Redleg

CT Law, I was born during FDR’s Presidency but the first President I actually remember was Truman who turned out to be a pretty good President. thought Eisenhower was a good President as well. He was active and decisive when he needed to be and he followed Lord Northcote’s dictum,” When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary NOT to do something”. I recall, at the time, the Democrats made light of Ike’s supposed intellectual limitations. They must have missed the part where he led the larges army of western allies ever assembled, to victory over Nazi Germany while holding that alliance of rivals together long enough to do it. F rom 1952 to 1960, Eisenhower presided over eight years of peace and prosperity (of course the fact that the U.S. had the only industrial plant that hadn’t been bombed to rubble may have had something to do wit that). We may recall it as folly now but the threat of attack by the Soviet Union, particularly while Stalin was alive, was quite real and terrifying. Ike’s actions at the time have to be viewed with his very real concern in avoiding nuclear holocaust.

Eisenhower achieved an armistice if the Korean war. Your statement attributing the beginning of the Vietnam involvement to Ike is absurd. Under the terms of the negotiated peace treaty between France and the Viet Minh (yes it was abrogated by the US) Ike sent some 430 military advisors to South Vietnam. The same number of advisors were there when Kennedy became President in 1961.

Kennedy and his SECDEF, McNamara, are the true authors of the debacle in Vietnam (N.B. McNamara continued to serve in that capacity under Johnson). It took another Republican, Richard Nixon, to end that war. P.S. If Kennedy hadn’t stolen the election in 1960 we probably would never have gone to war Vietnam

The First President I voted for was LBJ who rewarded me by sending me to aforementioned South East Asia war games. Notwithstanding the fact that he was a dirtbag, Nixon was a pretty good (albeit liberal) President. Besides extracting the U.S. from the disaster in Vietnam, he also signed off on the major environmental laws in force to this day as well as, wait for it…Affirmative Action!

Every time you don’t do something simply because others don’t.”

Or vice versa.

Have any of you guys ever watched or participated in a Purim Shpiel?

Boycott wasn’t exactly what was threatened. Heck, there are plenty of businesses in Monsey that I refuse to patronize for one reason or another. What was being threatened was aggressive picketing and (perhaps) vandalism. The “accommodation” that was reached was a pay off. The protection racket is still alive and well.

Hey, MA! Maybe we should just vote for the Satan. Why settle for the lesser evil?

Joey, with regard to the Titanic and similar situations, “Women and children first” makes good. biologic sense. Women and children, after all, represent the continuation of the (human) race. Men on the other hand, are expendable as one man can have many wives. Incidentally, that’s where Pharaoh messed up. If he wanted to destroy Klal Yisroel, he should have been goizer on the daughters.

Here’s a question for you, Joey. What constitutes Golus? Is it the lack of the Beis Hamiqdash? Were the Jews who returned to E’Y from Bavel still in golus until the B’H was built? Or is is it the in gathering of the Jewish People to E’Y? Note that Bayis Sheini did not require overt Divine intervention to build and that during the entire period of Bayis Sheini, the majority of Jews still lived in Ch’L. Is it Jewish independent rule? After centuries of vassalege successively to the New Babylonian, Persian and Selucid empires, the successful Maccabean revolt left Israel an Independent, self-governing nation. Were the Jews still in Golus? Even though the Hasmoneans were not the halachic rulers of Israel and weren’t exactly “frum” either (Alexander Yanai, arguably the most successful Hasmonian king, was famously opposed to rabbinic tradition)?

I submit that a case can be made that, even though the B’H is yet to be built, and even though the current government of the Medina is no more halachic than the Hasmoneans, the rise of an independent Jewish State on the historical, G-d given, land of Israel constitutes, at least, the prerequisites for the end of golus, may it be complete bemeirah beyameinu.

The problem I see is so much halachic. It’s more a metaphysical issue. Can a person bless him (or her) self? The purpose of saying the sheva berachos is for the mevorchim to invoke berachah on the choson/kalah. By doing themselves, the choson/kalah in this case are losing the benefit of birchas hedyot (and not so hedyot).

Mazel Tov, CT! The untereste shura (bottom line) is that it’s your money, your daughter’s simcha, your plan is just fine and some people are gonna be offended no matter what you do.

Google “Gefilte Fish Line”

Not all Yogi-isms are really from Yogi.

Not all Yogi-isms are really from Yogi.

DY, Yeah, that’s about it. I expect that I’m a good deal older than you so this may not compute for you. They are the literary equivalent of Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers and Gene Autrey. The bad guys are bad and the good guys always win in the end. Good triumphs over evil, etc.

P.S. In those old TV westerns, you could always tell the good guys from the bad guys because the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys always wore black. A few summers ago I was walking to shul one Shabbos and, as is my custom in the summer, I was wearing a light colored straw hat. One of the little kids along the way asked, “Mr. Redleg, why are you wearing a white hat?” My instant response was,”because I’m a good guy.” Went right over his head.

Ubie, Opposing Israel on the Sinai issue or any other single issue does not constitute abandonment. Yes, the U.S. did threaten sanctions against Israel if they did not withdraw. So? that’s what I was calling ‘tough love”in my original post. The U.S. also opposes a unilateral strike on Iran by Israel and threatened to shoot down any Israeli aircraft that violated U.S. controlled airspace in Iraq while at the same time supplying Israel with the latest weapons and training, not to mention billions in aid,valuable defense contracts and having Israel’s back in the U.N. against almost the whole rest of the world. Does that also constitute abandonment?

Just because you occasionally have to punish your child does’t mean that you’re abandoning him. In many respects the modern State of Israel a child of the U.S. Tough love is still love.

Ubiquitin, The point of seemingly taking the arab side was specifically to show them that they needn’t rely on the Russkis. Also, Ike saw first hand the devastation in Europe qnd didn’t want to put the Russkis in a position that might precipitate global conflict. Two world wars was two too many. Just because the U.S. disagrees with an Israeli position or considers an Israeli action inimical to the U.S. interest that doesn’t constitute abandonment. Any President who put the interests of a foreign country or entity before the interests of the U.S. would justly be called a traitor.

Charlie, “pretty good” doesn’t mean perfect. Yes, his middle east policies leaned more toward the Arabs to Israel’s detriment. But Ike was elected President of the U.S, not President of Israel. His, and every other President’s job is to protect and advance the national interest of the U.S. Remember that was the hight of the Cold War. The object was to mitigate and minimize Soviet influence in the Middle East. If that meant a little tough love for Israel, that’s what had to happen.

American support for Israel has always been a problem for U.S. diplomacy. Any administration has had to walk a tight rope between support of Israel, which is not only popular in the U.S. and has some commercial and strategic value but seems to be a moral imperative to the U.S., and alienating an Arab world that holds 70% of the world’s proven oil reserves and has the spiritual leadership of a billion Muslims. It is to the everlasting credit of the U.S. that, while they may have had differences over the years, America has never abandoned Israel.

Yeah, I had to take the Red Cross course in CPR and the use of the AED for my work. I have to take it every year.

P.S I’m 72 years old so I don’t think I’ll be able to do that stuff on myself

C’mon, indeed. The questioner didn’t ask for the the NY Times review, he/she asked YOUR opinion.

If someone asks you for for your opinion on, say, Sam’s Grocery Store, and you answer to the effect that, “It’s OK but his produce isn’t often as fresh as it might be” that is 1) certainly l’toeles. and 2)unless you know Sam personally and have an issue with him, your only reason for commenting is to give good advice, not to stick it to Sam. That’s purity of purpose.

Note. If, in the example cited above, you had answered “…but the produce isn’t as fresh as Joe’s grocery.” that might have been a problem. Guarding your tongue doesn’t mean that you cannot be honest and objective. It means choosing your words carefully so no one can read into your words anything but what you intended and one recognize his or her motivations and act accordingly.

Mod, two things. Using a pseudonym is not the same as posting anonymously and, clearly, recommending a book or advising that the content of a book might be offensive to some is not only l’toeles, it also meets the Chofetz Chaim’s requirement for purity of purpose, unless, of course, the commenter personally knows the author or the publisher. Blanket condemnations of classes of literature may be offensive but repeating common knowledge does not, in itself, constitute lashon harah. For instance, saying that Bernie Madoff is a thief cannot be l’toeles because he can’t steal anyone’s money any more, but it is common knowledge and therefore not lashon harah.

Look, I have no personal axe to grind here and I will not add my voice to the chorus making snide comments. But one must recognize that just because a comment is rude doesn’t make it assur. IYou mods have absolute authority to edit or delete anything you want but I think the edit of my post was unwarranted

The OP was asking for recommendations. Certainly recommending any particular book or author does not have any negative implications for books and authors not recommended. Also, a comment to the effect that such and such a book may have questionable content is, without question, l’toeles.

EDITED – seriously? Did you read what the Chofetz Chaim says about the criterion for considering something l’toeles? Do you think speaking anonymously in a public forum would be included?

When you speak of young people dying, how young are you talking about? 20 somethings ofr40 somethings?

Every shil and mossad should have and AED and some people trained to use it. Now, most souls have Hatzolo members and the device itslf actually tells (I.E. speaks) how to use it, but note that just having one on the wall is only part of the drill. Please remember to check the battery regularly as recommended in the I.L. that came with the machine.

I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I drink Dos XX

P.S. I’m not that interesting, really.

Wolfie, You’re an example to us all. Folks, that’s the difference between a ba’al nefesh and a “ba’al nefesh”. May you mother’s neshama have an aliyah and may the Almighty dry the tears on every face.

Hey, Old Man! Speaking Previously Heavy Smokers, I was one. I quit 40 years ago and haven’t touched tobacco since, but I’m not bothered by other people smoking. In fact, I’m thinking of taking it up again. What’s it gonna do, kill me in thirty years?

Most the responses on this thread indicate true phobia (irrational fear or loathing). Roaches are relatively clean, don’t carry any disgusting diseases and don’t bite. Why would you be afraid of them or have them gross you out? I wouldn’t want one as a pet although some folks do (if you really want to be grossed out, go to the pet shop and take a look at an Indonesian hissing cockroach. The thing is as big as your hand). If you don’y want them in your house, (and who does?) put out baits, pick ’em up and flush them.