Every day we lose an untold amount of kids because of their inability to reconcile Torah and science. Thanks to the yeshivas and Bais Yaakov girl schools who refuse to address this urgent issue.....as it will only get infinitely worse!
UOJ
On a Tuesday in July 2007, I learned that the sun is a star. A friend of mine, formerly Hasidic, told me the secret. She informed me that the heavens look nothing like we think. I said, “Huh?”
“Look,” she said reasonably, “I swear. It explains it here, in this incredible astronomy book. The sun is a star, a medium-sized one — and just one of millions in our galaxy…”
She looked at me, waiting for my wonder. “Stars,” she said, pointing enthusiastically up to the clouds, “can also be suns.”
I looked suspiciously at the book in her hand. I turned away. I sat down heavily on the steps, pulling my maternity shirt over my swollen stomach. Good God. She actually believed that stuff. The school we attended, the ultra-Orthodox Bais Yaakov School, did not teach us astronomy. But, still, we know the sun is not a star.
No, the sun is The Sun. The one with six to nine planets around it. The one God created after painstakingly reading the Torah instructions. The one, and the only one, in this universe, lighting our way along with the single moon and the myriad stars.
My friend insisted. It isn’t like that.
I patted my friend on her shoulder. I told her it is okay — we all have mental breakdowns sometimes. She went on. It’s the way it is with breakdowns. She spoke about light years, the distance between stars. She talked about elements forged in light and stars, rambling for minutes at a time. It was disturbing. It is one thing to demand that the sun is a star, perhaps a matter of linguistic interpretation, but that other stars are suns, too — with planets around them — whole galaxies impervious to and in complete contradiction to His orders? God would never betray us like that.
It is not that we disagreed about the fact that light travels. It does — just not very far. I explained this to her. I tried to make her see the logic. It was simple, only one sentence long and in the Torah: On Wednesday, God created one sun and one moon. Separately, He created stars. In the Torah it does not say, “And on Wednesday, God created many, many suns that from afar will look like many, many stars whose light will reach Earth after light-years of travel......”
EVERY PARENT HAS A DUTY TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE: http://forward.com/articles/162232/the-sun-is-a-star/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The%20Forward%20Today%20%28Monday-Friday%29&utm_campaign=Daily_Newsletter_Mon_Thurs%202012-09-06
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/05/democrats-god/
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article, Obama insisted that references to G-d and Jerusalem be reinstated in the platform.
One reason only ---- The Jewish vote in the swing states! He could care less about God or the Jews, or Israel for that matter!
ReplyDeleteSee Dershowitz and Krauthammer below!
If it's true that Obama personally intervened and overruled the platform writers - that's an amazing thing no matter what his motivation. Like Biden will say tonight - "GM IS ALIVE AND BIN LADEN IS DEAD." You've got to give the President some credit - no?
ReplyDeleteNO!
ReplyDeleteObama will say anything! GM is also dead - they owe the taxpayers some $30 Billion dollars, and each "saved" GM job cost the taxpayer $500,000.
Delegates Boo Either G-d, Israel, Or Both
ReplyDeleteDemocrats Re-insert G-d and J'lem into Platform After Protest - But Deletion of Isolating Hamas, Opposition to 'Right of Return,' No Israeli Return to 1949 Lines Not Reinserted
Following internal and external criticism, the Democratic National Convention re-inserted language yesterday mentioning G-d and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from its 2008 Platform that had been omitted from its 2012 Platform. However, other divergences from its 2008 Platform, including language calling for the isolation of the terrorist organization Hamas, which calls in its Charter for the destruction of Israel and the worldwide murder of Jews; about no Israeli return to the perilous 1949 armistice lines; and on the need for Palestinian refugees of the 1948-49 war and their millions of descendants to be resettled in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel, were not reinserted into the 2012 Democratic Platform.
"When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for Yeas and Nays on the decision [on reinstating reference to G-d and to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel], he found a roughly even split among delegates. After repeating the process two more times, a befuddled Villaraigosa was visited on stage by a party official who seemingly advised him to declare the needed two-thirds in favor of the change regardless of what the delegates actually conveyed. This he promptly did, eliciting a wave of boos" (Abe Greenwald, 'Re: Democratic Delegates Boo Jerusalem,' Commentary, 'Contentions' blog, September 5, 2012). Clearly, the disaffected delegates were either booing G-d or the Jewish state of Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East, or both.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We naturally support the reinsertion of language from the 2008 Democratic Platform on G-d and on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel that had originally been omitted from the 2012 Democratic Platform. But we remain deeply disconcerted for two reasons:
"First, the reinsertion of this language on G-d and Jerusalem being the capital of Israel was clearly controversial among the Democratic Party delegates and was bitterly opposed by at least one-half of the delegates. Anyone who watches the coverage of this unscripted moment at the Democratic National Convention cannot fail to see that when Mayor Villaraigosa declared the reinsertion of this language carried by two-thirds - after three failed attempts to get the delegates to change their voice vote from approximately 50-50 to 67-33, as rules require - there was loud and sustained booing and hissing. Clearly, the disaffected delegates were either booing G-d or the Jewish state of Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East, or both.
"Second, there were other passages in the 2008 Platform that were omitted and not restored - language on the need to isolate the terrorist organization Hamas; on the need for Palestinian refugees of the 1948-49 war and their millions of descendants to be resettled in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel; and on no return for Israel to the highly vulnerable 1949 armistice lines that remained in place until the 1967 Six Day War.
"This means that the Democratic Platform no longer opposes the legally baseless Palestinian 'right of return,' whereby Palestinian refugees of the 1948-49 war and their millions of descendants are to be resettled in Israel, destroying it from within. This means that the Democratic Platform no longer specifically calls for the isolation of Hamas. This means that the Democratic Platform no longer rejects an Israeli return to the 1949 armistice lines."
Thanks UOJ. I stand corrected. Now I know the rest of the story.
ReplyDeleteTell your friends!
ReplyDelete..."GM is going from bad to worse," reads the headline on Automotive News Editor in Chief Keith Crain's analysis. That's certainly true of its stock price.
ReplyDeleteThe government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is around $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells.
That's in addition to the revenue lost when the Obama administration permitted GM to continue to deduct previous losses from current profits, even though such deductions are ordinarily wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that GM is bleeding money because of decisions made by a management eager to please its political masters -- and by the terms of the bankruptcy arranged by Obama car czars Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner.
Rattner himself admitted late last year, in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club: "We should have asked the UAW (the United Auto Workers union) to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." Non-union employees of GM spinoff Delphi lost their pensions. UAW members didn't.
The UAW got their political payoff. And GM, according to Forbes writer Louis Woodhill, is headed to bankruptcy again.
Is this really what Obama wants to do for all manufacturing across America? Let's hope not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/23/gm_goes_from_bad_to_worse_despite_obama_bailout_115184.html
This is not consistent with mainstream media reporting. According to them, the GM rescue is a huge success story where Obama singlehandedly saved over a million auto related jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe facts were never important to the mainstream media!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/details-of-the-auto-bailout-you-wont-hear-in-charlotte/
ReplyDeleteNext: Is It Good to Have More Kids in the Inefficient and Less-Effective Government School System?
Previous: The Flawed Bipartisan Consensus on Military Spending and Foreign Policy
Details of the Auto Bailout You Won’t Hear in Charlotte
Posted by Daniel Ikenson
The central economic selling point of the Obama reelection team is that the president saved the U.S. auto industry. That such a contestable proposition serves as the administration’s economic headline does more to underscore its abysmal record than to inspire confidence in its continued economic stewardship.
The administration didn’t save the auto industry. The stronger case is that it damaged the auto industry along with several important institutions vital to capitalism’s proper functioning. However, it should be granted that President Obama’s commandeering of GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcy process saved jobs at those companies and elsewhere in their supply chains (and provided an opportunity to dole out spoils for politically favored interests). How many jobs were saved is impossible to determine because it’s not clear what would have happened to GM’s and Chrysler’s assets had a normal, non-political bankruptcy process been allowed to unfold.
Yes, jobs were saved for the time being in Michigan, Ohio, and a few other industrial states in the Midwest. That is what can be seen. And politicians are hardwired to tout the benefits—and only the benefits—of their policies.
But an informed citizenry should insist on a proper accounting of the costs of those policies, as well—not just the losses put on the taxpayers’ tab (right now taxpayers’ “investment” in GM is $27 billion, but the public’s 500 million shares of GM stock is worth only $10 billion), but the unseen costs.
Sure some jobs were preserved in some locations, but what about the less visible consequences and ripple effects? What isn’t so easily seen, but is every bit as important to assessing the auto interventions is the effects on the other auto companies and their workers (i.e., the majority of the U.S. auto industry). Will the public remember or know enough to attribute layoffs of American workers at Ford or Toyota or Kia during the next downturn in auto demand to the fact that a necessary reckoning on the supply side was precluded by the interventions of 2009?
The auto industry is plagued with overcapacity, which is a problem that demands a thinning of the herd. GM and Chrysler, through their own relatively poor decisions with respect to labor relations, product offerings, and quality management were failing by the market’s judgment and were the rightful candidates to be thinned. But that process was forestalled. In 2013, auto workers in Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Indiana, and even Michigan and Ohio may lose their jobs because GM and Chrysler workers’ jobs were spared in 2009.
That is only one of the many unseen or under-rug-swept costs of the auto bailouts. The following passage from congressional testimony I gave last year identifies several others:
ReplyDeleteIt is galling to hear administration officials characterize the auto bailouts as “successful.” The word should be off-limits when describing this unfortunate chapter in U.S. economic history. At most, bailout proponents and apologists might respectfully argue — and still be wrong, however — that the bailouts were necessary evils undertaken to avert greater calamity.
But calling the bailouts “successful” is to whitewash the diversion of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program by two administrations for purposes unauthorized by Congress; the looting and redistribution of claims against GM’s and Chrysler’s assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners; the use of questionable tactics to bully stakeholders into accepting terms to facilitate politically desirable outcomes; the unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the finest details of the bankruptcy process to orchestrate what bankruptcy law experts describe as “Sham” sales of Old Chrysler to New Chrysler and Old GM to New GM; the costs of denying Ford and the other more deserving automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the United Autoworkers, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against similar market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about the direction of policy under the current administration that pervades the business environment to this very day.
In addition to the above, there is the fact that taxpayers are still short tens of billions of dollars on account of the GM bailout without serious prospects for ever being made whole. Thus, acceptance of the administration’s pronouncement of auto bailout success demands profound gullibility or willful ignorance. Sure, GM has experienced recent profits and Chrysler has repaid much of its debt to the Treasury. But if proper judgment is to be passed, then all of the bailout’s costs and benefits must be considered. Otherwise, calling the bailout a success is like applauding the recovery of a drunken driver after an accident, while ignoring the condition of the family he severely maimed.
Here is the entirety of that testimony, and few other articles, op-eds, and blog posts on the topic.
Why would any bank lend to Margo / YTT when they are on the precipice of $100s of millions in judgements?
ReplyDeletehttp://appsext7.dos.ny.gov/pls/ucc_public/web_search.main_frame
Debtor Names: YESHIVA & MESIVTA TORAH TEMIMAH INC. 555 OCEAN PARKWAY, BROOKLYN, NY 11218-0000, USA
Secured Party Names: SIGNATURE BANK 565 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017-0000, USA
File no. File Date Lapse Date Filing Type Pages Image
114100 05/16/2002 05/16/2007 Financing Statement 1 NA *
200705085469489 05/08/2007 05/16/2012 Continuation 1 View
201201115040342 01/11/2012 05/16/2017 Continuation 1 View
http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2012/09/who-else-should-you-attend-this-parlor.html
ReplyDeleteYudel Shain is on my case now too?
It was under George W. Bush (Bush II), at the end of his eight years in office, that the American economy collapsed in 2008. That alone ensured that a guy like Obama would have the upper hand with Republicans bankrupting the USA as they pillaged and and robbed all the wealth while no one was looking. Same thing happened under George H. W. Bush (Bush I) when the savings and loans went bust and all the money the bankers stole then went missing.
ReplyDeleteBush's (Bush II) "gift" to America is Obama. Bush II so much disliked McCain and let it be known in many ways. Too bad, now the Republicans want to bring back Romney who is endorsed by...George H. W. Bush (Bush I) and his crew...like inviting in the Republican arsonists who burned this country's economy down in the first place.