News Jews Can Use

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work."

So goes the 4th commandment, in observance of which Judeo-Christian folk strive mightily to not strive mightily on the Sabbath. For most people, not-working simply requires sleeping in, brewing a pot of coffee, and reading the paper, followed perhaps by a round of golf or unwinding with a couple of good football games on the tube.

Leave it to Orthodox Jews, though, to complicate matters. For centuries, rabbis have debated the fundamental meaning of "work." And for the most observant, "work" refers not simply to remunerative pursuits but also to virtually anything that can be considered an expenditure of effort. As a result, Orthodox Jews don't just close up the shop and relax on the Sabbath. They do not drive. They do not shop. They don't even turn on the television--or the lights--as Talmudic rulings have included the use of electrical devices among acts verboten on Shabbos (the Hebrew word for "Sabbath"--in case you didn't know).

Still, in a nod to modernity, the Orthodox rabbinate has made provisions for those Jews living on the upper floors of high-rises: the Shabbos elevator. In some New York buildings--specifically those in heavily Jewish neighborhoods--an elevator will be programmed to stop at every floor between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. Orthodox Jews use this elevator, which starts automatically when it senses passengers, to travel to their apartments without actually pushing a button and thereby violating the Sabbath.

Or they did until now. On September 29, a group of Israeli rabbis decreed that new elevator technology--specifically technology that measures the weight in an elevator--"effectively make[s] entering a car the equivalent of pressing a button" ("Another Landlord Worry: Is the Elevator Kosher?").

Some New York Jews are less than convinced. As one man said, "Look, just because there is one opinion doesn't mean that it is everyone's opinion. One of the wonderful things about Judaism is that there are competing opinions about everything." (Or, as has been observed elsewhere, if you have two Jews, you've got three opinions.)

We wonder about the alternatives, though. If the whole idea of observing Shabbos revolves around the imperative to not work, then aren't Shabbos elevators the lesser of two evils? If you surveyed a bunch of Orthodox Jews, which do you think the majority would consider to be "work": utilizing modern elevator technology or shlepping up 30 flights of stairs?

Still, it should come as no surprise that, as a member of the Jewish faith, the Solipsist sees potential for profit here. Some Orthodox synagogues hire a "Shabbos Goy" to turn on the lights. We see opportunity for a similar service at heavily Orthodox high-rise. We figure we could charge ten bucks a push, or unlimited trips for 50 dollars a month. Now we just need to find a gentile to collect the money. . . .

This Just in: Who the Hell is Herta Muller? (Click here to find out.)

We haven't heard from Oslo yet, but we're keeping the phone lines open at Solipsist HQ. We figure we're due. We figure we've done about as much for chemistry as President Obama has done for world peace.

(Digression: Before the nitpicking begins, yes, the Nobel Prize is awarded by the Swedes, but the committee is based in Norway. So there! Nyah, nyah, nyah nyah nyah. And THAT's why we won't be winning the Nobel peace prize any time soon. EOD)

Now, don't get us wrong. You all know how we feel about President Obama, and we are proud that he represents this country on the world stage. Still, it's not like he's actually DONE much of anything to promote world peace. Except for not being George W. Bush.

Maybe that's enough.

Then again, the Solipsist is ALSO not George W. Bush. And WOS is mostly not George W. Bush. (WOS: "'MOSTLY?!?' What's up with that?") So couldn't either of us have been awarded the Prize? Or our cats?

It's all a matter of perspective. President Obama may not have achieved as much as Mother Theresa--or even Jimmy Carter. But in the context of past winners Yasir Arafat and Henry Kissinger, Obama looks positively Gandhi-esque.

We don't begrudge the President his prize. And in our scattered moments of clarity, we acknowledge that the chemistry and physics prizes are probably not coming our way any time soon.

We do, however, fully expect the literature prize, and this year, too! After all, we have maintained this blog every day for nearly a year. Who can compete with that?

And even if we're not the William Faulkner or Samuel Beckett of the blogosphere, we figure we're at least the Henrik Pontoppidan or Verner von Heidenstam.

Yeah, we don't know either.

(Image from The Guardian)

Brief Update

Just a brief post today. Your old pal the Solipsist was at a conference all day and is, at the moment, on a break between segments of his Thursday night class. Just enough time to check in and give you your Solipsistic fix for the day.

One thing to report: We received an e-mail at our alter-ego's e-mail. The salutation was, "Hi, The Solipsist."

We do so love it when people use our honorific: "The."

Still, it's from some outfit called "Whohub" that wants to include YNSHC in its "Directory of interviews with creative professionals."

We can think of at least two things wrong with that statement.

Should we follow up? Can we resist?

Stay tuned!

Nice Work If You Don't Have to Do It

From the "Everything Old Is New Again" Department:

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan derided "Welfare Queens," ostensibly parasitic recipients of taxpayer largesse, who drove Cadillacs to the bank to deposit their government checks.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton fulfilled a campaign pledge to "end welfare as we know it." The number of recipients was slashed. States enforced "welfare-to-work" statutes, requiring those who remained on the dole to work or attend school or participate in qualifying training programs in order to continue receiving benefits.

Now, in the 2000s, California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, has declared, in the midst of a staggering budgetary crisis, that maybe "welfare as we knew it" wasn't such a bad idea. It's apparently more cost-effective to pay welfare recipients NOT to work. ("California's Zigzag on Welfare Rules Worries Experts")

Not surprising, really, when you consider that forcing parents (well, let's be honest, mothers) of young children to leave their kids at home while they go to low-wage jobs requires the state to kick in for childcare. What's worrisome is that this "plan"--allowing certain welfare recipients to stay home with their kids and still receive benefits--is only authorized for the next two years, i.e., until federal stimulus money runs out. After that, these folks may once again be required to jump through occupational or educational hoops to maintain their eligibility. Assuming, of course, there are funds to be eligible for.

On a philosophical level, we don't necessarily think it a bad idea to require some occupational or educational effort from those receiving public assistance. Indeed, many recipients seem to think it's a good idea, too. At the moment, the program is voluntary--welfare recipients can choose whether they want to stop working and continue receiving benefits--and so far, in one California county at least, "only about 10 percent of those who could be exempted from the work requirements. . . chose to do so." Apparently "Welfare Queens" are so industrious that state welfare administrators may have to make the program "mandatory for new applicants and some others."

Ironic, isn't it? After lambasting the culture of entitlement, a Republican governor--a disciple of Reagan--may force people to embrace state-subsidized idleness.

Lashe Baldwin, one of the women who might be forced to stay home, has parlayed her welfare-to-work experience into a recommendation for a full-time job. "Especially when you have kids," she says, "you can't just sit around and collect checks."

Well, at least you COULDN'T. But soon state leaders will be telling people, "Yes, you can." Until, inevitably, they turn around and say, "No, you can't--not anymore anyway."

We wish the Lashe Baldwins of California all the luck in the world. We fear they're going to need it.

Prejudice (A Brief Post)

Back when the Solipsist was a wee blogger, still in kneepants and propeller beanies, he used to watch Saturday morning cartoons. At the time, a public service announcement played frequently, showing a young boy talking to his grandfather. The boy asked his grandfather what "prejudiced" meant. The grandfather explained and asked about the boy's curiosity. The boy explained that his "black friend" Tony had called him prejudiced, but he--the grandson--din't think he was. The grandfather then asked, "Well, why is Tony your 'black friend' instead of just your friend?"

WHOA!!!! Heavy mindfuck for the Saturday morning cartoon crowd.

We were reminded of this the other day when one of our minions came and told us of an experience she had had whle tutoring. She was working with a student when another student came up to the table and said to the first student--the one who was being tutored--"Are you really gonna let this white bitch tutor you?"

Talk about prejudiced! We only wish our tutor had had the presence of mind to fire back, "Ahem! Why am I a WHITE bitch, instead of just. . . ."

Hypocrisy Shmycoprisy. . .Shmyposcrify. . .Shmypography. . . .Oh, You Get the Idea

Today's "Plinky" prompt is "Where is a good place to see wild animals?" What the hell kind of a question is that?!? "Uhh. . . My kitchen?" Maybe if you're Borealkraut. For us normal folks who live in the contiguous (i.e., "real") United States, however, the options are more limited. There's the zoo, Animal Planet, the Santa Monica Freeway. . . and that's about it.

What's next, Plinky? "What whole numbers can you find between 4 and 6?"

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

But that's not what we're here to discuss today.

Earlier today, on Yahoo!'s "Top Searches," "Anne Frank" appeared right above "Ahmadinejad." We thought the juxtaposition striking, if not necessarily filled with symbolic meaning.

We've been thinking lately about Ahmadinejad and Iran, especially with all the hubbub over their possible attempts to build nuclear weapons.

Don't get us wrong: We certainly do not want to see Iran go nuclear, especially with a lunatic like Ahmadinejad in anything resembling a position of authority. At the same time, though, we can't help but find something eminently reasonable about the Iranian argument: Who are the United States, other declared nuclear powers, and the United Nations to "allow" us to pursue nuclear weapons?

Isn't there something inherently hypocritical about nuclear-armed nations declaring that no other countries should be allowed to go nuclear? In this case, to be sure, hypocrisy is preferable to the alternatives. But why is hypocrisy necessary? Why not simply say, "OK, you got us: We're NOT arguing that you shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they are dangerous or destructive or potentially world-ending. We're arguing that you shouldn't have nuclear weapons because we don't like or trust you to (not) use them responsibly."

Let's be honest, would anybody really get into a lather if Sweden or Canada decided to go nuclear? Of course not. We'd all think it was adorable.

The Solipsist Gets His Hands Dirty

WOS's parents are preparing to sell their house, so today the Solipsist had to help FILOS with some home-improvement projects. FILOS is one of these blue-collar renaissance man types: Give him a long enough lever and a place to stand, and he will not only move the earth, he'll also drywall it and rewire its heating system.

The Solipsist, in contrast, is Jewish. His home improvement skills don't extend much beyond the proper use of the Yellow Pages.

Today's project involved the building of a cinderblock thingamawhatsis to go at the base of a hill. FILOS handled the precision work--measuring, leveling, making sure all the cinderblock doobobs and other stone tile-shaped things ("Those would be tiles, Solipsist." "Ah! Thanks, FILOS") lined up properly; the Solipsist carried large bags of sand up a driveway. FILOS used this really cool stonecutting saw to split a tile in half; the Solipsist carted buckets of dirt to a dirtpile. FILOS wedged two-by-fours in between the stone tiles to ensure proper spacing and neat placement; the Solipsist shlepped pieces of wood and other detritus from one side of the house to the other.

There is something undeniably satisfying about physical labor. For one thing, when it's done, you can actually see that something has been done. True, when we finish our daily posts, we also see that something has been done--that something exists that did not exist an hour before. But a piece of ephemera that people may or may not read doesn't produce the same gut-level satisfaction as a little stone wall standing in someone's backyard where before there was only dirt.

And, yes, we even take a minimal amount of pride in the large mound of dirt we ourselves helped create.