost her job or a business has failed. At least one of the other children is special needs. They can't put food on the table, never mind make a wedding. I'm left to draw the conclusion that Torah scholars have some strange genetic failing that leaves them vulnerable to every tzurah possible.
I so would like to be l'chav z'chus, but it's getting harder and harder. I've solved my personal dilemma by donating only to hachnosas kallah organizations that I've checked out and that are legitimate. I've stopped even reading the "personal" appeals. I asked myself how much money was spent on postage and printing up these letters, and how much of a wedding you could buy for that cost. One meshulach from Yisroel was here collecting for his own wedding. Just how much wedding could the cost of his airplane ticket to the US have purchased? Because he was standing in my doorway I gave him a couple of dollars, and then he said the magic words: "It's not enough. We have to buy an apartment, it's not like here."
Needy, for us, is the child c'v injured in a rocket attack or bombing who needs major reconstructive surgery that is not performed in Israel and who needs to come here to have it done. Needy is the family that legitimately works hard and through no laziness or fault of their own cannot put food on the table. Needy are the elderly trying to live on social security who have nothing else. Needy are the special needs children who require costly services that really can bankrupt their families. Needy is a lot of things for us. Producing wedding spectacles is not in our category of needy.
So please Mr. Torah Scholar, read up on that part in the Gemorah where it states that a father is obligated to teach his son a trade. And if your father didn't fulfill his obligation, then get out there and do it yourself. And if you have made the decision to still be sitting and learning when you are at the point of marrying off children, keep in mind that a chasoneh is still perfectly legitimate if it consists of nothing more than a chupah and a meal for 10 men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)