Your Moral Leader

Cathy writes: Marc is a Canadian journalist and longtime member of Luke Ford's all-male, online "advisory committee." Too bad Luke can't build a cyberspace treehouse with a "NO G-U-R-L-backwards-S ALLOWED" sign out front, which considering the turn his writing has taken lately, is what I think he really wants.
Chaim Amalek writes: "The preponderance of males on Luke's online advisory board is an artifact of the circumstances of its origins. Just consider with which activities Luke first achieved fame, and ask yourself how many women would have been interested in getting down with that. No matter - we have concluded that we virtual (and, in one critical case, imaginary) friends and advisors are being phased out for the blogger friends Luke has been making in LA (through whom he occasionally gets fed). Bitter are our tears."

Rodger Jacobs writes that "a fellow journalist just surmised that the media is shying away from the Flash News piece about my experience looking for a false news source "because it makes them look bad." Translation: Concocted news sources are nothing new and nothing we talk about, anyway. It's like a sick riddle: What's worse than a journalist making up sources? 1,000 other journalists turning their back and refusing to ridicule when he does so."

I drove my Timothy McVeigh-style van to the headquarters of the Jewish Journal Wednesday afternoon (3580 Wilshire Blvd). The back was filled with a special preparation of fertilizers designed for maximum bang. I scanned a few pages of The Turner Diaries, checked my watch, and leaped out on my one-man suicide mission against the Jewish Journal, the world's worst newspaper. It was do or die. Future generations will thank me. I felt like Ann Coulter vs The New York Times as I took the elevator up to meet editor Rob Eshman.

Rodger writes: Since you're reading Jeff Meyers' bio of Fitz -- not the best of them out there, but immensely readable -- I have a reading assignment for you: "Tender Is The Night". This much-maligned but awesomely brilliant novel (in many respects better than "Gatsby") will be a revelation to you as it will provide infinite insight into your relationship with Cathy. Of course, you have to reverse the genders: Cathy is Dick Diver and you are Nicole. (Hmmmm, Cathy is Dick Diver? That sounds lewd. Don't blame me. I didn't creae the name of the character.)

"Budd Schulberg reported that when Louis Mayer heard that a friend was going to interview Hitler [circa 1938], he innocently urged him "to put in a good word for the Jews." (Scott Fitzgerald, by Jeffrey Meyers, pg. 296)
A Fly on the Wall writes: Actually, many of the Hollywood moguls in the 1930s, even though they were Jewish, didn't think Hitler was much of a threat. They snipped films of scenes that might offend the Nazis before they shipped their product off to Germany, which was a bigger international market than the UK for Hollywood fare.

Louis B. Mayer also employed Mussolini's son at MGM.

This is all documented in my buddy Chuck Higham's superb book, Merchant of Dreams - Louis B. Mayer, MGM, and the Secret Hollywood (Donald Fine: 1993).

David Greenglass writes: I'll bet if someone had offered Osama bin Laden a chance to work in Hollywood, the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing. We Jews are very likeable people, once you get to know us.

It's time for frum people to break the silence and talk about sex. Is anyone frustrated by the nida laws? Is anyone finding it difficult to follow every precept? Let's share our thoughts and support one another through open, non-judgmental dialog.
Talmud613 writes on Frum Sex: "This reform chick keeps talking with me. It is very funny to hear her talk about keeping holidays but not shabbos. We talk on the phone and IM. last chat I typed Orthodox Booty call. I think that is so clever! I told her that besides, I am really good in bed, and she said she is too. Last night on the phone she asked if I know anything more shocking. So I mentioned Taharat Mishpocha and she wasn't shocked but it was ironic when I pointed out needing permission to have sex."
Folks, before you complain, I want you to know that I am even more appalled by this Yahoo group than you are, and I only am posting an excerpt of it so that the authorities can better control things.
No writes: I just want to comment on how impressed I am at the ability of some of you guys/girls to roll off the 'mareh mekomos' for some of these issues. They sure didn't teach me any of this stuff during my 8 years in yeshiva. Maybe its time for a sefer! I can just see it now..."Frumsex Al HaTorah"
Professional man writes: "What do you guys think of a frum person benefitting from a porno business (e.g. website) (even as an investor), or for that matter another "adult" business such as a strip joint? Is there any legitimate business/ "its' just for parnassa" justification, or is it completely forbidden because of its inherent nature?"
Gita writes: As Machshava Levatala put it so well, it is important to educate children about sexuality just as its important to teach them safety. I dont need to be the one to add to their masturbation guilt and I dont tell them I condone it..I tell them (as a mother but also a professional involved in the field) that it happens to be a normal part of adolescent develpment.
Your comment that "working on the assumption that the lady doesn't know the chemer hainyan" is quite condenscending. This does happen to have a background in learning. In fact, I would recommend Rav Sherlo's latest book on shealot vetshuvot called "Rishut Hayachid" where he discusses these issues candidly and sensitively. He recommends practical methods to young men to help avoid obsessing about these things but also pointed out that averot have to be put into perspective. The neviim gave tocheha about shmirat shabbat, idol worship and being nice to your fellow man...not masturbation. Ironprik I totally agree with you...boys should feel free to discuss these things with their rabanim and lol on your nic comment Talmud 613...its sad that you think being frum is about condemning your grandfather to hell for not being shomer mitzvot. Maybe he was very machmir in the laws of man and man. Dont forget in America 60 years ago keeping shabbat and getting a yeshiva education couldnt be taken for granted as today.
Luke says: Could someone please translate some of these terms above? What's masturbation?

Ernest Hemingway wrote to his friends Gerald and Sara Murphy who lost two children: "I can't be brave about it and in all my heart I am sick for you both. Very few people ever really are alive and those that are never die, no matter if they are gone. No one you love is ever dead."
Ariel is, will be.

LONDON (AFP) - It was a true clash of cultures. Stephen Nock, a gay man from London, assumed it would be a matter of routine to book a double room at a remote Scottish guest house for himself and his long-term partner.

But Tom Forrest, owner of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit remains strong, had other ideas. He would be happy to rent the couple a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of Kinlochewe, "but we will not condone your perversion" with a double bed, he wrote in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday.

"I have had bent people coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes," Forrest was quoted as saying.

Brian"Burning Man" Doherty writes: "Luke: After your profile and link, I jumped for about 48 hours on Amazon rankings from 1.2 million to 99 thousand or so....again, a temporary blip, but a solid one. Thanks!"

Cathy's invited me on a full moon walk Thursday night.
"Is it OK if I bring Heather [Mac Donald]?"
"You can bring whoever you like, but if you bring Heather we'll probably just talk with each other and ignore you so think carefully about that one!"
"There's nothing Heather likes more than dreamy walks under moonlight."
Chaim Amalek writes, chastising with his every keystroke:
When are you going to stop this crypto-heterosexual man pretending to be a gay man pretending to be straight and get serious about finding a mate? The other evening I channel surfed past a documentary about the girl for you. She is in her mid thirties, is still unusually attractive, and would have no problem dealing with your past if you could find it in your heart to deal with hers. (Up front Luke, neither of you is a virgin.) And she has a Jewish father, too. Perhaps you could be the one to lead her to the chupah, and fulfill both your dreams. Her name, I believe, is Traci Lords.

Through my blogging on Protocols, I've made friends with several Orthodox rabbis. They are Shmuley Boteach to my Michael Jackson. Remember that quote from R. Boteach? "Michael Jackson taught me how to be a better father."

I'm reading Jeffrey Meyers' biography of novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald and keep running into chilling parallels with my own character.
Gypsy Laura Guthrie said about Scott: "He reaches women through their minds and yet he wants their bodies."

Says a friend: EXTREMELY sensitive issue, as I believe in respectin' my betters. So I tend to hope that context will disambiguate that I am addressing him not the guy sitting next to me. When he calls, it's "Hi there!" Otherwise, GW. No can do George. What would be next: "Yo! Al"?

This week I will interview Rob Eshman (editor of the Jewish Journal), Eve Kessler (Forward), Gene Lichtenstein (former editor of the Jewish Journal), Benyamin Cohen (Jewsweek) and R. Avi Shafran. What do you want me to ask?
People who've refused my interview request include: Conservative rabbis Bradley Shavit Artson, Elliot Dorff, Perry Netter, Perry Rank, David Ackerman, Joel Meyers, Jay Rosenbaum. Dr. David Biale. May they soon receive the same level of cooperation from others that they extended to me.

"One rarely hears of an American writer...whose father was to be regarded as, in any way, adequate or successful. The writer in America is supplanting somebody, correcting him, making up for his errors or failures, and in the process he is creating a new world. He is the power that the father had lost." Arthur Miller

Dennis Prager's essays on "Why young women are exposing themselves." Part Two.

Wanda writes Luke: Do you really agree with the sh-t he writes?

I just read his two essays -- to me, the message is -- "Women, don't go seeking economic power through your careers by competing with men. And don't go seeking power by dressing and being sexy."

Yeah, right, our true path to power is getting married, dressing modestly, cooking and cleaning and having babies. Let him do that and see how powerful he feels.

"When all is said and done, heading a home and being married to a good man are far more satisfying to most women than college teaching or corporate work." Give me a break.

I'm a woman, and to Shmueley Boteach and Dennis Prager I say -- stop preaching to me and tell your own sex how to dress and behave, if you're all so damn holy you can figure out how to keep it in your pants no matter what women do or wear.

Luke says: Yeah, I do, about 80% of the time...and the other 20%, I am agnostic. I am not a systemic thinker. I am a provocateur. I've always found that satisfying a man is the most important thing I can do with my life.

Yours is not a Jewish attitude. We have a responsibility for how our actions affect others.

WANDA WRITES: So where do you draw the line as to how women have to dress in order for men not to get turned on and want to screw around?

Who decided that its long skirts that's enough of a turn-off? Or covering your hair with an ugly hat or a wig? Where does it end? I'll tell you -- with these pathetic women wearing sheets over their heads like they did under the Taliban.

Though I guess if a guy has a foot fetish, even that is still a problem.

Seriously, this modesty concept is ridiculous. Is a beautiful Orthodox woman dressed modestly really going to turn you on less than a 300-pound ugly woman dressed like Britney Spears?

Luke replies: All men who carry on conversations with women treat them with considerably more sensitivity than they do fellow men. Men would tell a man who behaved with PMS symptoms to stick his PMS. Men rarely say such to women.

Thus, as men must take into account women's sensitivities, women should take into account male sensitivities to visual arousal. If we expect men to subordinate their verbal tendencies to accommodate female sensitivities, we can expect women to curtail their exhibitionistic tendencies to accommodate male sensitivities.

Where do you draw the line? Orthodox Judaism has developed a system that has worked for thousands of years in this regard and is better than any other at keeping men sexually faithful to their wives.

I've never known a man to become upset when I've forgotten his birthday.

I've never known a man to get upset if I mention he's gained a few pounds.

I've never known a man to get upset if I mention he's losing his looks.

I've rarely known a man to get upset when I mention his age. I've never known a man in his forties to get upset if I refer to him as middle-aged.

I've rarely known a man to keep me waiting more than a minute so he can do his hair.

Dozens of women have behaved differently in these respects. Ergo, men and women have different needs and sensitivities.

We live in a narcissistic age. One example of this is women wanting to wear whatever they want without regard to the affect their attire has on men. This is childish, selfish and unJewish.

Most of life is froth and bubbles
But two things stand like stone
Kindness in another's troubles
And courage in your own

(Forgot)

I'm always absurdly grateful when people are kind to me and absurdly touchy when they are not. About 80% of those I've approached to do an interview for my new book on journalism have cooperated, including many prestigious people, but those 20% who refuse, I am going to list at the beginning of my book with the curse - May they soon reap the same cooperation that they extended to me.
Is this so wrong?
Cathy Seipp writes: "I can't say if it's wrong or not, because so much of what you do is so beyond wrong it's ridiculous to waste time considering exactly how wrong it is."
Yaakov writes: "Yes, it is petty and wrong and worse, it is stupid. Everyone you meet and deal with now, you will meet and eal with later. If you act like a gentleman people will act in kind. You might need their cooperation at a later date. So just thank them, tell them you understand perfectly and express the hope that sometime in the future you might find a project that will appeal to them. Why make an enemy? It benefits no one."
Abe writes: "Say it in the positive - 'I hope they get better cooperation from others than they gave me" it means the same thing, and we both will know that you don't really mean it - but no one else will know for sure."
Yehupitzer writes: "As far as "curses" go, I thought it was mild, and cute. A nice middah k'neged middah."
Author Luke Admires: "There are two issues here. First, my general feeling is that when people cooperate journalists should be pleasantly surprised, and that we too quickly assume we are owed cooperation when we are not. Secondly, if you want to show the reader that you did the work--or tried to do the work and were thwarted--I think there are many ways to list who turned down interview requests without actually dissing or cursing them. I think Jewish Law gives you the right to always question, but does not guarantee you that anyone must answer."
Heather Mac Donald writes: I don't know Jewish customs. If it's OK to assume the Old Testament mantle of divine castigation, why not?

Joe writes: "Luke, Thank you for sharing your life with the world. I have read the majority of your website and have learned much through your experiences. I work in Hawaii as a marine biologist and spent as much as 300 days per year at sea. In my free time I have learned biblical Hebrew and have taken an interest in Judaism. I enjoy listening to Prager, Aish audio (48 ways, Rabbi Spiro, Rabbi Kahn). Luke if you found yourself stranded on an island what books, audio tapes, dvds would you like to have with you (Artscroll Chumash, Artscroll siddur, Rabbi Noah Weinberg etc). In other words I'm asking you what you think the best of the best is in Jewish learning."
Luke says: I think Prager is best, along with the Lapin brothers, Beryl Wein and 613.org, Mordecai Finley and the books of Louis Jacobs and Eliezer Berkovits.

An addition to my life in the past few months has been my daily games of basketball with the kids next door (aged 4, 7, 10). I win every game. We play to 21. Sometimes the 10 year old gets to 20 and then I guard him like a blanket and block all his shots. I dribble inside and repeatedly bank in shots, grab the ball, and bank in another until I win.
I tell the kids not to push me in the back or mess with my ankles. Those parts of me are particularly vulnerable to injury.
Today the kid hit three three-pointers in a row and beat me 21-12.
My jump shot is not like it was.
I've never truly played consistently for any team. I'm only 6' tall but I have long arms. I could match up with my best high school friend Shannon Anderson (who was a star on the school team), who stood 6'3". But when our arms extended to the sky, our fingertips were even.
I could competitively play pick-up games with members of my 1600-student body high school basketball team. I could play them even one-on-one and sometimes even win.
Today, my jump shot is not what it was. My lift is weaker than ever, getting worse by the year. My aim is not strong and my arms are not solid and I get winded after ten minutes. I used to be firm and tall and hard.

Mystery writes: Is there a reward for readers who read this entire blog? Perhaps in another world? I will not be in the running, however.
Velvel writes to Protocols: Does anyone remember when this was an Orthodox blog? Is anyone else still reading this who was here pre-Luke?
Gresham writes: I've been through all this before. When I was a kid, I lived in a really nice middle class neighborhood. Then the shvartzes began to arrive, and before you knew it, all the Jews who could afford to leave, left. My family was one of the very few left on the block. All because of blockbusting, and the tendency of violence-averse Jews to flee at the first sign of trouble. And that's what you orthodox jews have done here - shvartze Luke shows up, and you run like a bunch of sissy yeshiva boys.

What a great film.
Chaim Amalek writes: "I'm watching TRAINSPOTTING (1996). Far more relevant to our lives.
"Why no money no honey? What are you going to do to get money? WHY AREN'T YOU RICH?"
JMT writes: "Luke is working on becoming the first author in the history of the printed word to have his manuscript rejected by a vanity press."

Chaim Amalek writes: It pains me to say this, but ever since you switched to the new format, I've been having second thoughts about it. Simply put, you look like every other blogger out there, and there are a hell of a lot of other bloggers out there. What makes yours one of the handful out of the four million or so that is worth reading? You keep going to the same topics, over and over again - Judaism, crypto----- from your past, women from your past. (Speaking of which, how goes
that front? Do you have any real prospects lined up?) You need to "freshen up" your look, your brand, strike out into new directions and get more mainstream media attention. Jewish journalism may well be a good topic for your next book, but the market for that has got to
be vanishingly small. (Now, "The Journalism of the Jews" would be lots more electric, but you are too invested in things out there to attempt this.)

I know that there are established people out there who blog on the side, but do any people who come at this as unknowns actually make it as something that pays decent money? (Drudge doesn't count, as he isn't a blogger.)

Bottom line is you need to add to your shtick somehow.

A few months ago, I had a flirtation over the phone and online (never in person) with a beautiful shiksa Lyra (girl on the right). She was 22 and she told me she was majoring in "media studies" at a community college.
I thought she had a lot in common with my friend Cathy Seipp and that we'd all get along like a house on fire.
Cathy, however, had a more skeptical view of Lyra than I did.
As the weeks passd by, Lyra and I talked a lot about Judaism and spirituality.
I asked her opinion of Dennis Prager's essays on "Why young women are exposing themselves." Part Two.
She replied: "Hmm, Bassicly that guy covered all the basis. I myself am self contios and hate getting in a bathing suit and try to hide my tits so if I hade the body I did when I was 16 I would tastfully wear less clothes, and I hate when girls show there stomach. But I think Its all over thought, you should dress how you feal without embarassing yourself, you know! Some girls just have no stlye or class and the kind of attention they want they will get. Being a parriniod hermite I prefer no eyes on me most the time. Anyways, how are you, I am in Ixtapa, the pretures of everyday life forced me to once again flee the country. The good news is I went to a very spirituil city for Samana Santa and went to a very nice church to pray. I also went to a rodeo and a cock fight, I plane to go to an Island today because Its getting boring. What have you been up to. Oh yah I wrote a great little story on the city of Petatlan and I have pictures."
I asked her what she was passionate about. She replied, "Luke, I really don't open up for most people but I like you! I am passionate about making love, I mean really being hate f---ed, chocked out, smacked around and verbally abused. I also love Jesus Criste and every morning I wake up and cook me some Farmer John honey baked ham with a side of yeast. It taste so good in my mouth, It makes me just sooo horny! I am also ma----bate to Woody Alan movies."
Lyra wanted a paid position in the Luke Ford Media Empire. I thought she should start off as an intern, and upon showing the proper initiative, she could work her way up the pole like my other interns.
We talked about her visiting me at the hovel. I'd take the day off and we'd go to the beach. It would give us an opportunity to better gauge Lyra's skills and enthusiasm.
Perhaps we could work side-by-side, taking journalism to heights never before scaled.
I imagined that I would guide Lyra's conversion to Judaism and that one day she would have my twelve Orthodox children.
It made me sad that this girl was so pressed by her need to get a job that she didn't have the time to fully develop her writing abilities.
Today I found out she is in prison, charged with cocaine trafficking. She could get ten years. At least now she will have the time to recollect in tranquility and make a contribution to modern American literature.
Our wild and crazy relationship began Monday, February 9. I call my friend KB.
Luke: "How was your weekend?"
KB: "Excellent. I had a lot of girls over to the house."
Luke: "For what purpose?"
KB: "To entertain KB, why else?"
Luke: "I hear girls in the background right now."
They're eating breakfast at the Calypso Cafe on the beach in San Diego.
KB: "Yeah. KB's turning into Hugh Hefner."
Luke: "I hear a lot of girls in the background."
KB: "Yes, I had a cute weekend. We all cuddled and watch movies."
Luke: "Did you have ---?"
KB: "Plenty."
Luke: "Are any of them girls I know?"
KB: "No, I'm staying out of the ---- realm."
KB turns to one of his girls, Lyra, a dark-skinned, dark-haired, busty Italian-American. "This is the reporter."
(Photo of KB with his arm around Lyra, and two other girls)
Lyra: "The ---- activist. That's him?"
Lyra comes on the line. "I just guessed that was you on the phone. I was thinking, it's that guy with the accent on TV, the ---- activist.
"One day I said to KB, 'Do I have a chance with that guy on TV?" He said, 'Nope. No way. Not at all. Not a chance in the world. Because you're Italian.' But I look Jewish. I could pull off being Jewish. I could wear one of those stars around your neck if I meet your mother."
Luke: "Would you come to temple with me?"
Lyra: "I'd come to the temple with you and everything. Oy ve, baby."
Lyra is a student at San Diego City College.
Luke: "How does KB get so many girls to his house?"
Lyra: "Every time I go over there, he's got girls at his house. He's got model girlfriends bending over for him. I brought girls over for him the other night and they're arching their backs and stuff."
KB comes back on line.
Luke: "Do you really think that spending the night with two girls in your bed is conducive to your spiritual growth?"
KB: "Absolutely. Every good Hindu should have two women with him at all times."
Lyra lived in Gary Kremen's mansion for two months.
Lyra: "I was in between houses and I needed somewhere to stay. I knew him through Kevin."
Luke: "Did you date Gary?"
Lyra: "I'm not that type of girl. I can support myself. I don't even like people buying me drinks. It freaks me out."
Luke: "How do you support yourself?"
Lyra jokes: "I have rich parents. No, I have money saved."
KB: "She's a good girl."
Luke: "Tell me about your hot tub experience with Gary Kremn?"
Lyra: "Gary is always in the hot tub. I had my 22nd birthday party there. About 200 people came. He comes out naked and jumps in the hot tub and freaks all my friends out. And then Mark, his maintenance guy, gets naked and jumps in too. And then they kicked my friend Ryan out and then they tried to hit on all my girlfriends. That's it. I don't have any good slander."
Duke: "Did you know that Kevin is in the Industry?"
Lyra: "I know. I accompany him to his parties sometimes. I like the Jews. They're all meshuganah [yiddish word for crazy] but I like them.
"I don't know why I'm in such a good mood today. I'm sick. I have to move today. I move a lot. It's a chronic problem of mine. I have bad ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). I flee the country a lot too. I just went to Tahiti, [four exotic locations I could not catch] and Miami in two months.
"KB's doing this wrap-it-up thing because he's a cheapskate and he doesn't want anybody using up his minutes."
KB: "I have to make a phone call."
Lyra: "He gets all nervous and anxious when people are on his phone too long."
I've noticed the same thing. It's like me around bacon.
Lyra: "He's sweating right now. He's turning white."
KB: "You love it."
Luke: "I do."
KB: "She's so cute though. If you saw Lyra, you'd love her. She's your type. Dark hair, dark sin, brown eyes, big natural -----."
Lyra: "You're so bad."
KB: "We're having breakfast. It's the most important meal of the day. I need to make some money. Find somebody who will pay me some money.
"The girls think I should do a reality TV show, KB TV. If you put a camera on my head, you wouldn't believe what goes on."
Lyra photo Lyra photo
I call a friend June 29.
"Our friend Lyra is locked up for conspiracy to buy cocaine with the intent to distribute."
I start laughing.
"I thought she had cleaned up her act and wasn't doing this anymore. I'm bummed out by it."
"It sounds like she is better off in jail," I say. "She's so self-destructive."
"I guess she was on the way to Lake Tahoe. She got on the plane. She realized she shouldn't be flying to Lake Tahoe without talking to her probation officer [for drugs]. She got a bad feeling and decides to walk off the plane. She's asked if she is Lyra... She says yes. About 20 DEA agents storm her. She didn't have any drugs on her.
"I got two phone calls from a federal prison last week. Scared me. She gets on the phone and the first thing she says is, 'It's prepaid, you Jew!'
"She hasn't been arraigned yet.
"She says that her phone has been tapped for the last eight months. They took her phone and all her numbers.
"I had no idea she was dealing again."
"I remember she kept telling me she wanted a job."
"The last I spoke to her, she was asking me to spell certain words for her resume. She was looking to interview. She'd moved to LA. I don't think I'm ever going to see her again."
"It was probably for your good."
"Her friends that I knew, two, went down too. I had no idea they were this big in the drug scene."
"Where were they getting it from?"
"Mexico."
"We were having all these talks about spirituality."
"She's going to need it now. You can always write to her. She says she's going to have time to write her book now. Can you imagine? Book spelled b-u-k?"
Amalek writes Luke: "YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS WOMAN'S FALL. Look at what she offered you: she spoke of her love for making love, Jesus Christ, Ham, and yeast. What did you offer her back in return? Nothing. Result? One more white woman not making Jewish babies. Another victory for the other team. Had you responded as she most clearly signaled she wanted you to respond, perhaps you would have purified her to the point of leading her to Judaism, and thence to the chuppah."
Janey writes: Whoa, that sweet top she's wearing in the first pic, black with cherries all over it, is meant to be worn with the matching panties -- they're underwear. I have been looking at the top every day for the last week, in a shop near the place where I work, thinking how cute cherries are.

Lyra is very pretty, which makes her life even more tragic. It's one thing to be an uneducated, ugly criminal -- who cares? -- but there's something very sad about an uneducated, pretty criminal. It didn't have to be that way. She could be working in ---- or mother to Luke's children. Luke, would you marry an ex-con (post-prison) if she converted?

Luke says: Yes, if she was hot like Lyra.

"Robert (my new relationship guru) has been telling me about being shomer negiyah. I think I want to find a guy who's into that. Have you ever considered going down that route?"

Certainly. I do every day in every way.

Der Nister writes: "Luke: Take her bait. Explain to once loyal readers of this bog why you think you have the right to take Protocols over in this way, and in what ways it was not rude for you to have exploited a one-week guest-blogger's gig into a seemingly fulltime hostile takeover of an entire community of readers."
Luke answers: "Because I can. Might makes right, as Rabbi Nietzsche, zt'll wrote. I can do the work of six Jews.
"I am the Good Shepherd and my flock follow me everywhere, even to the end of the earth. Lo, I go to prepare a place for you, so that where I am, you may be also. In my father's house, there are many mansions, and I am preparing one for you.
"You hypocrites, you brood of vipers. You've been teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Not that which goes into the mouth defileth the man, but what comes out.
"Oh ye of little faith. I will destroy this temple of Protocols and rebuild it in three days. Do you want to crucify me for blasphemy? I will rise again.

Go ahead, drive the nails in my hands
Laugh at me where you stand.
Go ahead and say it isn't me,
The day will come when you will see.

'Cause I'll rise again.
There's no power on earth can tie me down.
Yes, I'll rise again.
Death can't keep me in the ground.

Go ahead and mock my name,
My love for you is still the same.
Go ahead and bury me,
But very soon I will be free.

Go ahead and say I'm dead and gone,
You will see that you were wrong.
Go ahead, try to hide the son,
But all will see that I'm the one.

Because I'll come again.
There's no power on earth can keep me back.
Yes, I'll come again.
Come to take my people back.

Leni writes Luke: "Your presence here is a victory, a triumph of the will that no amount of rabbincal study can defeat."

Dr. Michael Berenbaum writes George Will about the John Roth/Holocaust Memorial affair.

Me writes: You should interview Moshe Handler editor of the Jewish Interest publication (Queens, NY - I don't know what the status of it is, but I think it's gone).

He was a decade ahead of the journalists and other Jewish press publications. He very early on had a website and posted substantial material from the publication.

I think he was the first journalist in the Jewish press world to post extras on his website including research material.

Unfortunately, his website www.jewishinterest.com was taken down 2 years ago.

I believe he published the best story/series involving internal corruption in the Jewish corruption relating to the desecration of 11,000 (mainly children's) graves (and the attempt to further desecrate them) in the Mokom Shalom cemetery in Queens, NY.

The fact that no one has every followed this story up, these graves remain without headstones or markers and the people responsible maintain positions of power and authority is a testament to how truly bad the Jewish press is and how completely unaccountable our leaders and institutions have become.

I would note two interesting points:
1) Moshe Handler had some of the best titles for stories in the history of the press (real groaners).
2) That one source for his grave story was actually murdered a few days after he talked to Mr. Handler. Now, that's reporting when someone feels they have to kill your source!

On his website, Mr. Handler put satellite photos of the cemetary decades apart and had substantial research posted including # of graves from records, photos of smashed headstones and original tshuvot with translations (and way more).

Who's Lying Now?
Copyright © Moshe A. Handler
As we were about to go to press with this issue of the Jewish Interest Magazine, we were flooded with phone calls telling us that both David Jacobson and the Vaad Harabonim of Queens had placed ads in the Jewish Press. Jacobson's ad suggests that this magazine published lies about him. The Vaad's ad took a somewhat more subdued approach. Since I am the one who wrote all the cemetery articles I feel that it is important to expose the open lies both these ads try to palm off on the Frum public.

Jacobson's ad: Jacobson proclaims that Mokom Sholom cemetery was never instructed by the Vaad to permit any burials against "Poskei Hador". He comments that "management has no plans to develop additional graves on this land." No plans? This is not a definitive statement that says he will never have burials in Mokom Sholom. It only means he "has no plans now!" Additionally, I am not satisfied with his use of the term "Poskei Hador." Which Poskei Hador will he be listening to? Is he using the term "Poskei Hador" to avoid saying he will listen to Rav Elyoshuv? He is evasive and says nothing about whether he will be following Rav Elyoshuv's ruling. (Rav Elyoshuv is the Godol Hador) Should the public pressure subside. Should the issue die down, the plans could of course be changed!

His statement that he has never tried to do this in the past is a lie. See our cemetery story in this issue and you will find a copy of a letter from "New York Recycling Company" that reveals Jacobson did discuss covering up Jewish dead and pour earth over them. He has refused always to commit himself to promise that there would be no two heir burials ever.

The Vaad: The Vaad's ad is a classic exercise in damage control. They admit things they know I can prove so that they do not look so bad and then they go on with a song and dance. It's almost like a page out of the Clinton Handbook - "We were caught so now we'll say we were always for cemetery reform."

"Since our involvement with Mokom Sholom there have been no Matzeivos removed." They know this cemetery has had Matzeivos removed wholesale and they are trying to tell you it didn't happen under their watch. But it did. See our photos in the accompanying article. These stones were piled up with a bulldozer in one spot. Vandals simply are not capable of lifting and carrying stones from one place to another.

They then admit there was a proposal to fill in graves with six to eight feet of earth but it happened before current management. (This is to get Jacobson off the hook) But wait, in 1994 they admit they did discuss pouring six or eight feet of earth on the cemetery, (this was while Jacobson managed Mokom Sholom) but only for a good cause - to fix up Bayside cemetery next door. Did these guys read Jacobson's ad? The one that says he has never considered linking any of his cemeteries to Bayside? How could they determine that monies made by Jacobson could be used to fix up a cemetery he had nothing to do with if they didn't speak to him? They want us to believe they made all these plans and never said a word to him? It's easier to believe in the tooth fairy than to believe this!

The Vaad would have you believe they listened to what the Poskim said. I'm not new to this story. They spent the first year insisting against all evidence that there were no burials in the cemetery. Only when the same evidence was presented through our people and supportive Rabbonim to Rav Elyoshuv and Rav Elyoshuv ruled against their plans did they admit the cemetery was full. They then changed tactics and tried to claim the cemetery was a mass burial ground and not subject to normal cemetery Halocha. That is the reason Rabbi Zohn flew to Israel and argued with Rav Elyoshuv for three days straight. Rav Elyoshuv found him not credible. Yet, when he came back from Israel Rabbi Zohn told everyone he got that heter. It's also interesting to note that I have witnesses telling me that as late as September 14, 1997, the Vaad was still discussing the issue of whether Rav Elyoshuv has the right to "Pasken" issues and overrule American Rabbonim.

It's actually quite funny that these two ads appear together on the same page of the Jewish Press since each ad can be seen as testimony to the untruth of the other. A careful reading of the Vaad ad alone by the way, confirms almost all the details we've published in our last story.

Is the Mokom Sholom story over? Not by any means! Considering the lies this bunch kept telling us for the past four years, we have made the decision not to rest until Matzeivos are put back in the free burial area declaring publicly that there are Jewish people buried below. Our politicians should be pressured to declare this cemetery a landmark so that it can never be in danger again. We cannot allow the possibility of this happening again in Mokom Sholom thirty years from now. I now understand why there are so many halochos that demand Jewish graves be marked. I would suggest the Vaad set aside some of the vast profits (they take in over a million dollars a year on taharas alone) made on Taharas to pay for these markers. It is these huge sums of money that
have corrupted them. They could use some atonement.

Rabbi Zohn can consider this a fair warning. Arrange for all Matzeivos to be replaced in the free burial area as Rav Elyoshuv has ruled, (you did say in your ad you'll follow rulings of poskim) have the gates of the cemetery opened, make sure the public is satisfied that Mokom Sholom will be hallowed ground forever.

Most Vaad members should be considered innocent of this immoral behavior. The guilty parties here are the few rotten apples right at the top of the Vaad. To those good Rabbonim who may have felt hurt by being associated with this bunch, but never knew just how bad they were, I am sorry for the hurt I caused you. I asked many Shaalos before I went ahead and wrote these articles. To those who kept quiet and should have spoken out - you should be ashamed of yourselves. To those who begged me quietly to write these articles because you didn't want to be part of the problem but were afraid for Parnosso and or violence, (in the course of this investigation there has been indications of tampering with papers and survey maps at high levels and even one cemetery trustee who was beaten to death days before he was supposed to speak to me. I don't make accusations but it was an interesting coincidence to say the least. His murder was never solved.) you should be proud you didn't keep quiet. In the future my behavior towards the Vaad will be directly linked to my confidence that they are doing the proper job in caring for all cemeteries, especially Mokom Sholom, in Queens.

This story emphasizes the need that Vaad's in general should report to the public all expenditures of all the activities they're involved in. A Vaad has great power and as we see here this power was abused big time. This Vaad is not necessarily the exception to the rule. It's just that they have gone much further then most. A yearly accounting to the public would make it much harder to behave dishonestly.

**********************************************************************
More Grave Disclosures

Moshe A. Handler © December 1997

When we published the story of how thousands of headstones were removed from Mokom Sholom, a Jewish Cemetery in Queens, in our last issue, we knew there would be strong reaction. The reaction was overwhelmingly magnificent, yet apparently we have still not been able to resolve the problem. It seems, our allegations were so shocking that many Vaad members simply could not believe them. Nevertheless, the evidence is there if only anyone would care to examine it. So, in this issue we will present even more evidence proving that Rabbi Elchonon Zohn has led a deliberate campaign to mislead many of his fellow Vaad members not only in the issue of Mokom Sholom but on other issues as well.

First a correction. Rabbi Zohn's son does not work for David Jacobson. It was two of David Jacobson's son's that worked for Rabbi Zohn. Currently, one of these son's is listed as director of "Kehilla," a chapel based in Flatbush. Kehilla does almost all burials for UHC (United Hebrew Community or Adath Yisroel,) having taken over all
funerals that used to be done by Kirschenbaum Brothers). Guess who's the director of UHC? David Jacobson, operator of Mokom Sholom Cemetery. Guess who is now called in from Queens to provide Taharas for almost all Kehilla burials? Rabbi Elchonon Zohn. Again this confirms my original contention. Rabbi Zohn has no business ruling on any Halochos involving Jacobson cemeteries. He is by any standard considered "Nogaya Badovor."

In our last issue we started listing (and published) some of our evidence that Mokom Sholom grave sites have been tampered with. One of our strongest pieces of evidence are before and after pictures of Mokom Sholom. Our 1954 aerial photo (provided to us by a congressman) shows that the Mokom Sholom cemetery was landscaped with many trees. Between the trees it was very easy to see headstones in areas that showed through. To appreciate these photos, they must be viewed clearly. It is for that reason that they are not printed here, however, we invite and ask all interested parties to view them with full contrast and brightness at our internet site (www.jewishinterest.com) One look will remove all doubts.

We also published a letter from a Mr. Hyman Drucker in which he complained about the missing headstone of his grandmother. Mr. Drucker wrote of how he was told by a Mr. Shwartz "that in an effort to improve the appearance of Mokom Sholom cemetery many stones were removed." Not only was this letter further corroboration that most of the stones were removed in a wholesale fashion from Mokom Sholom in the sixties, it's
remarkable that the letter matches the time-frame that the aerial photos show the cemetery was cleared. Additionally Mr. Drucker's letter pins down the location of Mokom Sholom graves. It's exactly where we say they are, not "unknown" as claimed by Rabbi Zohn at the Vaad. We have now been in contact with Mr. Drucker's son who again can confirm the entire story.

We published a letter from Rabbi Elyoshuv of Israel in which he ruled that Mokom Sholom had to be returned to it's previous state. He ruled that it was absolutely forbidden to cover Mokom Sholom over and make new burials. This ruling showed that we had presented enough evidence to a "Godol Hador" so that he ruled Mokom Sholom a cemetery that was
forbidden to be touched. Rav Elyoshuv's ruling should have ended the Mokom Sholom controversy right then and there. Yet, on September 14, 1997, eight members of the Vaad of Queens were still discussing whether to cover over Mokom Sholom or not. Why did they not accept the ruling of Rav Elyoshuv? If they did accept the ruling of Rav Elyoshuv why would they refuse to say so publicly? Here is some new evidence I've uncovered since our last issue.

As I wrote, representatives of the Queens Vaad spent three days in Eretz Yisroel trying to get Rav Elyoshuv to agree to allow Mokom Sholom Cemetery to be covered. Rav Elyoshuv refused to change his ruling. The Rabbi who argued the case for allowing the covering of the cemetery was Rabbi Zohn himself. (This fact can easily be checked with a call to
Rabbi Elyoshuv's office.) I made the call. They also confirmed that the ruling was not overturned. Yet, when Rabbi Zohn returned from Israel, he himself told members of the Vaad that Rav Elyoshuv had allowed new burials and he would soon be in possession of written confirmation that the ruling was changed. That written confirmation, of course never came. To this day he cannot produce it.

There are some hard questions that must be asked. Why was Rabbi Zohn so insistent on getting a "heter" to cover over old burials and make new burials on top? Was there a Halachic need for this? Why did he lie when he came back from Israel and say he had the "heter" when in fact he didn't?"

The fact is, Rabbi Zohn has lied directly to myself, David Gevertzman and Florence Marmor. To me, he promised that if any evidence could be provided that there were burials in Mokom Sholom he would do everything in his power to stop new burials.

To David, he promised that if any burials were proven, he would fight to stop the two tier cemetery. He repeated this lie to Florence Marmor and even promised her that if proof was provided he would pay for a monument to be erected out of his own pocket. He patiently explained to Florence, that the monument could not list all the names of the dead since he could not afford such an expensive monument.

Later, after being presented with evidence that the cemetery was full, his story changed. He then told David that the cemetery needed the money that would come in from the new burials.. He gave David Gevertzman an explanation that the sefer "Kol Bo" allowed double burials Halachically and that he would follow that principle. (We tried to find that heter in the sefer but were unable to. The closest mention we could find is that it was done in a case where new cemetery land was not available. If anything, our translation of the "Kol Bo" seemed to indicate that it ruled old cemeteries must be protected.) He then told David and other people that he had a ruling from Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Dovid Cohen, and Rabbi Zelig Epstein allowing him to do double burials at Mokom Sholom. (I doubt that these Rabbonim ever said anything of the kind.)

Of course when I met Rabbi Zohn for the first time (at Ach Tov restaurant in Brooklyn) he told me the following:

He swore to me that if evidence were brought to him showing any kind of burials at Mokom Sholom, he would fight to the death to defend that cemetery and make sure new burials would not take place. At that time I believed him. During that same meeting, he characterized David Jacobson as a ruthless businessman and told me that Jacobson does not do Taharas "K'Daas U'Kdin". Specifically, he told me that Jacobson Taharas were
done with too few people and that he had complained to Jacobson, asking him to stop putting bodies into coffins that were too small to contain the bodies in a respectful fashion. He also complained of Jacobson's practice of putting coffins into graves at an uncomfortable angles in order to use smaller plots and thereby fit more graves in his
cemeteries. Rabbi Zohn said he felt it was his duty to set Jacobson straight.

I could not have gotten this inside information from anyone else except for Rabbi Zohn, and the fact that I have it should be a sign that I have spoken directly to Rabbi Zohn.

Mokom Sholom is extremely important for the following reasons;

It is not the exception, perhaps it illustrates an unwritten rule that cemetery operators remove headstones from old graves to make room for new burials, and benefit from the profits that come with this deed.

The problem seems to occur in the smaller Jewish cemeteries (and some non-Jewish ones) where there is very little supervision and where the manager of the cemetery has very little to stop him. Because of laws that exempt religious cemeteries from state regulations. (Ironically these laws are meant to protect religious freedom) unscrupulous cemetery managers can take advantage. The most vulnerable graves are those of children. Graves of children are very often not visited since children do not have children of their own to honor them and perpetuate their memory.

Additionally, the parents of children who have died over a hundred years ago are no longer alive to advocate for their grave sites. Mokom Sholom is an exception to the rule of these neglected cemeteries since it is one of the few cemeteries that has had extensive research done on it. In other words, gravestones are being removed in many cemeteries, but in Mokom Sholom, we can prove it. Incidentally almost eighty five percent of the total burials in Mokom Sholom are burials of children, infants and stillborns.

A Rov from the Vaad HaRabonnim of Queens called me and complained: Why did I pick on Rabbi Zohn in my article?

I explained. Rabbi Zohn has lied to us and contradicted himself on a consistent basis over the period of the last four years. He has shown a pattern of lying about Mokom Sholom to his own fellow members of the Vaad in Queens.

I reminded him that when Rabbi Zohn returned from Israel, he told people that he had obtained a reversal from Rabbi Elyoshuv. He would soon have a letter from Rav Elyoshuv confirming the reversal of the P'sak. The letter never came because what actually happened was that Rav Elyoshuv never reversed the P'sak. There are witnesses to the fact that Rav Elyoshuv never changed the P'sak forbidding new burials. There are witnesses to the fact that Rabbi Zohn said he had a reversal.

I told him that any Rov investigating this story needs to get direct answers from Rabbi Zohn to the following questions:

1. Is it true you promised Moshe Handler, David Gevertzman and Florence Marmor that you would not allow new burials at Mokom Sholom if evidence of old burials were presented?

2. If you claim you never promised this, then you must have been in favor of covering up old graves. Why would you want to do this, especially since this was never done previously except in extreme emergency such as when governments did not allow Jews to have new cemeteries? (Even in these cases the new graves had headstones with the
names of both buried people on them.)

3. Why did you find such a strong need to cover a known cemetery that you actually flew down to Eretz Yisroel and spent three days in a row at Rav Elyoshuv, trying to get permission to throw new dirt over old graves?

4. Rabbi Zohn, did you feel you would benefit financially either directly or indirectly by getting this "heter?"

5. Is it true that you told Moish Handler, when you met him in front of Rabbi Steinberg's Shul on September 14, 1997, that if he had not published the original story about Mokom Sholom in The Jewish Interest Magazine, Mokom Sholom would be already covered over and would have new burials in it today? (Careful when you answer this one Rabbi Zohn, both Rabbi Steinberg and Bernie Fryshman were present at the time and heard
you make this statement.)

6. Although I originally felt that all of the Vaad were culpable in this story, after checking with sources, I have been told that most members of the Vaad are very "Erlich" and have provided a great service to the residents of Queens, Nassau County, Monsey and Long Island. There are members of the Vaad that are surely to be respected as true Talmedie Chachomim. Still, good people can be fooled and the good people in the Vaad have been fooled by Rabbi Zohn. The Vaad should concentrate on whether the charges I made were true and should have questioned Rabbi Zohn, demanding to understand all the details of what happened. At the moment this is not what is being done. Some respected Rabbonim who are well known to the public, have been threatened with dire consequences if they dare speak to me. This behavior is more suited to a Clinton White House then to a Vaad. Rabbi Zohn has managed to put Vaad members into crisis mode. The are so busy doing damage control they have forgotten to check if the information is true. (It surely is) These Rabbonim need keep focused on the main issue.

These tactics are to keep them from getting information from me, not to keep me from getting information from them. There already are quite a few Vaad members who gladly speak to me and beg me to expose the wrongs they no longer wish to be part of. I urge the good Vaad members to continue to gather courage and go public with their refusal to
participate in these heinous crimes against the Jewish dead. It is incredible to sense the fear in world respected Rabbis as they beg me not to reveal it was they who gave me the information. (I won't) I applaud Rabbi Fabian Schoenfeld for at least protesting strongly against Mokom Sholom double burials in previous meetings. I wish him the strength to continue to be on the correct side of this issue.

7. If Rabbi Zohn Accepted the ruling of Rav Elyoshuv then why was there still a meeting in September to discuss whether Mokom Sholom should be filled with six feet of new earth or not? Why would Rabbonim still be arguing the merits of the case when Rav Elyoshuv had already ruled on this issue two years before?

8. Rabbi Zohn is supposed to be the Orthodox Jewish representative to the New York State Cemetery Commission. He attends their meetings and advises them on future laws affecting cemeteries. Why is a man who is supposed to be representing us and advocating for us so intent on destroying old Jewish graves? Why would he refuse to publicly announce Mokom Sholom full and provide markers so that future generations would keep this land sacred?

9. Last year, during construction of a downtown project in Manhattan an old black slave cemetery was discovered. Construction was immediately stopped and there was no question these graves would be respected. Why would a Jewish Rabbi not want to show the same respect to a Jewish cemetery in Queens?

10. In the meantime, I hope that the Vaad will start asking tough questions of Rabbi Zohn. I have tried to reach out and call some members privately in the past few weeks and most have expressed fear of the repercussions they would suffer if they spoke to me. Some have expressed how sad it is that the Vaad has fallen into the trap of raking in big money and has forgotten many Torah principles.

11. I would also urge elected officials not to fall for the strange story Rabbi Zohn has been feeding them. He keeps claiming that the Boro-Park Chevra Kadisha made up these stories about him because the Vaad of Queens now does Taharas in Brooklyn. This is a total fabrication and he knows it. I have been fighting Rabbi Zohn over Mokom Sholom for over four years, long before Jacobson brought him in to do Taharas in Brooklyn. No one could manufacture evidence such as the letter we now published from New York Recycling Company and the photos of thrown away grave-stones.

The Queens Rabbi who spoke to me on behalf of Rabbi Zohn made one remarkable statement in his conversation. He told me "The Vaad really needs the money from Mokom Sholom." I promised him anonymity but I must ask you Rabbi. How far do you go to get money?

Since writing the last article. I have been flooded with calls from all kinds of people whom have worked with Rabbi Zohn who have provided me with much information about the way he operates. I've heard complaints about his shouting and ranting at employees in the Tahara rooms (It is forbidden to speak while a Tahara is in progress.) I've heard from Funeral Directors of his constant intimidation of workers. One funeral director laughed as he told me Rabbi Zohn actually calls ahead and demands fresh pots of coffee be ready for him when he arrives. "It's not worth not putting up the coffee. When you don't follow Rabbi Zohn's demands no matter how silly they are you pay."

Funeral homes working with Rabbi Zohn are pressured to buy hand made Tachrichim from a company called either HUSS or Solomon (they are the same) that works out of the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The whole point of hand made Tachrichim is that they are made by Jewish women, generally over fifty who have special Kavonos (thoughts) while they make them. The "Mais" has a special "Zchus" being clothed in garments made with these "kavonos" as he or she is buried. This has been a long time "Minhag Yisroel."

For many years, the garments provided by the Vaad had the words "Naaseh al Yedie Shomer Shabbos." (Made by Sabbath observant Jews) on every package. This implied they met the highest standards of Tachrichim. A few years ago, it was suddenly discovered that HUSS manufactured these garments using the lowest paid non-Jewish workers they could find - good for business - not so good for families of deceased who were looking to provide their loved ones with a truly special (Hodor) Jewish burial and relied on the Vaad of Queens to provide it. What is the whole point of having a handmade garment when it would be impossible for that garment to be manufactured with the right "kavonos?"

How did Rabbi Zohn react when it was discovered the labels on his Tachrichim were false? (As if he didn't know it beforehand?) He did not cut off the supplier. He had them put on a new label. It now reads "Naaseh Behashgochas Rav Yaakov Huss." (Made under the supervision of Rabbi Huss.) Every person who believes that "under a Rabbi's supervision" means that these garments are what they are represented to be is being fooled. If the Kashrus division of the Vaad would be doing this, it would be a major scandal. Is it right to rip off, mislead or in general cheat dead people and their families? (I'm sure Rabbi Zohn must have a "heter" for this)

Perhaps Rabbi Zohn can explain this to the Vaad, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Anyone who keeps silent about this matter when he can do something about it, is part of the problem.

Readers who want to help can write or call one of the following numbers. You should be asking that Mokom Sholom cemetery should be declared a landmark so it will be out of reach from tampering by unscrupulous operators. You should ask for an investigation as to why stones were removed wholesale throughout the years and no one noticed. The more
people that call the faster action will be taken.

Dov Hikind (718) 853-9616

State Attorney General Dennis Vacco (212) 416-8000 518-474-7330

Senator Al D'Amato (212) 947-7390

Consumer Affairs (Jules Polonetsky) (212) 487-4444 (complaint Hotline)

********************************************************

More Grave Danger In Queens

Copyright © 1997 Moshe A. Handler

Important Correction: The printed version of our Jewish Interest Magazine inadvertently claimed that Rabbi Zohn's son worked for David Jacobson. The version of the article that should have been printed is this one with the correct claim that two of David Jacobson's sons had worked for Rabbi Zohn. We regret the error due to the wrong draft of the story going to print. This draft is the correct one.We regret our error.

This is an article that I have spent over two years trying not to write. I have no choice now. Two separate Rabbonim have ruled that I am under Halachic obligation to write it. They feel that the only progress ever made on this subject was due to the previous articles I wrote about it.

They now feel no further progress will take place unless I write about it again. Sadly, I know they are right and that the only hope to solve this problem is to publicize it.

Four years ago, I was approached by three people, David Gevertzman, David Priever and Florence Marmor. They told me a story about Mokom Sholom, a cemetery on Liberty Avenue between 80th and 81st street in Queens. David Gevertzman was trying to find the grave of his great grandmother, who records indicated was buried there. He had enlisted the aid of Priever and Marmor, both whom were qualified Genealogists. As they searched for David's Great Grandmother they were shocked at what they discovered.

At least one fifth of the headstones at Mokom Sholom cemetery were missing. Completely gone. There were no signs of the graves that had previously been marked. At first they didn't believe it themselves. They set out on a course of checking paper trails, obtaining aerial photos and speaking to witnesses who lived in the area. The evidence was concrete. Someone had removed all above ground traces of thousands of graves. These were burials all made by the UHC (United Hebrew Charities using land that was donated by Congregation Darech Amuno of Manhattan.) What should have looked like a full cemetery now looked empty.

I arranged a meeting in Boro Park with Rabbi Elchonon Zohn, head of the Chevra Kadisha of the Vaad Horabonnim of Queens. Rabbi Zohn assured me that he was told by David Jacobson, the cemetery operator, that Mokom Sholom was empty. If however, the people who charged the cemetery contained graves could prove it, he would see that the cemetery would remain untouched. (Only in dire emergency does Jewish law permit burying one person on top of another.) This proved to be a false promise. I should have realized this when in order to impress me with how close he was to Jacobson, Rabbi Zohn told me that Jacobson's son was at that time working for him. Nevertheless, I asked for and Priever, Gevertzman and Marmor provided me with, mountains of proof which were later presented to Rabbi Zohn and some other members of the Vaad. We hoped they would do the right thing. Some of the proof we had and showed included;

Aerial photos over the years that showed markers on graves in previous years but no trace of any markers now. Letters written to the cemetery commission by relatives of the dead people complaining of missing graves in the cemetery. Photos of piled up removed headstones. Testimony of neighbors who lived near the cemetery who remembered graves in the now empty looking area. Documents from the cemetery commission files stating the cemetery was completely filled. A state report by one Perry A. Fischer, detailing how the cemetery trustees were forbidden by Rabbis in previous years to reuse graves
because there already were burials there and how when they attempted to bury where there appeared to be no bodies they always uncovered bodies and had to stop.
Correspondence between David Jacobson, the current Mokom Sholom operator, to one New York Recycling Company complaining that they were charging him too much to cover over the graves that were present. His method and his workers could do it for less. A year by year log of just how many burials took place in Mokom Sholom calculated from Darech Amuno yearly reports.

Of course there was much, much more.

Despite the overwhelming proof offered to Rabbi Zohn, it became apparent he really did not want to see the proof we showed him. What he really wanted was to go ahead, give a "heter" and cover a known Jewish Cemetery so he could allow Jacobson to bury bodies in a clean field. After giving a full six months to have meeting after meeting and examine the evidence, I realized the obvious. Rabbi Zohn was assuring Vaad members that there were no problems at Mokom Sholom. He had every intention of allowing the covering of twelve thousand Jewish Graves with fresh dirt and every intention of allowing David Jacobson to sell these graves to unsuspecting Russians looking for burial plots. They would never question whether there were previous burials at that location. I could only guess at the motives but perhaps the words "big profits" would have something to do with it.

Since I soon realized, I was not being dealt with honestly and would be unable to stop them quietly, I used the only weapon I had left... publicity. I published the full story in The Jewish Interest Magazine. Thirty thousand copies of the magazine were distributed in the Boro Park and Flatbush area. It had a major effect. It stopped their plans dead.
No one would cover the graves in the glare of publicity.

David Gevertzman was not fully satisfied. He wanted to make sure this issue would be settled for good and wanted to be sure they would not try this again. So he had a messenger sent to Rabbi Elyoshuv in Israel.

Rabbi Elyoshuv is considered the Godol Hador (major Jewish Sage) today. The Rabbi sent back written notice that not only was it forbidden by Jewish law to pour earth over Mokom Sholom but as much as possible it was Halachicly required to restore the cemetery to it's former condition. We published the original text of the letter in The Jewish
Interest Magazine. That to us seemed to end all the arguments about Mokom Sholom or so we thought.

New reports started coming in. A friend of mine in Israel called to tell me that representatives of the Vaad, including Rabbi Zohn, had flown out to Rabbi Elyoshuv. For two days they worked on convincing him that he made a mistake in ruling Mokom Sholom untouchable. They seemed to be making headway. But something they said on the third day set off alarms. Rav Elyoshuv realized they were lying and them told them flatly he would not reverse his P'sak Din (ruling.) The stunned Rabbis returned home in the same position as before. We were fairly satisfied that the cemetery was safe.

Things seemed quiet. But in the summer of 1997 I heard new stories. Rabbi Zohn was now telling people that he had a Halachic ruling stating Rav Elyoshuv had Halachic jurisdiction only in Israel and not in the United States. He now admitted that although he knew that there were graves in Mokom Sholom, it would be permissible to cover them in order to make money to use for repair of nearby Bayside cemetery, a cemetery that even now is not run by Jacobson, but was expected to go bankrupt soon and be given to him. Rabbi Elyoshuv's "P'sak din" was to be considered irrelevant.

Incredible!!

Covering Jewish dead in the USA was never done before! To do so would violate a most basic tenet of Judaism - respect for the dead. If this ruling goes forward, it would mean that in later years Jewish graves could regularly be covered over if money could be made from it (for good purposes only of course) and this ruling will by cited as the precedent! Covering over Jewish dead of one cemetery to support another could become a regular occurrence!

We recruited other Rabbis to enter the fray. (Most Rabonnim don't want to help because they don't wish to battle other Rabonnim.) After a recent major meeting of the Vaad I received a call from one Rav. He wanted to let me know that the Rabbi Zohn was only afraid of one person. Me. (little old gentle me? Not really. What he's really afraid of is people knowing the truth) The Rav informed me that he had ruled that I had the Halachic obligation to write a full article and expose what was going on in order to stop it since this was the only way it could be stopped. Soon another Rav called me. He too demanded I write this article. You are now reading the results of their request.

I met Rabbi Zohn and Rabbi Steinberg in front of Rabbi Steinberg's Shul a few months ago. Between heated shouts at me, Rabbi Zohn admitted that were it not for my articles exposing their intentions, Mokom Sholom would be covered over with another six feet of dirt and there would be double burials there today. He denied promising me that if I proved there were graves at Mokom Sholom he would stop the double burials (an out and out lie.) He confirmed to me that he felt he did not have to follow Rabbi Elyoshuv's P'sak Din. He also said that if David Jacobson suddenly poured earth over Mokom Sholom at his own whim there is nothing anyone could do. (Apparently, this is now the plan according to my sources.)

This may be true but we are supposed to be a Jewish community. We wouldn't allow the Czar or a communist government to wipe out all traces of a Jewish cemetery so can we allow two so called Jewish frum rabbis do it?

Rabbi Elchonon Zohn should not be allowed to rule on cemetery matters where David Jacobson is involved as he has been doing. Rabbi Zohn is a "Nogaiah Badovor" (involved too closely in the case.) There are witnesses who have told me he has taken gratuities from funeral homes as an award for sending them business even while forbidding his workers from to do so. (Gratuities reportedly have included, freezerfuls of Thanksgiving turkeys, fancy luggage and other items.) Many members of the Vaad, have reported to me that he has, a real interesting "Tachrichim" HUSSle going on. It is reported David Jacobson's two sons had worked for Rabbi Zohn. (Rabbi Zohn told me this himself.) In
addition, Rabbi Zohn has had and continues to have great financial benefit working with Jacobson. Rabbi Zohn has now gotten the contract to do most or all Taharas for "Kehilla Chapels" a funeral home run by David Jacobson's son and wife. Since "Kehilla" has now taken over all UHC, (United Hebrew Community, otherwise known as Adath Yisroel) burials from Kirshenbaum Bros, it does a major amount of burials. (An interesting side note to this is that David Jacobson is the director of the UHC.) Halacha clearly forbids one who is involved as deeply as Rabbi Zohn is to rule on issues affecting Jacobson yet he has been doing so for years.

The Vaad has clearly been fooled by this man. He has misled them greatly while betraying their trust. How could the Vaad Horabbonim of Queens, a Vaad with one of the finest reputations for Kashrus supervision and integrity, fall for this phony? What should the Vaad Do to keep their good name?

The Vaad should immediately issue a letter acknowledging the cemetery is full (they already admit this privately) and acknowledging clear evidence that Rabbis previously banned new burials in Mokom Sholom.

A permanent memorial should be put up in the now empty field acknowledging and memorializing the people who are buried there. (If they are agreeable to this, we can supply thousands of names of people who are buried in Mokom Sholom.) Halacha requires markers in Jewish cemeteries.

The Vaad should look into having Rabbi Zohn replaced. Certainly, he cannot be trusted to work without strong supervision. The sweetheart deals with funeral homes and suppliers are not fitting for someone doing holy work. It may seem like he is irreplaceable but in truth Rabbis in the Vaad have secretly told me that there are many candidates who can take his place. He should not be allowed to maintain a position where Vaad members fear for their livelihoods if they oppose him.

Certainly, this article should be considered an official Halachic protest against the use of Mokom Sholom as a virgin cemetery. A "Michoa" (protest according to Halachic Tradition) as you will.

The Vaad Horabonnim of Queens should publicly proclaim the ban of covering known graves in Mokom Sholom. This would go a long way towards restoring public trust. Any member of the Vaad with ties to Jacobson should have no business making decisions on Jacobson cemeteries.

David Jacobson should publicly acknowledge the ban and be halachicly forbidden to cover over or remove headstones from any Jewish graves in the many Jewish cemeteries he runs, funeral homes and monument stores he is associated with in New York, New Jersey and Staten Island should not be patronized if he does not cooperate with Halachic rulings. If he will not accept this, then Rabbonim all over should issue a ban on using Jacobson's services and connected funeral homes and monument stores. The situation at Mokom Sholom does not require that precedent should be set in the United States to cover up Jewish dead.

It should be publicly acknowledged that at one time, Mokom Sholom graves were properly marked (as late as 1961.) It should be noted, that those monuments were removed with the express purpose of covering graves of already dead people, (mostly children under sixteen) to gain profit. There should be no reward, even thirty years later for trying to steal Jewish graves.

We should strongly consider that someone undertake to catalog all Jewish burials in New York and make it available as a public database to insure moves like this can never be pulled off again. With computers, it is very easy to make burial records accessible to all. With burial logs publicly available, it will be hard to "make graves disappear" as has been done in Mokom Sholom. (No doubt in other cemeteries we don't know about too. In the four years since I started writing about Mokom Sholom, I've received report after report about missing graves in Washington cemetery in Brooklyn. I've been told that out of all people, Rabbi Zohn certified this cemetery as Okay)

I can't believe that it has taken four years to get to this point. In my wildest imagination, I never dreamt that I would have to battle supposedly religious Rabbis to stop them from covering over a cemetery full of Jewish dead right here in our own back yard in Queens. In the past four years, I have been accused of being "Mevazeh Talmud Chochom" for exposing these wrongs. Now, because of this Halachic ruling I am writing about this subject again. Truthfully, I cannot even understand the controversy. Are Jewish graves so valueless that we can erase all traces of them at whim?

It is my sincere wish that the Vaad Horabonim do the right thing and make sure this travesty will never happen in order that their good name survive. If they insist on not doing the right thing, I will do whatever is needed to publicize their direct violation of Halachic ruling. My first duty is to truth and to the protection of the thousands of "Neshomos" (souls) in Mokom Sholom who must have someone to speak out for them.

Writers Note: The printed issue has not even hit the streets yet and I have been receiving calls from people who have worked with Rabbi Zohn constantly. The word is out that I am writing about him and I am being inundated with terrible tales about him. I will only post those that are relevant to the issues since the purpose here is to save close to twelve thousand graves and to preserve the dignity of Jewish dead not a
vendetta against Rabbi Zohn. Except for speaking to him about Mokom Sholom, I have never had any dealings with him at all.

Writers Note 2: Some of my sources have commented that I have not emphasized that the Vaad Horabonim Of Queens is one of the most well organized and respected Vaads's in the country. Their Kashrus certification program is known to be first class. Certainly, there are members of the Vaad who are nationally respected for their knowledge and expertise. My latest reports are that there are some in the Vaad who have been willing to go along with Zohn because they felt the Vaad needed the money. At one meeting, Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld courageously stood up and demanded there should be no more burials at Mokom Sholom. He has been rewarded for his courage. He is no longer asked to attend
meetings where Mokom Sholom is discussed. Reportedly, he is no longer on the New York State Cemetery Board.

All the more reason not to let a rotten apple spoil the bunch. MH.

PSS As of today, I have been warned Rabbi Zohn has organized meetings designed to rally Rabbonim to his side. I advise these well meaning Rabbonim to speak to me before they make any rulings. They should certainly check out my follow up page for new information.

Try the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to access the extras.

Includes: Rav Elyoshuv's tshuva (yes, that Rav Elyoshuv)

see:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030115112513/www.jewishinterest.com/MokomSholom/rav.htm

1) Aerial Photos Before and After:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000303221148/www.jewishinterest.com/MokomSholom/mokompix.htm

2) Pile of monuments ready to be carted out:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000304012155/www.jewishinterest.com/MokomSholom/pileof.htm

LOS ANGELES (Wireless Flash) -- Americans not only believe in freedom of the press, but many are happily willing to help the media fake sources for a story. That's what journalist Rodger Jacobs discovered when he pulled a media prank by placing a classified ad on craigslist.com, explaining he was a reporter who fudged a story about buying fake I.D.s and needed someone willing to "pretend to be Paco," a phony street source quoted in thestory. Jacobs posted the ad on Saturday (Jun. 26) and he received more than 35 inquiries before it was taken down onSunday night. Some of the potential Pacos include one voiceover actor who touted his radio commercials for Papa John's pizza and another who claimed he actually sold fake I.D.s for a living. The plug on the prank was pulled Sunday night (Jun. 27), when a reporter contacted Jacobs about the ad. As he puts it, "She had faith no real journalist would actually do this." That might sound like good news to some, but Jacobs is still "disappointed" that so many regular citizens had "no qualms about helping a journalist violate their ethics."

Tikkun magazine writes: "Michael Berenbaum, an Orthodox practitioner."
Michael emails me: "Not correct. I am a most unorthodox practitioner."

By Rabbi Avi Shafran

Last December, an article appeared on the front page of a national Jewish weekly that sought to implicate the largest yeshiva in the United States – and by association, the entire “ultra-Orthodox” world – for its connection to what the piece’s headline called an “anti-Gentile book.”

The book in question, self-published with a run of several hundred copies, had indeed been written by an alumnus of Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, N.J, and carried approbations from revered rabbinical figures at that institution, a de rigeur practice for books published by alumni. Whatever the book’s merits or demerits, though, the newspaper article’s characterization of it was far off the mark, caricature bordering on (if not constituting) libel.

To be sure, the book’s topic, Jewish religious tradition’s understanding of Jewish “chosenness” and what it means to Jews living within non-Jewish cultures, is a delicate one. It is something more properly discussed with reverence and care in the study halls of Jewish academia or the pages of scholarly Torah journals than dealt with sensationally or superficially on the front pages of popular Anglo-Jewish media – or, for that matter, in an opinion column like this. Suffice it to note that Jewish tradition does indeed consider the Jewish people special.

But to characterize the book’s take on that belief, as the article’s opening paragraph did, as “a race-based theory of Jewish supremacy,” as the claim that Jews constitute a “separate, genetically superior species,” is excruciatingly overwrought. (Yes, Virginia, membership in the Jewish people is usually, although certainly not always, a matter of genetics, and yes, Jewish chosenness is a historic source of Jewish pride; but its upshot is “a light unto the nations,” not a Master Race.) Predictably, the newspaper article has been widely posted on rabidly anti-Semitic websites.

The purple prose, as it happened, clearly tipped the writer’s hand, foreshadowing not only further jaundiced descriptions but outright fabrications.

Like the article’s claim that the book mandates that Jews should employ “deception” and “duplicity” in dealing with non-Jews. Not a single passage in the book remotely says anything of the sort. Nor does any imply, as the article also claimed, that the “terribly harsh treatment of the pagan inhabitants of ancient Canaan… ought to be applied to [our] non-Jewish neighbors in America.” In reality, the book devotes an entire chapter to the importance of Jewish deference to non-Jews and of avoiding confrontation with Gentile neighbors.

The article accurately notes that the book “draws on an array of racist sources ranging from medieval theological tracts to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche to the words of Nazi figures,” but implies that those sources are somehow cited approvingly. The book, however, employs them merely to make the author’s case that anti-Semitism at its core reflects resentment for the special spiritual status of Jews.

The essential outrage of the newspaper article, as it happens, runs considerably deeper than the subtle disparagements and blatant falsehoods with which it is riddled. It lies in the very fact that the article – a news report, after all, not an opinion column – was vetted by the paper’s editors and accepted for publication in the first place. Because its author (as if his report itself weren’t proof enough) is hardly an objective observer of haredim. An academic who has described himself as having followed a “trajectory from Orthodox Judaism to a more liberal, secular Jewish identity,” he has publicly described the “yeshiva world” as “the Jewish equivalent of the Taliban.”

Can someone who bears animus for a certain population really be expected to objectively report on the subject of his ire? Would any reputable news organization assign a Palestinian political activist to cover a story about a Jewish West Bank community? An anti-Catholic minister to cover a Vatican conclave? For that matter, James Carville to cover the Republican National Convention; or Karl Rove, the Democratic? One imagines such matters are covered in Journalism 101.

And yet, remarkably, it is not unusual for major Jewish media – and not only the newspaper that published the outlandish article – to disregard the deep personal feelings some of their correspondents may harbor, and have them report on a community they distrust or even despise: the Orthodox.

There are exceptions, without question, fine and fair reporters for Jewish media who have no bones to pick and no frustrations to vent; who endeavor, and succeed, to file objective and accurate stories. But the exceptions don’t negate the unfortunate rule.

One natural address for tackling the disturbing ethical problem of bias in Jewish reportage would be the American Jewish Press Association, a national organization of Jewish journalists that does wonderful work. AJPA keeps its members abreast of important developments in the field and offers other resources to editors and reporters. It also organizes annual conferences that include interesting sessions and speakers. Its most recent conference several weeks ago in Atlanta, which I attended, was no exception.

But one aspect of the AJPA conference this year stands as a depressing but telling commentary on the state of contemporary Jewish journalism. Not only was the newspaper article about the “anti-Gentile” book not publicly exposed as an irresponsible hatchet job.

It was awarded a prize, for “Excellence in News Reporting.”

AM ECHAD RESOURCES

[Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.]

Me writes: Agudath Israel works hand in hand with the Catholic Church to protect abusive clergy.

see (not on-line):
Rabbis Back Law To Report Child Abuse
By Rachel Donadio
The Forward (NY)
March 29,2002 p. 3

excerpts:
With the exception of a major ultra-Orthodox organization, rabbinical groups of all denominations say they support proposed legislation in New York State that would require clergy to report allegations of child abuse.
...
The ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America, however, said it was wary of the legislation, which would require clergy to "report to authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to believe a child has been
abused," according to a March 19 statement by Morgenthau.
...
Last summer, Aguda and the Catholic Archdiocese of New York joined forces to oppose a proposed bill in the City Council that would have required all schools, including parochial schools, to file a police report about any criminal act committed by students or staff.
...
Steven I. Weiss' article in the Forward addresses all of Rabbi Avi Shafran's points.

http://forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.16/news9.lakewood.html
...
After reading Grama's book, Rabbi Yosef Blau, a leading rabbinic counselor at Yeshiva University, sent the Forward a letter arguing that the newspaper had accurately translated the work (please see Page 10). But, he added, Grama "is not an advocate of acting against the gentile. On the contrary, his message is the need to separate from a hostile, intrinsically antisemitic world."

Still, Blau wrote, the "possibility exists" that Jewish extremists in Israel could use the text to "justify horrendous behavior." He suggested that American scholars such as Grama may be unaware of the possible impact of such writings in today's charged atmosphere.
...

The original article in question cab be found at:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.19/news4a.html

It seems to me the only "irresponsible hatchet job" that needs exposing is that of Rabbi Avi Shafran here.

Agudath Israel should take a good long look at itself, its leadership and its agenda. I recommend others do so as well.

see also:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.16/oped4.html

Allison Kaplan Sommers writes: I think the title at the blog Protocols should be changed. Currently it reads: A group of Jews endeavors towards total domination of the blogosphere

Now it should read: A guy from Los Angeles endeavors towards total domination of the Jewish world.

To a degree, I do miss the old Protocols -- let's face it, Rav Steven I. Weiss is too busy digging up stories for the Forward to post on his new blog at his old dizzying pace. That's what happens when you get a real job. (Can we admit it? With a few notable exceptions, the truly prolific bloggers are unemployed or don't have the most challenging and stimulating of jobs).

For those who are Luke'd out, I recommend reading Miriam Shaviv's blog. She brings the energy of a new journalist-turned-blogger to Jewish issues.

For years, I've admired the work of Dr. Jonathan D. Sarna. Today I interviewed him for an hour about Jewish journalism.

Here are some excerpts:

"I think the Forward has become much less objective. It has declined under its new regime. I found it more compelling under the previous regime. There are stories that you find in the Forward that you find nowhere else. I also find stories in The Jewish Week that I don't find well done in the Forward. I think The Jewish Week does a much better job of preserving a sense of objectivity whereas the Forward is taking a liberal party line approach. I think its reporting on Israel reflects a certain point of view.

"Whether it was articles on religion, or [JJ Goldberg's] articles on the National Jewish Population Survey... Almost none of the scholars of the NJPS buy into JJ Goldberg's conspiracy theory about the survey, nor do most of us buy into his view that intermarriage is not a significant issue. It is correct that the definition of intermarriage was changed, but I don't think any serious student of the NJPS can not conclude that intermarriage is a highly significant issue. I do not think there was any conspiracy in the world of the NJPS. There may have been mistakes. I think there are grave problems today with telephone surveys as a genre. I do not think the Forward did a good job of explaining that. The New York Times did it.

"I think the Forward would've been better advised to have gone the Leonard Saxe (head of the Cohen Center of Modern Jewish Studies) direction, and helped readers understand complexity.

"We have not seen anything that resembles Eve Kessler's articles on Jewish religious life [under the Lipsky regime] in the new Forward. She's still working there but she has a different beat. They never replaced her with someone who was investigating in quite so serious a way. They don't even have such a correspondent. The reason is simple. The current editor is not very interested in Jewish religious life. It's not what he thinks the American Jewish community cares about. I think he's wrong.

"I found the Forward more riveting under Seth Lipsky. I respect Seth for creating a new vision of what Jewish journalism could be. I understand he ran afoul of the people who were paying the tune and that JJ is more in tune with the folks who are from the old Forward and have a certain political [socialist] perspective taken from the old Forward. I don't happen to share that politics. It's not surprising that I find the slant of the Forward less to my liking. Seth opened up stories that we have not seen before or since."

By Jonathan D. Sarna, Brandeis University:

The history of Jewish Journalism in the United States presents something of a challenge. Traditionally, historians like to recount the story of progress: development onward and upward from primitive origins to flourishing contemporary success. The history of Jewish journalism in the US, by contrast, represents, at least until recently, a story of marked decay.

Anonymous writes: Decay? From what? To say that jewish journalism has undergone decay is to suggest that it once was something more than it is, which in fact it has never been. Jewish journalism is about defending the status quo and keeping the shekels flowing for all the nice dinners and sponsorship, and screw the working class jews who might actually benefit from an honest airing of what's really going on.

Chaim Amalek writes: Why bother writing a book about a bunch of shlubs who can't do much more than what they have been doing, when there is a far richer universe of people to write about? I am suggesting that instead of writing about Jewish Journalism, you flip this project inside out and write about the Journalism of the Jews. Your targets will be far more numerous, wealthier, and both fearful of your work and eager to win you to their side. You could become the Faith Popcorn of Jewish Journalists, the man al Jazeera turns to whenever it needs a jewish mouthpiece to explain jewish hegemonic control over American mass media.

Mike Albo writes: I always knew that Aussie-geek Luke Ford was nuts, but I don't think I ever truly gauged the depths of his insanity until he sent me the the following e-mail yesterday.

Mike,

Are you concerned about LA's absence of shared myths, symbols and collective narrative?

If so, what are you doing about it?

Sincerely,

Luke

Huh? To paraphrase Elvis in Jailhouse Rock, "Lukey, I don't know what the hell you're talkin' about."

Besides being a pretty gay topic to broach with another guy, it's ignorant. My suggestion? Head out to Union Station, cross Alameda and go to Olvera Street. Check out the old town plaza. Better, pay a visit to Mission San Gabriel. Take a trip up Azusa Canyon past Morris Dam. Better yet, just open your eyes. Los Angeles is crawling with "shared myths" and history, you tourist.

from Young Israel of Century City has only two vehicles in his household. Nebuch! I had no idea. Chaver, feel free to borrow my van at any time. Drive it into the YICC parking lot and you will get Maftir!

For tznious reasons, I would've placed your wife and daughters in the back while driving them to their appointments. They'd be the talk of the kehilla. The whole experience is guaranteed to help them pray harder.

Chaver replies: Levi: Thanks so much for your kind offer. It is tempting to commandeer your van and discover how the other half lives. Alas, I value my image as a wildly successful and powerful Hollywood [rabbi]. However, I will keep your offer in mind, in case I become completely self destructive. *** hesitates to step into the same room as you, so the chances of her catching a ride with you are about as good as me becoming the next Hershel Bernard.

Anonymous writes: I do not want to embarrass Mr. Ford, as this is not the Jewish way. Still, I was once in his van, and while he was standing outside it, arguing with the Mexican over our order of (kosher) tacos, I surreptitiously searched it for Shatnez. I found none. I checked some stains I found next to the drivers seat, but these proved not to be menstrual blood. There was a tattered and very realistic looking sheitel in the cargo space of the van, but genetic analysis of the hairs indicated that their origin was not from the scalp of a south asian woman. And as for the few bones I found nearby, the genetic tests I have done indicate that they were not porcine in nature. Hence, it is perfectly respectable for any respectable Jew to accept transportation from Luke Ford. --Your Moral Leader's Moral Leader

Michael Berenbaum writes me: "I am still a observant and religious Jew. I do not use denominational ties but we daven [by a Conservative temple]. I was ordinated [Orthodox] by Rabbi Yaakov Rabin zt'l [when Michael was 23].
"In reality I was ordained because of Vietnam, but it proved to be one of the most important things in my life. It imposed upon me a responsibility to the Jewish past -- and the Jewish future -- and to become a producer of Torah and not just a consumer, but that is another conversation."

Helpful writes: I truly believe that dear Luke could parlay his 15 minutes into a solid B level tier celebrity status ala Wally Cox on the Hollywood Squares, but I fear that the Paul Lynde level of success will continue to elude him until he does something truly note worthy like shoot the president or marry Joan Collins.

As far as associating with a star getting Chaim laid. Face it, Chaim. If Tom Cruise, himself took you to an all female Scientology lecture you couldn't even get a wink from the ladies. Do your love life a favor. Obsess less on Luke's aura and more on those freakin' carbs you've been gobbling.

Chaim Amalek writes: Here in New York I see plenty of equally short, fat, older Jewish men hooking up with hot non-hookers. He's not short or fat, but look at Howard Stern for Christ's sake. The man is physically repulsive, yet manages to have coitus whenever he wants with a six foot tall blonde shiksa young enough to be his daughter. And even Al Goldstein can find love. If fame can work for them, who is to say that it cannot work for me, even if in its attenuated, reflected form? Besides, there is a much better chance of Luke soon becoming famous than there is of my seeing the low side of 250 pounds any time soon.

As for how Luke might become famous, I think he should become a Maybe Fag, one of those professional Walkers who squire older women about town. Connections count (see Peter Gruber), and this sort of a gig might give Luke the connections he needs to become the next Larry King. All he lacks is the initiative and hunger to give it a go.

Anonymous writes: This has gone on too long. There ain't no "Luke Ford" and there never was. He is a pretend character built a created by a committe of under- and unemployed writers, built around an unemployed actor. I hope this finally clears things up.

From A Fly on the Wall:

Briana writes in from some unknown corner of cyberspace:

"I've seen you make comments about Luke Ford on other weblogs where people are commenting about him. This might sound really naive, but is Luke Ford a real person or is he made up? Is this some in-joke with you Los Angeles writers?"

Luke Ford is very much a real person. You couldn't make up somebody like Luke; otherwise, you'd be accused of creating an unbelievable character.

Luke has a new book out, called The Rabbi Wore Split-Crotch Panties, or something like that. He has also started yet another blog. If you're an attractive, unmarried Orthodox Jewish woman, he'd love to meet you.

I get a ton of criticism for writing so much in the first person. The owner of Protocols, Steven I. Weiss, writes me Sunday night, "As always, I want to emphasize with you that you can do great work in Jewish journalism. I'm still waiting for that one day without the pronoun "I"."

Steven, it is not the voice that matters as much as the quality. First person is a perfectly wonderful way to tell a story so long as the writer is engaged in meaningful conflict that results in a realization.

Gene Lichtenstein wrote in last week's issue of The Jewish Week: "Two years ago at a Hollywood screenwriters’ conference, the then head of the Writers Guild, Daniel Petrie Jr., remarked to this reporter that he had no idea how many screenwriters were Jewish, but in any event it was not a significant number."

The use of third person did not make this a superior story.

The overwhelming amount of Jewish journalism is written in third-person, and, frankly, it sucks.

I may attend a Jewish event, and the most interest thing that happens there is the variety of my internal states.

I do not consider the people I write about to always be more compelling than myself, just as I do not always view myself as more interesting than the people I write about.

The use of first person is fine if the writer is a major and compelling part of a story.

If I am not for myself, who will be? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?

I love it how journalists such as Gary Rosenblatt (The Jewish Week) proudly tell me that their papers are not Federation papers. Yet their primary financial support comes from the Federation. Yet they always cover the Federation with mind-numbing detail that is rarely negative. The more such journalists assure me that their papers are not Federation papers, the more...

If The Jewish Week is not a Federation paper, why would it put so much front page space to a dull and pointless story such as this: Top exec out; new president seeks to improve relations with parent body, UJA-Federation.

Like, who cares who the new executive vice president is? Will it make any difference to the education of Jewish kids? No.

Check out this bird Julie Barroukh -- she's a Jewish mom -- very active in her synagogue -- former journalist, former producer at the KTLA morning show -- turned personal trainer.

http://www.juliebfit.com

We're friends from Columbia Journalism School. I tease her that this is what happens when you take a smart NY girl and put her in LA. Her brain atrophies and she becomes obsessed with her body....

I offered Nancy Rommelmann and Cathy Seipp a free training session with her a while back, but they never took me up on it.

Chaim Amalek, Friend to the Jewish Woman, writes: There would be more Jewish children in the world if more Jewish women spent more time working on their bodies and less time trying to compete with men in the workplace.

Mommy writes: I've found that having small kids and being a mother is pretty much the same routine whether you live in West LA or Boston or London or Israel. You get 'em up, dress 'em, bring them to school. In the late afternoon you pick 'em up, bring them to friends' houses and afterschool stuff like swimming lessons and gymnastics classes, come home, do homework, feed them, put them to bed. You spend the weekends entertaining them.

Your geographical location matters little -- frankly, what matters most is your income and therefore how many activities you can afford for the kids, and how much you have to do yourself, how much hired help you can get to support you and clean up after you and watch the kids sometimes so you can have some form of adult existence once in a while -- and, in our Jewish sphere, whether or not you do Shabbat -- do you spend your weekends eating and praying or at the pool and the beach?

The difference is, obviously, what you do during the time they are in school. I spend it primarily on the computer and the telephone, with the occasional coffee or lunch with a friend, usually an ex-American -- so again, does it matter that I'm in Israel?

I'm really, really glad that I spent my first four years in Israel working and not having kids, so I have a clues as to what real Israeli life is. I used to poo-poo the town I now live in. I used to say, "If I wanted to live in New Jersey, I'd go for the real thing."

But I gave up. It's too exhausting to try to be hip and cool and urban and happening AND raise kids. The suburbs are the place to do it, for now. I'm accepting it as a finite period of my life and am trying not to let too many brain cells die in the process, so hopefully when my kids get older I'll still have a life and a personality. I figure that talking to people like you help this process along. It's like the mental equivalent of the maintenance on their bodies that the Hollywood moms do.

XXX writes: Interview Ori Nir. He is the most intelligent, thoughtful Israeli journalist I've ever met and he's now covering Washington for the Forward. He knows Israeli journalism, mainstream journalism (his wife works for LA Times, formerly Christian Science Monitor) and he's spent enough time in and around American Jewish journalism to form opinions.

He's a wonderful journalist in Hebrew -- worked for Ha'aretz for many years covering the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs -- fluent in Arabic. He and his wife met on the job in the West Bank.

I interview Orthodox Rabbi Michael Berenbaum (born 1945) Friday afternoon, June 25, 2004.

Here's an excerpt:

"Would you be surprised to learn that Malcolm [Hoenlein] threatened The Jewish Week (NY) that if they published an article about a slush fund he kept that he would financially destroy the paper?"

"No."

"What's your critique of JJ Goldberg and the Forward?"

"I don't think he has yet established an Op/Ed page that reflects dramatic opinion in the [style of] The New York Times and Washington Post. That you have an understanding of the issues and you shape an agenda. There are enough people writing enough powerful stuff that the Forward should be able to do it. There are usually two or three good stories each week and the rest of the paper is not worth reading. The Culture section is sometimes very good. JJ hasn't fully established his own voice."

"Is he that good of a journalist? I always found his columns tame."

"He may be too tame. Lipsky was anything but tame."

"What's your critique of Gary Rosenblatt and The Jewish Week?"

"Gary earned his place in Gan Eden [world to come] by virtue of what he did on the [Baruch] Lanner thing. He's too tame. He often comes off as if he is ball-less. When he had some good journalists working for him, he restrained them from covering anything too controversial. He had Larry Cohler [renowned investigative journalist]. I helped train Larry. You've got to let him do his stuff and stick by him and 99% of the time you will end up with something of worth. Larry was essentially driven out. He found out that Gary was without balls. Larry may sometimes be without brains but he is never without balls. Gary tends to be tame and timid.

"The Jewish Week doesn't have a good Arts section or a good book review section. Jewish life in its intellectual sphere is flourishing. How a paper like that in New York isn't covering books and literature and arts and dance and theatre at the epic-center of where that is exciting, I don't understand. I don't understand that with my friend [Rob Eshman] at the Jewish Journal. How can you not cover this? Stuff gets covered in The New York Times book review or the New York Review of Books but The Jewish Week doesn't say a goddamn thing about it. The Jewish Journal doesn't say a goddman thing about it."

"They do but they assign spineless book reviewers such as Sandee Brawarsky."

"For example, compare the review of David Myers book by [Rabbi Daniel] Bouskila [in the Jewish Journal] with the way [Samuel Moyn] from Columbia reviewed it in the Forward and you see the difference between something that is serious and something that is not serious. In the areas I know well, these guys [Rosenblatt, Eshman] are not committed to it. Even if you were Gary and you wanted to play it safe, you could raise every issue you wanted to raise through the book review section that you don't want to review elsewhere."

"It's so bad. The Jewish press is so bad."

John writes: Of course Gary lacks balls. He's the editor of a Federation paper. If you want to keep these kind of jobs, especially long-term, lacking balls is a requirement.

Just like if you want to set up an independent web site covering the porn industry and pissing off very scary people, having massively oversized balls and being slightly insane is a requirement ("Boogie Nights" was on cable last night, reminding me of that fact.)

It takes all types to make a world, even in journalism. Would the papers be better if they employed a series of editors with journalistic balls, each of whom got fired after three months on the job? (Maybe, but...)

The question isn't whether the federation rags are journalistically daring or not, the question is whether there are alternatives. Till the Forward and the web publications and blogs came along, there weren't alternatives. And frankly, there would be no Forward if there wasn't a very rich Jewish macher who is willing to bankroll a paper that is critical of, among other things, rich Jewish machers.

It's all about the money -- or lack thereof. That's why the Internet is a boon, because the start-up and support costs are so low.

Rebbe Luke is recruiting emissaries (shlichim) to go into the secular virtual world and set up Torah centers, spreading my interpretations, and bringing Jews closer to Torah. You may apply now at Lukeford at comcast dot net.

Amalek writes: A man, a man whom you know who is into all things Asian, has written to me expressing the fear that just as Bob Zimmerman cast aside all his old chums when he became Bob Dylan and suddenly found he could nail hot shiksas, so too will Luke Ford cast aside his old virtual friends in favor of such new ones as Cathy Seipp, with whom he can actually do things like share a meal or go to a party. I tried to console him that you would not do this as your fame and wealth grew, but I'm having second thoughts.

Chaim writes: I remember just how feeble my social pulse was pre-Cathy, and how strong it is today, baruch HaShem. So although I must cast off some of my old life, I do so with pride for what I have worked towards. Those of you who were like the Old Luke, I suggest you follow in my footsteps.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - What do you get when you combine "American Idol," "Survivor" and "Big Brother?"

Answer: a new series produced by reality TV pioneer Mark Burnett that features musicians vying for the chance to become the next lead singer of Australian rock band INXS, CBS said Thursday.

My girlfriend and I have found that snorting some cocaine and methamphetamine together provides the most intense experience. The meth really lets you get into the holiness of the action, while the coke adds a hedonistic element. I've tried smoking cocaine (crack) but found that it's terrible for davening (as well as for anything else)..the experience isn't heightened all, but rather dulled. And acid was too weird..made everything seem unholy, mechanical, and just plain ridiculous, but maybe I took too much. Anyone else have any favorite drugs for davening, studying Torah? I haven't tried alcohol, heroin, pot, or ecstasy ...what are those like?

before anyone starts moralizing...

RECREATIONAL DRUG USE DISCLAIMER: All drugs, including alcohol, should be used in moderation and infrequently. Only an idiot uses drugs so frequently that he gets hooked. Don't be an idiot. Even a single drug use is followed by an unpleasant withdrawal period. Sit through this period and don't use again until quite a while after your chemistry and state of mind is back to normal. Otherwise, addiction may begin. Recreational drugs, including alcohol, should only be used by those with exceptional self-discipline and a firm grip on reality. Never inject drugs. Do not take stimulants if not in good physical and aerobic condition with a healthy heart. Some drugs, including alcohol,
may cause unnacceptable damage to the body or brain, so research thoroughly first. Don't drive under the influence of drugs. Don't underestimate the danger of alcohol even though it's legal. Resarch drug interactions (including with alcohol) before experimenting with combinations on yourself. Some combinations can be extremely hazardous or fatal. Be aware that potencies may vary considerably due to the unregulated nature of the black market, so exercise caution. Avoid law enforcement officers. Some nations, such as the United States of America, have highly draconian drug laws. If you are arrested by police for purchasing, possessing, or using illegal drugs, it can result in
lengthy jail sentences and property confiscations, thereby resulting in lost wages, mental anguish, and broken families. If you have children or other dependents, consider what would be the effect on them if you became incarcerated for a long period of time. Always consider the risk/reward ratio in all aspects before buying or using drugs. Because drug prohibition by governments enables a black market, be aware that some of the money you use to pay for illegal drugs may ultimately be used to fund violent criminals including terrorists. Never allow children to use drugs. Don't give drugs to someone who you know does not have the intelligence and discipline to understand and follow the above recommendations.
Some rabbis take exception when you show up to their shul stoned out of your mind and start singing and dancing with the rebbetzin.
Amalek writes: Seriously - you have taken your share of (legal) mood-altering drugs in your day. What effect do they have on the religious experience, particularly when davening? Is there some sort of synergistic effect? More fundamentally, have you ever had a religious experience while davening? I know I have not.
Luke says: They make me more calm and enhance my ability to concentrate. I have a religious experience while davening about 10% of the time, and 90% of the time, even though I feel nothing while davening, I walk away feeling better.

I chat by phone Thursday afternoon, June 24, 2004, with Lisa Lenkiewicz, the 47-year old managing editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger.

"What are the obstacles to doing good Jewish journalism?"

"You're going to hear this from everybody. It is difficult to be part of the Jewish community yet report on the Jewish community as an independent journalist. There is a concept in Judaism of lashon hara (evil gossip). Many news stories get put through the filter of -- is this good for the Jews? Another newspaper would not even consider that. Are we a Jewish newspaper or are we a newspaper for Jews? What are our boundaries? What will cause harm in the Jewish community? Do we have a responsibility not to cause harm in the Jewish community? Are Jewish newspapers communal institutions? Or are you independent?"

"What do you think is the best Jewish newspaper?"

"The Jewish Week (New York). I think the writing is of a high quality. It is on the cutting edge of trends. It does a good job of covering New York, almost an impossible task because New York is so huge. Under the steady hand of Gary Rosenblatt, it is a serious good newspaper."

"I don't think I ever recall a negative book review in The Jewish Week."

Lisa laughs. "I don't either. The Forward is very intellectual and has a whole literary section. The Jewish Week can't do that but at least they inform people about the hot Jewish books out there and interview authors."

"Would you call it a compelling read?"

"I think Jonathan Mark is a wonderful writer. I think it is a must read if you are interested in Jewish journalism."

"Would you call it a Federation paper?"

"Yes. You don't like The Jewish Week?" asks Lisa.

"I think it's dull."

"One of the criticisms you hear about Jewish newspapers in general is that they are dull. They are not exciting reads."

"Yeah," I say in my best duh tone.

"That is a challenge to all of us editors.

"What are you looking for? What are you going to find that is not there?

"We're not all hip young magazines. We're Jewish newspapers. What do you think is missing?"

"It is so sanitized. I know Jewish life. I know about the egos and peacocking and scamming and posturing that go on but I don't read about them in my Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Journal."

"But is that news? That there's backstabbing and infighting?"

"I don't recognize the Jewish life that I participate in when I read the Jewish Journal or any other Jewish paper, but I do recognize it when I read Postville and The New Rabbi."

"I found The New Rabbi a good read. A number of people were furious with him. But it was juicy gossip."

"It was delicious."

"It was complete and total gossip in that book but it totally shed a light on the whole rabbinic search process. It was wonderful."

"That book got me excited. I realized that Jewish journalism can be exciting."

"You are right. The feedback I got was that it was pure gossip. I know rabbis who know rabbis and those people are greatly hurt by what was written about them."

"Oh, poor tender sensitive babies," I sneer to myself.

"Well, tough," I say.

"A tremendous amount of damage."

"That's what Gary said."

"That's what you hear from everyone."

"They didn't get to set their own image this time and it was shocking for them."

"No question."

"They're control freaks."

"You take a rabbi, a nice guy like Perry Rank, and your heart goes out to him. That these people said X, Y, and Z about him. I think it made them look bad."

"Yeah, I think it made them look bad."

"Yeah, but his [relative] who lives here, they were just mortified to see their private life exposed like that. I kept saying, it makes everyone else look bad. Not Perry. It still didn't matter. It was very very hurtful."

"I find it amusing that these rabbis who are such enormous consumers of journalism, guys who read The New York Times every day, but as soon as soon as some regular journalistic techniques are applied on them and their friends, they go ballistic."

"Yep. Except, when it happens to you, you don't want to see your life dragged out in front of everybody.

"I can't disagree in many instances with your assessment that Jewish newspapers are too dull. We work hard here to get away from the 'Who poured the punch at the Oneg pictures.' We've gotten away from being a shul bulletin. We're doing nice features. We write about wonderful people doing wonderful things. There is that pressure to write about the Federation annual meeting. Because of the ebb and flow of the Jewish news cycle, it's the same Rosh Hashanah and Passover stories. I like to think we are always looking for fresh angles on things. Where Jewish newspapers fall down is that we don't have the resources to do a good job in investigative journalism. That's why I was impressed with what Gary [Rosenblatt] did with the Baruch Lanner [molestation] stories. There's not enough of that."

"Do you think there's a generation gap?"

"There is. Our readers are 60 and above who don't want to see anything bad about the Jewish community. All of us have recognized that if we don't start reaching out to a different generation, there won't be a Jewish newspaper to wrap their fish in. I'm relatively young in the Jewish newspaper world. At the Jewish Ledger, we run events for singles. We have dances, lectures, speed dating, a night out at the ball park. We've had over a dozen marriages."

"When did you begin in Jewish journalism?"

"I went to the Washington Jewish Week in 1982. I moved to the Ledger in 1992."

"Did you see big stories you couldn't get into the paper?"

"Oh, sure. An executive director for 40 years here is dismissed from a synagogue. He comes to us and says he was dismissed for age discrimination. He's going to file a lawsuit. Then the rabbi calls you up and says, we would greatly appreciate it if you would not run that story. And the publisher says ok. Or a rabbi is dismissed from the synagogue for abusing the discretionary fund account. I call the rabbi. He says, I won't speak to you. This is a legal matter. You are not to print it. You are not able to get anything on the record. No cooperation from anyone in the synagogue or the community and you're not able to run the story. Or, the Jewish Federation executive director settles with the Federation. People come forward and say he's verbally abusing women. The board decides to pay him off and ship him out. And you can't get the story."

"According to the Awareness Center, there are a lot more abusive rabbis than just Lanner."

"I called the women who had run-ins with [the executive director]. They hung up the phone on me. Or said they were scared and wouldn't talk to me. The Federation officials wouldn't talk to us. There were several stories that were vital to do and I am disappointed that we didn't do them. A funeral home gets a fine from the state for malpractice and bilking people and we get beat by the Hartford Courant. They got the information first. Eventually we got to run the story, but some major advertisers came in here and said they would pull their advertising. We sat down with them. We heard their side. We eventually got to do their side but we were completely beat by the secular press on this. What is it about Jewish newspapers that they don't have the staff, the resources, the money, and the ability to be ahead of these stories?"

"What about the status? I've had journalists complain to me that journalists for Jewish papers get treated like teachers in the community. Nebuch."

"The salaries... As managing editor, I get treated nicely by the people in Connecticut. I always feel that people want me to speak and want to be in the paper. I just got an honor from some kashrut commission for my community service of twelve years. True, they were trying to fill their brunch. I don't always feel like a second-class citizen to the people we cover. Yet the first inclination is to say, I'm not talking to you. And pressure is put on you to not write stories that could harm the Jewish community."

"Do you really think the Jewish community would be harmed if these stories ran?"

"Not me. I wouldn't be in this business if I thought that. I keep trying to make the point that the Jewish community can only be strengthened if we are accurate reporters of what is occurring. Not just on what our Jewish institutions are doing but on what's doing at our Jewish institutions.

"People want to open up a Jewish newspaper and feel good. They want to see all the good works that they are doing. They want to hear about their neighbor. They want to see the awards. When I go out speaking, I find that the most popular part of the paper is the obituary page. Then they want to see the engagements, the weddings and the life cycle events. It's that insular feeling of community that they are interested in. If they want to read investigative journalism, they'll go to The New York Times.

"I keep saying that Jewish newspapers should start a gossip column. That would really sell newspapers."

"Call it Lashon Hara corner."

"So-and-so sold their house for this much and they're moving to Florida. This is what people are talking about.

"Most Jewish journalists don't want to go to The New York Times. They like their hometown paper. They feel like they are making a difference.

"Larry [Cohler-Esses] tried for so long to break into non-Jewish journalism. I remember when Larry got an interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. Mike told him that he was the best Jewish journalist in the country but you've got to get out of Jewish journalism and get some daily experience. And it was years before Larry was able to get out of Jewish journalism.

"Charles Fenyvesi was at the Washington Post, then Bnai Brith magazine, then Washington Jewish Week, then he got a job at US News & World Report. That was our big excitement. One of ours made it into an important magazine. It doesn't happen that often.

"You need a section in your book on Jewish editors who've been on the job a long time. Robert Cohen, 36 years in St Louis. Marc Klein, a number of years in San Francisco. This is more than a job for them. You may sat it's boring but they really believe in what they're doing. I would say that most of my peers are happy with their job. We wish the salaries were higher. For full-time reporters at our paper, the salary range is between $20-30,000. The pay scale is pretty similar in the secular world. But how do you entice someone coming up in the world of journalism to choose this path? Gary has worked hard to attract young Jewish journalists with seminars and internships."

If only I could tell you about the two total hotties at my friend's Shabbos table Friday night celebrating the publication of my two holy seferim. Baruch HaShem! I walked one home. She's Aish Ha Torah baal teshuvah and an actress in Hollywood. Shomer negiyah like me. God is good.
Tell me, is there anyone you would rather walk home the innocent daughter of Israel through the darkened streets of Pico-Robertson than Your Moral Leader? I didn't think so.

Cathy Seipp writes: Cecile is helping the cat get settled at Paradise Ranch, the cagefree dog (and a few cats) resort hotel that's the only place I don't feel terrible about leaving the animals when we're gone. The cat gets this entire actual bedroom all to herself. She can sleep on the bed, or under it; whatever she wants. And when things are quiet in the office (adjacent to the cat bedroom) she can come out and sit on people's laps. She's 17, OK? She deserves it. The picture doesn't show the dresser, decorated with ceramic dogs, which I think looked charming but suspect is lost on the cat.

Other bedrooms are filled with dogs (the main clientele), carefully selected from the outdoor play area to see who gets along best and should bunk together inside.

Elisabeth Irwin writes: I applaud the availability of such housing for the animal companions of the well-to-do while they vacation. Still, what does it say about our society that dogs and cats are better housed than the tens of millions of homeless people regularly sent out onto the streets by a heartless national policy that would rather tax Americans to kill Arabs than spend money to house Americans?

A Fly on the Wall writes: Cathy has a very generous and loving attitude toward the homeless. She has even adopted her own derelict that she feeds, cares for, and tends in a generous and selfless spirit, notwithstanding his antisocial and borderline delusional ravings. His name is Luke Ford.

I interviewed Orthodox Rabbi Michael Berenbaum (born 1945) Friday afternoon, June 25. The content designer for the now famous Washington Holocaust Museum, and director of the Shoah Oral History project established by Stephen Spielberg, he is widely known today as a Holocaust scholar (part-time at University of Judaism).

He has four kids, aged 31, 26, 5, 4.

As I sit on the couch after walking in his home, his four year old boy asks, "Who's that man?"

R. "He wants to interview me."

"Are you going to be on television?"

"I don't know."

Two minutes later, the boy asks again, "Are you going to be on television?"

Near the end of the interview, he comes in and plays with my digital tape recorder.

I did not have the moxie to ask the question I wanted to pose: Which is the best Holocaust museum to take a first date?

Cathy Seipp will tell you that my newfound respectability is entirely thanks to her.

When people say that we have helped each so much over the past 18 months, Cathy will say, well, I see where I've helped him...

Another friend observes: "Your new life is entirely due to Cathy. You know it and so does Cathy. She has given your the gift of respectability."

I think this observation is cruel and insulting. You should never ever tell anyone that something they have worked hard towards for years is entirely due to the merit of a third party (unless you want to insult the person). You are telling that person that they deserve no merit for their own years of hard work in an area.

Imagine telling a former alcoholic, "Your sobriety is entirely due to your friend Jack."

Imagine telling a former womanizer, "Your newfound respectability is entirely due to your wife."

OK, I can see that.

I guess I have heard all my life that I am nothing unless I am right with God. Or from frum people that I am nothing unless I am shomer mitzvot. I react viscerally to that type of thinking, when directed against me or others.

Did you ever read Man's Search for Meaning? That book is written against that type of thinking.

Anyway, I think Cathy and Cecile are terrific additions to my life but I believe that I deserve most of the credit and blame for where my life is today and I don't like it when people want to give that credit/demerit to others.

I'm also not ashamed of who I was in 2001, before I became a friend of Cathy.

I have the friends I deserve. They are not mine because of charity.

Cathy Seipp writes: "Oh, so that's what brought your little blog foot-stamping "I don't need her dammit I'm just FINE" on..."

"There they were, scolding me once again for denying Ariel burial in Eretz Yisroel."

Jerusalem Report, 12/20/90:

Editors should think twice before they cross their reporters. A case in point: Martin Pomerance, editor of the Washington Jewish Week, who was forced to resign recently, after only 16 months on the job.

Staff reporters, alienated by Pomerance's unpredictable and erratic style, did some extracurricular investigative reporting based on rumors about his past. One discovery: Pomerance was apparently involved in a number of art swindles in Israel eight years ago.

A lawyer by profession, Pomerance came to in Israel from the United States in 1978 and opened the "Hillel" art gallery in Jerusalem. "When he arrived in Israel," says an art collector who had dealings with Pomerance, "he presented himself as a millionaire. He was charming, articulate, and had an extravagant lifestyle."

In 1982, Pomerance allegedly was involved in the sale of works from a number of Israeli artists, at prices well below their true value. Facing a police investigation and two court orders prohibiting him from leaving the country, Pomerance boarded a tourist boat in Eilat, dove into the water and swam to Egypt, according to newspaper accounts. Israeli sources assume he used false papers to enter Egypt, from where he returned to the United States.

"Pomerance was not a professional journalist, but was masquerading as one," says former Washington Jewish Week employee Jon Greene, laid off by Pomerance in September for "budgetary reasons."

What most upset reporters was Pomerance's habit of firing people without warning. According to Greene: "People were producing, yet they would be fired. This left us with the feeling that we had no security."

At last report, Pomerance was hunkering down "someplace in Washington," presumably searching for some security of his own.

Peter Hirschberg

Copyright 1991 The Washington Post

June 13, 1991, Thursday, Final Edition

BYLINE: Lloyd Grove, Washington Post Staff Writer

Subject: Israel.

Target: Nancy Kassebaum.

Methods: Sweet reason, shock therapy.

A dozen pro-Israel activists filed into Kassebaum's Senate office. Two staffers carried in extra chairs, and the Kansas Republican helped set them up.

"The question," Shaol Pozez told Kassebaum, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "is how do we go about getting this peace process going?" A retired discount shoe store tycoon, sporting athletic footwear this morning, Pozez used to share a back-yard fence with her father, Alf Landon -- which is why he was there. She nodded, politely. The pleasantries were over.

"Israel," Pozez told her, "will do everything short of national suicide to make peace."

"Isn't the PLO going to have to be there at some point, Shaol?" she demanded of Pozez, a frequent political contributor -- though not, in recent years, to Kassebaum. The room fell deathly still at the mention of the Palestine Liberation Organization, as though someone had just suggested ... national suicide. "It seems to me that this is an opportunity," Kassebaum went on, her jaw set, "and everybody's got to be willing to give."

Frowns spread around the room.

So much for sweet reason.

Kassebaum's visitors that morning, most of them with Kansas connections, were from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- AIPAC, for short -- the foreign policy equivalent of the National Rifle Association. Their mission, a life-defining one, is "strengthening the American-Israel relationship," mainly by securing American aid for the Jewish state and blocking U.S. weapons sales to hostile Arabs.

AIPAC is one of the most resented and respected, admired and feared, lobbying organizations in the United States. Kassebaum is one of very few in Congress who will speak bluntly about the group on the record.

"Sometimes," she said, "they're just absolutely, totally inflexible."

If so, perhaps it's because so many Jews, no matter how comfortable in American society, feel themselves linked to a long history of worldwide persecution, culminating in the Holocaust in which 6 million perished. Israel, in the minds of some, may be the only safe haven -- and thus deserves special treatment.

Those in Congress and elsewhere who disagree, or complain about AIPAC's heavy-handedness, tend to do so sotto voce -- terrified of being branded with the epithet "antisemite" or, even worse, "self-hating Jew." In March, half the Senate and a third of the House accepted invitations to schmooze with 2,100 true believers at AIPAC's 32nd annual policy conference, an impressive show of pro-Israel power. In the oft-repeated catch-phrase of AIPAC's detractors, the lobby has made Israel "America's 51st state."

As the pro-Israel lobby anointed to speak for the major U.S. Jewish organizations -- not, as some persist in believing, Israel's registered agent -- AIPAC has prospered mightily since its birth 37 years ago. In the past decade, the lobby has quadrupled its staff to more than 100 and quintupled its membership to 55,000 households -- attracting a new breed of non-Jewish activists like Allen Mothersill -- while its member-financed budget has grown even more, from $ 1.4 million in 1980 to $ 12 million in 1991.

It owes much of its growth to Tom Dine, the lobby's executive director for the past decade, a charismatic proponent of pressure-group politics.

Yet AIPAC's rapid expansion has forced it to cope with a host of competing constituencies -- from liberal Democratic Jews to conservative Republican members of Congress, from American doves to Israeli hard-liners. The lobby also faces mounting and contradictory criticism, from a wide array of political activists both here and in Israel. It is accused, alternately, of climbing into bed with the executive branch at the expense of its friends in Congress; allying itself with the Republican Party at the expense of its ties to the Democrats; and becoming a creature of the Likud Party at the expense of Labor -- "representing," according to Yossi Beilin, a Labor member of the Israeli parliament, "the 'Israel That Refuses.' "

AIPAC officials heatedly dispute the charges, and privately complain that such dissension in the ranks serves only the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people.

Tom Dine is fond of quoting Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger: "Dine, I deal with you because you could hurt me."

A Rough Reputation

AIPAC's influence with Congress is due partly to a widespread predisposition to back Israel anyway -- though recent polls have shown that U.S. public opinion, while generally supportive of Israel, can vary sharply in reaction to events in the Middle East. Just as important to the lobby's clout is its reputation for playing rough.

"We are slaves to some of the lobbying groups," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) complained on the day of the Desert Storm vote. "I do not have to name names," Byrd went on, "but I could."

"My colleagues think AIPAC is a very, very powerful organization that is ruthless, and very, very alert," said another senator who, like so many on the subject of AIPAC, asked that his name not be named. "Eighty percent of the senators here roll their eyes on some of the votes. They know that what they're doing isn't what they really believe is right, but why fight on a situation where they're liable to get beat up on?

"There's no countervailing sentiment," this senator added, noting that the small but ardent circle of pro-Israel activists, unlike its Arab-American counterpart, gives millions of dollars every election cycle to candidates for office. "If you vote contrary to the tremendous pressure of AIPAC, no one says to you, 'That's great.' "

The 1984 defeat of Sen. Charles Percy (R-Ill.) -- the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who crossed the lobby once too often -- is one of several in recent years ascribed to pro-Israel money. "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy," Dine claimed in a speech after the 1984 election. "And American politicians ... got the message."

Yet many U.S. Jews are uncomfortable with such talk, and see the specter of antisemitism behind every public reference to the "Jewish lobby," as AIPAC is frequently called by its opponents. Rep. Tim Valentine (D-N.C.), whose House amendment to cut the $ 650 million in extra aid for Israel received a mere 24 votes, blamed the Jewish community for its lopsided defeat.

"I do plan to find an opportunity to talk to my Jewish friends," the congressman vowed, "and say, 'Do you realize the impression that this thing makes, when you come down with full force, all the strength that you have, for a few bucks? My God, what does that say?' " Asked what it said, Valentine responded, "I don't know. You know what I mean."

Understandably, perhaps, AIPAC prefers to operate outside the spotlight. "A lobby is like a night flower," AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues, Steven Rosen, once wrote in an internal memo. "It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."

Thus the lobby has a touchy relationship with the Fourth Estate, a medium that other public affairs groups routinely exploit. Often, it finds itself criticizing reporters. In May, it launched a grass-roots letter-writing campaign to CNN, protesting a special report that was critical of Israel. Reporter Mark Feldstein said hundreds of letters poured in. Along with some well-argued ones, taking their cue from AIPAC's "Monthly Update" to members, "some of it was pretty nasty," Feldstein said. "You know, 'self-hating Jew' was used, 'the Nazis would be proud of you,' 'the Jews have always been their own worst enemies.' "

AIPAC's president, Mayer Mitchell, an Alabama businessman, has a policy of simply not speaking to the press. The four AIPAC employees permitted contact with journalists seldom speak for attribution, and Dine would only agree to go on the record for this series if his quotes were read back to him for approval. At AIPAC's recent policy conference, one of about 800 college students in attendance was asked to explain her commitment. "You really have to talk to the people in the press department," she replied, turning away.

In 1987, AIPAC's then-communications director, Barbara Amouyal, argued that this press-shy attitude was counterproductive to the lobby's aims. During her tenure, however, she often found herself trying to keep stories out of the news. Once, she pleaded with two Jewish newspapers not to print an item about a birthday party for Steven Rosen, during which a stripper performed on AIPAC premises. As an inducement to one of the papers, she offered, ironically, access to Tom Dine. She left AIPAC in frustration after 11 months.

Afterward, two AIPAC internal memos were aired by the CBS program "60 Minutes" and other news organizations in October 1988, resulting in the worst publicity AIPAC has ever endured, plus a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission. Amouyal supplied one AIPAC memo urging news stories supporting a pro-Israel Senate candidate and attacking Jesse Jackson's "extramarital affairs." A second memo, which several reporters received over the transom, urged various political action committees to send money to pro-Israel candidates -- suggesting that AIPAC employees had involved themselves in political campaigns, contravening a long-standing AIPAC policy. AIPAC officials still sputter in anger when they discuss Amouyal and her alleged misdeed.

In January 1989, a coalition of Arab Americans, former diplomats and an ex-congressman accused the lobby of violating federal campaign spending limits by orchestrating the donations of 27 pro-Israel PACs. (AIPAC, which is not a political action committee, took its name long before PACs were invented.) The FEC ruled last December that there was "insufficient evidence" to support the charge -- though not everyone was persuaded.

"I think it's disingenuous for AIPAC to say, as for some peculiar reason they frequently do, that they don't direct any money," said Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), an occasional critic of Israel who was targeted in 1988, when his opponent, Richard Licht, received an estimated $ 213,850 in pro-Israel PAC money.

The night before the FEC's announcement, the lobby's director of media liaison, Toby Dershowitz, visited the editor of Washington Jewish Week at his apartment. Over tea, she asked Andrew Silow Carroll not to assign his regular reporter, Larry Cohler, to the story. She argued that Cohler's previous AIPAC stories were inaccurate, and since several had been cited in the FEC complaint, he was a "player" in the case. Carroll recalled that he told her he'd think about it.

The next day, the ruling was announced and Carroll put Cohler on the story. A few days later, as Cohler was writing, Dershowitz phoned Carroll at his office. Also on the line was David Ifshin, AIPAC's legal counsel. "Mr. Ifshin has some things to say, and I think they're worth a listen," Dershowitz said, according to Carroll's notes of the conversation.

Ifshin, according to Carroll's notes, said Cohler's reporting on AIPAC had raised serious questions about his accuracy. If he were to cover that week's ruling, Ifshin warned the editor, AIPAC would reexamine his previous stories "with an eye toward litigation."

"That sounds to me like a threat of legal action," Carroll replied.

"Nobody is threatening you," Dershowitz interjected, before the conversation abruptly ended.

Carroll phoned Dershowitz back to tell her that Cohler was his reporter; he had no reason to doubt his journalistic abilities.

"Fine," she replied, according to Carroll's notes. "Then what about writing a positive editorial about our exoneration?"

"We've never pushed anybody around," Tom Dine said recently. "That's part of the lore."

XXX Communicated: The "G" Rated Review

From the Luke Ford Fan Blog:

Luke is a charismatic leader? I bet he just loves you. Women are so gullible. You throw a few compliments in their direction and pretty soon you have them tied around your little finger. So what exactly did Luke say to you to get you to fall so completely under his spell?

I love this paragraph, especially the bit about "six best male friends." Surely Luke has one best male friend, plus five other men he is stringing along? Apparently Luke's charm works on (some) men, too. Luke has his own "team" of men? So that is what they are calling it these days? You know, there is a name for team players like these. Let's see, it has three letters g - y - a, but not necessarily in that order.

Temple Beth Zion (C), a mini review: I just got back from spending a few hours with Temple Beth Zion. I'll post a full review asap, but for now let me say that I got more than I had hoped for. TBZ is gorgeous, in fantastic shape with a recent renovation and is intelligent and funny. I'd put her level of service in the same category as Aish Ha Torah. TBZ is one of those who truly loves Torah and has a great time (and lets you know it). LOVES reading Torah and receiving it and is very vocal, a great davener... The rabbi speaks fluent Russian and French. Once again, the temples of the 80's prove that they know what pleasing a fan means. A great lady who I've added to my "see whenever I can" list.

PS - I took a few photos that I'll be posting to my Fun With Shuls yahoo group probably tomorrow night.

I chat by phone with Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The Jewish Week, Thursday morning, June 24, 2004.

"How happy are you with your job?"

"I love it."

"How happy are you with your paper and which parts if any most need to be improved?"

"I'm happy with the paper overall. We could stand improvement across the board. We're always trying to reach more readers, particularly younger readers, more people outside the organized Jewish community."

"Would you describe The Jewish Week as a compelling read?"

"I don't want to tout our paper. That's certainly our goal."

"Would you describe it as the best Jewish newspaper?"

"I'd have to give the same answer."

"What do you think are the obstacles to good Jewish journalism?"

"I sometime describe our ongoing dilemma this way -- a Jewish journalist works with two competing mandates. The first commandment for journalists is to probe, explore and uncover and all the things people expect when they pick up their daily paper. On the other hand, one of the commandments in the organized Jewish community is the opposite, to cover-up and create a unified front, and not present any negative impression to the outside world. The Yiddish expression, shander fer de goyim (scandal for the goyim). You're always walking that tightrope -- doing the job of a journalist and being a responsible part of the Jewish community."

"How much status does a journalist for a Jewish paper have in Jewish life?"

"We're like the Rodney Dangerfields of Jewish life. We don't get any respect. On the other hand, it is incremental in building respect. I think it can be there. It depends on the paper and the individual. It is too easy to hide behind the notion that there is some inherent part of our job that makes us not respected by the community. If you do a good job, you are respected by the community."

"What do you love and what do you hate about your job?"

"I write about and deal with issues that are meaningful to me. One of my first jobs was with TV Guide (sports editor from 1970-72). If you get a high from writing for a big audience, that was great. Now I get to combine my love of journalism with Jewish life. The downside is the same. Sometimes it can be dispiriting when you see the pettiness of the community you really care about. People you admire until you meet them. See their egos and the things that motivate them. Sometimes you wish you had just known them from a distance."

"How do you deal with threats, such as threats to the financial survivability of the paper if you publish something that a powerful person does not want?"

"It is part of the nature of the job. I remember in Baltimore, we did a story about Israel bonds. We were told that if that story appeared, it would not only hurt that local bonds drive, but the state of Israel was going to suffer. They both survived.

"That doesn't mean I'm dismissive of what you'd call a threat, which is a pretty strong word. A cautionary message. I try to take them all seriously and not be so cavalier as to not think about the consequences of things we write. My experience has born out that the sun will still come up the next day. I have yet to see the kind of article that would be so destructive. There are threats of boycotting the paper and boycotting our advertisers but it hasn't gone anywhere."

"Your paper was famous for its investigation of [Rabbi] Baruch Lanner and the abuse situation. Many people think that have you information about other rabbis who were similarly abusive. You even wrote a column about information pouring in to you. But you didn't seem to go on to investigate other rabbis with the same zest you applied to Lanner?"

"I don't think that's accurate. I have a lot of files. One rabbi in particular I've been trailing for over three years. I've talked to many dozen people. I have to apply the same standards as I would for the Lanner story. We have done stories about other rabbis and other cases of abuse. Until it meets that bar, I have continued to pursue some of these stories.

"I think the Lanner stories have had a corrective element. I've written that I don't think that the newspaper should be the mechanism for dealing with these issues. There should be communal mechanisms. The reason people come to us is that they have struck out everywhere else in the community. They come to us out of frustration and desperation. There was a rabbi [Willig] who was on the Beit Din on the Lanner case who I wrote about last year. He did a public mea culpa about his role."

"How would you rate the quality of Jewish journalism done on the Federations?"

"It depends on city to city, newspaper to newspaper, issue to issue. If I pick up a Jewish newspaper from different parts of the country, I sometimes wouldn't know what community I was reading about if I covered up the masthead. It's a lot easier to run a JTA story about what is going on in Israel than to send a reporter to cover a conflict in your own neighborhood. It's cheaper and safer to the run the JTA."

"Are there any individuals in the Jewish Establishment who you would regard as the greatest threats to Jewish journalism because they're bullies?"

"Yeah. I wouldn't name them. I've met some national Jewish leaders who've told me, not in a bullying way, that they believe that the role of Jewish newspapers is to promote Israel and the Jewish community and to unify the community and not to write critical articles about the community. I differ with that. The best way to educate, enlighten and involve people in the Jewish community is to tell them what is really going on. If we tell them we are one, all we do is lose our credibility. I don't think we are one is a goal."

"How often do you encounter bullying?"

"There are varying degrees of it, from canceling subscriptions to stopping advertising to getting my friends to do those things."

"What's the biggest hit you've taken for publishing a story?"

"It's hard to measure. When the Lanner story first broke, we were threatened with institutions pulling their advertising. We didn't see it happen."

"What are the joys and tribulations of being a Federation paper?"

"We do not consider ourselves a Federation paper. We have no formal ties with the UJA Federation. There was a time when the UJA were ex-officio members of the board of The Jewish Week but that stopped about eight years ago. They buy subscriptions for people who give $50 or more to UJA."

"Does that make them the dominant force behind the paper?"

"Yeah, in that sense, sure. Then we have close to 30,000 subscribe directly."

"How many papers does the Federation buy?"

"It depends from year to year."

"Approximately."

"Between 50,000-60,000."

"If they are buying about twice the number of papers than subscribers, could not the paper be fairly called a Federation paper?"

"I don't think so. We have no formal ties. They don't have any say in editorial or financial matters. It's their choice. They think it serves them well to supply their donors with a Jewish newspaper.

"Some of the pressure I got in Baltimore, where we were an independent paper, was just as strong as the pressure I get here. From the Federation and the Establishment community."

"If you wrote a memoir, would you have a pile of stories you weren't able to work into the Jewish papers you've worked on?"

"I have a file I keep called, 'My Last Issue.' Not necessarily a tell-all memoir, I'd just like to deal with some of these issues."

"There isn't a market for hard-hitting muckraking Jewish journalism for a Jewish audience?"

"Jewish readers tend to be very bright, well-read, sophisticated people, and if you present them good journalism, I think they will want to read it."

"What did your father the rabbi think of your going into journalism?"

"He was proud of me. He used to tease me that if I stayed away from the rabbinate because I saw you live in a glass house, he'd say he only had his congregants giving him a hard time while I had everybody giving me a hard time. But they don't pay my salary directly."

"What's your relationship to Judaism?"

"I consider myself an active observant Jew."

"Do you believe in God?"

"I do."

"Choseness?"

"Yep. I think it is a misinterpreted word. I don't think it means chosen to be better than everybody else. It means simply to be responsible."

"You're happy to believe that the Jews are God's Chosen People?"

"I don't have a choice."

"Some Jews reject it."

"I don't reject it."

"How do you think the Internet and blogging is affecting Jewish journalism?"

"That's a good question. It's very hard to say. I always wonder who has the time to read a lot of these blogs. I don't get the impression that those audiences are wide but I guess they're pretty deep. It does give me a lot of pause because I think it has the potential to reach as many people as standard journalism but it doesn't have the checks and balances and an editing process that more normative journalism has. That's something to worry about."

"You think that's more of a downer than a good sign?"

"It's certainly worrisome. People can come home late at night and write anything off the top of their head and send it out and it's out there."

"Is that scary?"

"It can be."

"Do you think we have too many checks and balances in Establishment Jewish journalism?"

"No. They are the same checks and balances you have in any professional journalistic enterprise, maybe with an added element of sensitivity, which I don't think is a bad thing. I don't think it is a question of whether or not you do a story but how you do a story. I don't see any stories that are absolutely verboten, but it depends on how you treat it."

"You should be sensitive to save people's feelings?"

"You should be aware of feelings. At times it is inevitable you will hurt people's feelings, say a rabbi who's losing a job. You have to weigh that against what you owe the readers in the larger community. Those are tough calls. I don't think there are clear definitions. They are ad hoc and made as much from your kishkes as from your brains."

"Did you read the book The New Rabbi?"

"Yeah."

"What did you think of it?"

"Well, you know, there was a lot that I admired and I think he went a little too far sometimes in exposing people, specifically embarrassing them in ways that he could've handled a little more indirectly and gotten the same message across and not be as hurtful."