Wednesday, 18 February 2015

THESE ARE ALEX FEIN AND BRACHA RAFAEL

Editorial

גלות אויסטראליס
Galus Australis – The Southern Exile
Galus Australis is a forum for discussion and debate about Australian Jewish life. We’re interested in identity, culture, politics, religion, sociology, food and humour (to name a few). Sometimes even sport.
Galus Australis does not subscribe to any particular ideological viewpoint, and is committed to the value of robust and challenging debate. We endeavour to publish a range of viewpoints and welcome well-written, considered (and controversial!) submissions from across the religious and political spectrum.
Each writer is responsible for the opinions expressed in their own posts, and the views expressed do not represent any Galus Australis editorial position.
The editorial committee of Galus Australis consists of:
Alex Fein (Editor-in-chief)
Bracha Rafael (Editor)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: alex fein <alex.fein@gmail.com>
Date: 16 February 2015 at 14:46
Subject: An open letter to our Rabbis
To:


An open letter to our Rabbis:

Dear Rabbis Kennard, Goodhardt, Genende, Caplan, Freilich, Baroda, and Waks.
Over the past couple of weeks, the Royal Comission into child sexual abuse has confronted our community with an appalling reality. Many of our rabbis are simply not fit to lead us.

They seek to represent us to government. For example, the Organisation of Australasian Rabbis (ORA) has submitted to government opposing marriage equality and has attempted to get Rabbi Rabi's hechsher banned, without any prior community consultation.
They meet with the Prime Minister and send out media releases in which they claim - falsely - to represent Orthodox Jewry
They elect leaders such as Yossi Felfdman and MS Kluwgant.
This is not just a Chabad problem. This is a problem for all Orthodox Australian Jews.
Currently, the Melbourne Beit Din is composed solely of judges who come from the same religious persuasion as Rabbis Feldman and Kluqwgant.
Chabad comprises a tiny part of our community, yet we allow our religious lives to be dominated by the sect and by its rabbis - too many of whom equate homosexuality with paedophilia. 
While most Australian Jews know that homosexuality is not a disease to be cured, too many of our Rabbis do not.
After the revelations at the Royal commission, many of us within Orthodox Jewry can no longer stay silent on these matters.
Rabbi Kluwgant may have stepped down as President of ORA; however, that organisation is still a body that saw fit to elect him as its leader, and it is composed of rabbis who do not reflect the spiritual makeup of the majority of Jews in this country.
I am writing to you to request you form a rabbinic body that better represents Orthodoxy as it is practiced by the majority of observant Australian Jews.
We need better representation and we need an Orthodox Beit Din that is not populated by men of a minority sect who have demonstrated time and again that they are not in step with the sensibility of Australian Jewry.
I ask you all - men of good faith - to begin building institutions that will serve our community better than the existing, crumbling edifices.
If there's any way in which I can assist, please call on me any time.
Yours sincerely,
Alexandra Fein.

I HAVE FUN WITH GALUS EDITOR BRACHA RAFAEL

 NOTE READER THAT MY AMAZINGLY SIMPLE PARODY [see below] WAS ALLOWED TO REMAIN MERELY FOR 2 HOURS OR SO - YESTERDAY EVENING UNTIL THEY FINALLY WORKED OUT WHAT I WAS DOING TO THEM INTELLECTUALLY!!
SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!

BUT ONE SHOULD READ HER PARADIGM - INFLICTED COMMENTS:
FOR EXAMPLE - SEE QUOTE BELOW.

So you can see she effectively uses the interesting devils' advocate tool; sad really.
No time for more.
But there have been no comments at 1 45 pm on Wed. 18/2/15 Amazing - they censured my words and have no one else?
GS WED. 1 51 pm 18/2/15


“I thought we had cured him.” Again, to be fair, Rabbi Telsner didn’t say this. Rabbi Groner did. But Rabbi Telsner was asked to explain this statement, essentially, to explain why Rabbi Groner would have thought it reasonable to allow a paedophile — reformed or otherwise — to continue to work amongst children.'
 
From: g87
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:24 PM
Subject: shalom bracha rafael!
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Shalom Bracha Rafael!
 
I failed to go past your 4 times use of the paradigm word in the first 2 smallish paragraphs.
Indeed -  a reasonable paradigm has it thatone should essentially never use the word!
Look at my secondary blog - socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au
 
At the last 7 entries. All devoted to teach you about the use and abuse of language.
 
Your comment I will determine my commentary.
 
It is expected that there will be challenges that I will find paradigmatic.
All the best
 
Geoff Seidner
East St Kida
 
 
 
 
 

Op-ed: rabbinic failures go deeper than a lapse in judgment

February 17, 2015 – 1:05 pmNo Comment
systemfailed
I want to dig into what is fundamentally wrongwith the current generation of rabbinic leadership in this country, as exemplified by one Rabbi Tzvi Telsner. The Royal Commission is giving a lot of airtime to a paradigm that goes largely unchallenged. I am interested in challenging this paradigm because children’s safety depends upon it.
This paradigm is worlds away from mainstream society. It is worlds away from most religious homes. And the expression of this paradigm — as clear in Rabbi Telsner’s evasions, half-answers, and omissions as it is in what was said — is giving rise to fury, but not much discussion. I am hoping to name this problem so that we can fix it.
The problem is the terrifying moral equivalence that the rabbis are still struggling to shake themselves from. Rabbi Telsner’s testimony is the most recent illustration of this.
Most people hold child sexual abuse apart from just about every other evil they can think of. The report title Little Children Are Sacred spells it out clearly: when secular society uses religious terminology, you know it cares very, very much about the matter at hand.
But it is clear from Rabbi Telsner’s testimony that for our rabbinic leaders, child sexual abuse is just another evil, just another sin. It is merely one way that God’s will can be thwarted. Eating bacon is another way. Lashon hara is yet another.
The Torah and halacha does not encourage scholars to rank sins from bad to worst. This is helpful for discouraging sin altogether but is not helpful when two sins need to be weighed against each other. Until 2011 the rabbinic leadership weighed the evil of allowing children to be harmed against the evil of reporting on fellow Jews and favoured the former.
The religious leadership has changed its mind on that issue (due to Manny Waks changing the terms of the debate) but Rabbi Telsner’s statements indicate that the above approach is alive and well. We, the lay people, find ourselves in the bizarre position of questioning the moral compass of our religious leaders.
This is the failure of the rabbis coming before the Royal Commission. They are failing to spell out, in clear terms, that abuses against children constitute a violation of God’s will several orders of magnitude greater than the other common aveirot they are normally faced with. This is what we want to hear, and they are dancing around this point.
Perhaps it is simply the case that there is not room in the halachic system to accommodate this paradigm shift. That to place child sexual abuse apart from other sins (sins, not crimes) is intellectually dishonest. If this is true, then the rabbinic leadership must abdicate authority on this matter. If halacha does not allow them to ensure that their institutions are safe for children, then the lay leadership must do so.
If one is inclined to be generous to Rabbi Telsner — and I am not, particularly, but here goes — there is a smidgen of entrapment in the questions he was posed. He did not draw the link between paedophilia and homosexuality: he was asked to comment on it by a lawyer.
All he needed to say was “I object to these terms of reference. The two issues are nothing alike.” But he didn’t do that. He retreated to academic possibility-granting, to probablies, and I-can’t-recalls.
Let me be very clear. I do not believe that homosexuality is a disease. I do not believe it is wrong to  be gay. I think it is cruel — oppressive — to suggest either of the above. However, the point that Rabbi Telsner was making was that oppression, or rather, repression can work. Put enough effort into it, and you can convince gay people not to have sex. Put enough effort into it, and you can convince paedophiles not to offend.
The first is an act of oppression, motivated by homophobia. The second is straightforward rehabilitation, and is necessary for the safety of society. Most paedophiles do not serve life sentences. They will one day re-enter the community. So we do need ways to keep leashes on former offenders. If therapy helps to do that, fantastic.
Which brings me to yet another problematic element of Rabbi Telsner’s testimony:
“I thought we had cured him.” Again, to be fair, Rabbi Telsner didn’t say this. Rabbi Groner did. But Rabbi Telsner was asked to explain this statement, essentially, to explain why Rabbi Groner would have thought it reasonable to allow a paedophile — reformed or otherwise — to continue to work amongst children.
Because even if therapy can be effective at helping a paedophile not re-offend, surely we shouldn’t be making it harder for them to do so. By which I mean: why on earth would you allow anyone with a history of hurting children anywhere near children?
And again, to be fair, we, the community, don’t actually want an explanation. We want an apology. Because the answer here is foregone: it is indefensible that David Cyprus was allowed to continue to work amongst children. At best, that was the outcome of reckless naiveté, at worst a shocking indifference to the pain and suffering of children. Either way, it speaks of a rabbinate that must change radically or must hand over certain responsibilities.
This is why we have Working With Children Checks. Why recovering alcoholics don’t touch alcohol. Why I, as a paramedic, am required to consider a patient’s past abuse of opiates before I administer morphine. The principle at work here is that re-exposure interferes with recovery. A paedophile who truly wishes not to re-offend would make every effort to deny themselves the opportunity to do so.
This principle exists in halacha as well. It’s why we have fences around real prohibitions, so that we do not even come close to sinning.
Rabbi Telsner’s testimony, like Rabbi Feldman’s, fills us with fear and fury because we are not being permitted to feel confident that things will get better. And if the leadership can’t change themselves, then our children are still at risk.
I invite religious scholars and leaders to make a halachic case for the protection of children. And I invite the community to judge it. Do we have faith in our religious leadership on this matter? If the answer is no, a restructure is in order.
Print Friendly

No Comment »

  • Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
    Shalom Bracha Rafael!
    I failed to go past your 4 times use of the paradigm word.in the first 2 smallish paragraphs
    Indeed – a reasonable paradigm has it thatone should essentially never use the word!
    Look at my secondary blog – socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au
    At the last 7 entries. All devoted to teach you about the use and abuse of language.
    Your comment I will determine my commentary.
    It is expected that there will be challenges that I will find paradigmatic.
    All the best
    Geoff Seidner
    East St Kida
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

PARADIGM AND THE GIRL PEOPLE AND MORE!!!



  • SEE PAGE 70: ''SILLY BIG WORDS'' GS

    https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1101218665
    Phyllis Mindell - 2001 - ‎Language Arts & Disciplines
    Silly big words Do big words impress people? ... Words such as egregious,paradigm, and exegesis add panache and exactitude when you use them ...
  • How To Say It for Women - Page 70 - Google Books Result

  • 10 Things New Agers Don't Understand About Science: Part 5

    https://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/.../10-things-new-agers-dont...

    Jan 4, 2014 - Kuhn clearly recognized that a paradigm is more than just a conceptual model. ... The down side of this is that silly people can use it to reject those parts of .... The quacks will latch onto any new scientific term that becomes ...
  • SEE HOW SILLY SOME FEMALE PARADIGM BLOGGERS ARE?

  •  G Seidner comment
  • jargon.... Paradigm.... people like to pretend it does"


    1. 16 business jargon words we never, ever want to hear again

      www.news.com.au/...words-we.../story-e6frfm9r-1226651466738
      May 27, 2013 - 1200 jobs axed, without mention of the word "fired". ... "The terms for sacking people have been hilarious over the last 10 or 15 ... Paradigm shift

    2. 16. Paradigm shift but people like to pretend it does"

    The Vocabula Review - Worst Word - PARADIGM



    1. The Vocabula Review - Worst Words

      www.vocabula.com/vrworstwords.asp

      Though I have used this just to be funnypeople overuse this word and it's become ..... Paradigm has lost its original meaning and become a squishy term for ...

    2.  has lost its original meaning and become a squishy term for anything having to do with a new way of doing or viewing anything. It sounds pretentious and it is.

    THE PARADIGM WORD IS PRETENTIOUS JARGON FORBES

    nvvn


    The Most Annoying, Pretentious And Useless Business ...

    www.forbes.com/.../the-most-annoying-pretentious-and-useless-business-...

    Jan 26, 2012 - The next time you feel the need to reach out, shift a paradigm, leverage a best ... “People use it as a substitute for thinking hard and clearly about their ... “This bothers me because it is just a silly phrase when you think about it,” ..









    My SayContributor
    Quality advice and insight from experts in various disciplines.full bio →
    Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

    The Most Annoying, Pretentious And Useless Business Jargon


    By Max Mallet, Brett Nelson and Chris Steiner
    The next time you feel the need to reach out, touch base, shift a paradigm, leverage a best practice or join a tiger team, by all means do it. Just don’t sayyou’re doing it.
    If you have to ask why, chances are you’ve fallen under the poisonous spell of business jargon. No longer solely the province of consultants, investors and business-school types, this annoying gobbledygook has mesmerized the rank and file around the globe.
    “Jargon masks real meaning,” says Jennifer Chatman, management professor at the University of California-Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. “People use it as a substitute for thinking hard and clearly about their goals and the direction that they want to give others.”
    To save you from yourself (and to keep your colleagues and customers from strangling you), we have assembled a cache of expressions to assiduously avoid.
    We also assembled a “Jargon Madness” bracket—similar to the NCAA college basketball tournament—featuring 32 abominable expressions. Each day, for 32 days, readers will get to vote, via Twitter, on one matchup. The goal: to identify the single most annoying example of business jargon and thoroughly embarrass all who employ it and all of those other ridiculous terms, too.
    In the meantime, here are some of the worst offenders Forbes has identified over the years. For a full list of 45, click here.
    Core Competency
    This awful expression refers to a firm’s or a person’s fundamental strength—even though that’s not what the word “competent” means. “This bothers me because it is just a silly phrase when you think about it,” says Bruce Barry, professor of management at Vanderbilt’s Owen Graduate School of Business. “Do people talk about peripheral competency?  Being competent is not the standard we’re seeking.  It’s like core mediocrity.”
    Buy-In
    This means agreement on a course of action, if the most disingenuous kind. Notes David Logan, professor of management and organization at theUniversity of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business: “Asking for someone’s ‘buy-in’ says, ‘I have an idea.  I didn’t involve you because I didn’t value you enough to discuss it with you.  I want you to embrace it as if you were in on it from the beginning, because that would make me feel really good.’”
    S.W.A.T. Team
    In law enforcement, this term refers to teams of fit men and women who put themselves in danger to keep people safe. “In business, it means a group of ‘experts’ (often fat guys in suits) assembled to solve a problem or tackle an opportunity” says USC’s Logan. An apt comparison, if you’re a fat guy in a suit.