Thursday, December 31, 2009

Salute the Lady with Clear Vision

Mushkie is a soldier in the Rebbe's Army. She's both scrupulous and meta-scrupulous. All females are encouraged to go to her blog and give her a virtual pat on the back

104 comments:

  1. I assume you're talking to only female readers of your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh. Right. Hmm... I haven't nearly had enough beer yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, very nice. What can I say, except that the fervor of youth is to be admired. Funny how at the end she writes that she's picking white over black-lately I'm feeling that if you only have white and black in your life, it'll be very difficult to relate to 99% of the world's population. Still, she has plenty of time to discover this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doesn't the youth have a good point for the old folks to learn?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who said the goal is to relate to 99% of the world's population?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The chances of your spouse not being part of that 99% are very slim indeed, and I think we'd all like to be able to relate to our wives, at least on some level.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aren't Jews less than 1% of the world's population?

    ReplyDelete
  8. TRS: you're speaking silliness. One shouldn't compromise on the foundations of one's scruples just because it makes finding a wife statistically more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe now the level of conversation can pick up around here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. CA: Statistics don't lie. 99% of Jews, and 99% of Lubavitchers, are the same. Of course, before the age of twenty (approximately), 99% of people are the opposite.

    e: I can't wait to see who you'll marry.

    Anon: why, you think girls will stop commenting here?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The same in what way? Vos redstu?

    So, should I perhaps stop keeping cholov Yisroel as well? And start listening to BB King? That will expand the number of potential shidduch candidates I can relate to. And if I shave my bear... why, the whole world is open wide in front of me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. (This is not to say that I either endorse or condemn the said scrupulous decision.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. You completely misunderstand me. All I'm saying is that seeing the world in black and white is fine if you're a teenager, but the vast majority of people learn to see the grays in life once they hit their late teens/early twenties. This has nothing to do with religious observance, it's just part of the maturing process.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ah. Yes, I agree. But if seeing things black-and-white is a religious principle, isn't it the same as keeping cholov yisroel?

    Do you think when people mature, they become more intellectual or more emotional? I.e., is "life is not black-and-white" an intellectual or an emotional statement.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Seeing things in monochrome has nothing to do with religion, though it certainly plays a great role in religious life, much as teenagers the world over believe in causes or whatnot with simple minded fervor.

    I think most people mature in both ways. For example, there are many kids who are intellectually very advanced but emotionally at their age level, so when they mature their emotional state catches up with their intellectual one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, you were the one who recently told me that there is a difference between liking and doing. So, the same applies to seeing and acting. One could see things in multiple possible shades, but in his life, the number of different shades is smaller.

    What I am asking is whether, in your opinion, as people age, people start being bombarded be real life, which is more complicated than what it seemed when one was in yeshiva/at home. And suddenly, making compromises seems much more plausible than before. Or, people just see that indeed life is less linear than it seemed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The only way yeshivas and schools can exist in the way they do and act in the way they do is because kids see the world in the way that they do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. See, my problem with black-and-white world is less utilitarian. (Also, I am incredibly anti-social, so relating to people is less important to me than relating to myself.)

    When the world has all shades of gray, and you have to make a decision which shade is right for you (and it could be complete black or complete white), you're choosing out of hundreds of shades. And you better know why the particular shade and not the others. It is a decision made by you, for you; it is yours. Not in stupid liberal way "yours", but in the responsible way "yours". You're the one facing the music.

    When the world is black-and-white, well, the decision is much easier, and it's pre-made for you. And sometimes you're not making a choice "for"; you're making a choice "against".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Right, I agree with you completely. Life is difficult. Life is tough. There are crazy decisions to make.

    When you're young life is simple and hassle and free. That's why they say that youth is wasted on the young.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re: yeshivas. Maybe the causality direction is opposite?

    Anyway, I am not against yeshivas' and schools' modus operandi. There is a time and place for idealism and naivete. My question was more whether "you don't know what it's like out there" is an emotional statement or an intellectual one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it's a function of both. Schools take advantage of the natural naivete of their charges and amplify it-you can't have one without the other.

    Again, it's both. In some people it's more the one than the other, but in general it's a combination of both.

    ReplyDelete
  22. trs: I can't either wait to see who I'll marry.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you're digital, everything is black and white. Just some things have more bits.

    ReplyDelete
  24. wise analogy, anon. Let us remain steadfast in our disbelief of the existence grey!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Arguing with MyselfJanuary 3, 2010 at 2:08 PM

    I think what this mushkie person meant by black and white is not so much that she does not recognize the existence of grey areas, rather she is drawing a line in the sand saying that I will not cross this line.
    ie she has made for herself that until here is called white even if flecked by black and beyond this is called black even if there are shades of white therein.
    Every grey has a point when it us no longer one color or the other. And this can seem to be arbitrary.
    She has shown some maturity by delineating her boundaries and asking others not to cause her to trip on it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. it's not arbitrary; it's Torah-inspired!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I was very tempted to leave a comment along the lines of "females should not be literate, shut down your blog or i will throw bleach at my screen" but resisted.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Arguing with MyselfJanuary 4, 2010 at 1:50 AM

    Re: e

    Seem to be

    ReplyDelete
  29. do you want to open that can of worms?

    http://therealshliach.blogspot.com/2010/01/jm-blogger-awards-real-shliach.html?showComment=1262569858950#c7269524487240331049

    ReplyDelete
  30. AwM, I think when Hashem said: "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life...", he was talking specifically about intermingling between motogs.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Arguing with MyselfJanuary 5, 2010 at 12:52 AM

    re: e; rl.

    re: CA; for the observer; arbitrary, for the participant well thought out. motog mixing has many levels
    for some, we have segregated buses, and separate sides of the road.
    for others, they do not "hang out" together.
    for some, they do not interact in real life.
    for mushkie, they do not online.
    for some, poetry slam, for others, Manis Friedman.

    what did god mean?

    ReplyDelete
  32. a lot of clothing these days is marketed as "natural bamboo fibre"

    it sounds exciting until one learns that rayon and viscose are bamboo fibres

    ReplyDelete
  33. Arguing with MyselfJanuary 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM

    First off:
    a personals on shmais
    http://shmais.com/news.cfm?ID=60506

    followed by an article that seems to suggest MixedMOTOGing:
    http://shmais.com/news.cfm?ID=60505

    ReplyDelete
  34. 1. Sad.

    2. Too long-winded, no way was I reading that past the first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I really don’t like the word “market,” as it relates to real and sensitive human beings and their genuine societal needs.

    Having a cell phone contract is a genuine societal need too. And calling marriage a societal need is sad indeed.

    I think people should worry less about social skills of "young men and women" and more about cell phone skills of shadchanim.

    ReplyDelete
  36. During my second date, the shadchan called me about twenty times to arrange my second date. Good times.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ah. I see now. The probability of getting a call back from your shadchan follows a bimodal distribution.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I am sorry; I should have said “one’s shadchan”. And perhaps not “probability...” etc., but “eagerness to help”.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Actually, I was confused about the "bimodal distribution" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  40. They are either very good or very bad.

    Oh my G-d, you’re John Hodgman!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Quite.

    After a quick google, I am honored.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am serious. Go out and buy his latest book, For Your Consideration, The Firms of Dutton & Riverhead Books Present in the English Language: A Further Compendium of Complete World Knowledge in "The Areas Of My Expertise," Assembled and Illumined by Me, John Hodgman, A Famous Minor Television Personality, Offering More Information Than You Require On Subjects as Diverse as: The Past (as There Is Always More of It), The Future (as There Is Still Some Left), All of the Presidents of the United States, The Secrets of Hollywood, Gambling, The Sport of the Asthmatic Man (Including: Hermit-Crab Racing), Strange Encounters with Aliens, How to Buy a Computer, How to Cook an Owl, and Most Other Subjects

    ReplyDelete
  43. After reading the title I am seriously considering such a course of action.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I always read it after, lehavdil, Hayoim Yoim. Here are two entries:

    October 24, 1976. The Bermuda Triangle is finally captured.

    November 9, 1828. Noah Webster publishes his American Dictionary of the English Language. Born in West Hartford (previously spelled Weste Heartefourdesikjhifg), Connecticut (previously spelled Cocnnecticcuct), Webster desired to simplify English word spellings and codify a new American lexicon that was simple, direct, and included the word “skunk”. Not surprisingly, if you look up “dictionary” in the dictionary, you will see Webster’s picture there. He is portrayed looking up “dictionary” in the dictionary, and seeing his own picture there, looking up “dictionary” in the dictionary. If you look in that little dictionary, you will see Webster again, looking up “dictionary” in the dictionary, and so on. Yes, this may seem like fun, but when Webster himself did this, he disappeared in a cloud of oily smoke, so I don’t advise it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's what happens when you can afford an editor.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think the first two editors of this guy died tragically.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think you’re confusing editors with shoemakers. And by “shoemakers” I mean mafia.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Are you suggesting that there is any substantial difference between editors, shoemakers, and mafia people?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Between the first two and the last two — for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I’ve never known any editor shoemakers. Although my great-great-grandfather was a melamed in a cheider.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Which just goes to show you that what you don't know is often more than what you do know.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The question is: is what you know you don’t know greater than what you don’t know you know?

    ReplyDelete
  53. You CAN afford an editor. I'll give you a deal.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I snark for free. For a modest fee, I can edit.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How much were you paid at the worldwide leader in chabad?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Arguing with MyselfJanuary 5, 2010 at 11:47 PM

    Exit left

    ReplyDelete
  57. He was paid in opportunities. Where else can you deliberately sneak kfira into the minds of unsuspecting unaffiliated Jews and still be less heretical than most of their other writers?

    ReplyDelete
  58. woah! Jump not to conclusions. I wrote the party line and nothing but the party line!

    ReplyDelete
  59. And what's the halacha of a sefer torah written by a kofer?

    ReplyDelete
  60. That Halacha proves that better for a Jewish boy to marry a shiksa than for a Jewish girl to marry a goy. (Since a seifer Torah written by a goy only has to be burried.)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Is one's spiritual essence invested in an email?

    ReplyDelete
  62. ...as it is in a sefer torah?

    ReplyDelete
  63. According to me, or according to you?

    ReplyDelete
  64. No. Not that emails don't have power within them, but they certainly don't have the power of a Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Then all that matters is the content of the emails, not the spiritual fingerprints. So my writings are all cool.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I didn't say that much. I still think that the thought processes behind the words matter, just not as much as with a Torah scroll.

    ReplyDelete
  67. whatever. My boss liked what I wrote. so if he couldn't discern any evil, I don't think my readers would.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Some would say that your boss couldn't discern evil if it hit him in the head with a monkey.

    ReplyDelete
  69. That’s a little harsh.

    Maybe not a monkey, but an armadillo...

    ReplyDelete
  70. Personally, I'd rather be hit with a monkey than an armadillo.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Armadillos weigh less as a rule. Unless you’re talking about those giant armadillos from Pleistocene. But everyone knows they never existed, and their fossils are a sham by cheating scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You'd rather be hit by http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngexplorer/0503/images/articles_gallery_2_0503.jpg?fs=seabed.nationalgeographic.com
    than by http://www.arenaflowers.com/product_image/large/9164-monkey_baby_soft_toy.jpg ?

    ReplyDelete
  73. The second thing is as much a monkey as this is what Moshe Rabbeinu was given at Har Sinai.

    (Lehavdil?)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Also, why would evil use a toy monkey? It could just borrow one of those Hamlet-producing real monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Oh, stop focusing on these little things.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If they took a hamlet-producing monkey, nobody would mind, considering that there an infinitely many more where that one came from.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Besides, evil has issues. That's why it's evil.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The stone that the builders threw out...

    ReplyDelete
  79. i get warm inside thinking of a boss (/a rabbi) that can discern no evil even if it hit him in the head with a ... with a...

    ReplyDelete
  80. The one that became the foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  81. And from where did the foundation come in?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Why, from the stone of course.

    That the builders threw out.

    The stone is the armadillo. Or a monkey.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Confused, frustrated, I'm feeling lonely...

    ReplyDelete
  84. You told me: stop worrying about such minute details. I answered: even ma’asu habonim...

    ReplyDelete
  85. Oh. Sometimes you have to remember that we can't read each other's minds.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Sticks and stones. Sticks and stones...

    ReplyDelete
  87. perhaps you won't feel so lonely, cuz you'll "have a little help from your friends."

    ReplyDelete
  88. Actually, we had a Japanese post-doc, who loved American sayings. One problem was: he would say them out of context.

    One time we came back from a talk, and one of the grad students said something like: “I am not sure where [the speaker] got the last conclusion from.” The Japanese post-doc answered: “Rolling stone gathers no moss.”

    ReplyDelete

Forth shall ye all hold.