Explaining your name at Starbucks can be a taskIt’s Monday morning and the egregiously perky barista is waiting to take my coffee order I peer at her half askance, the way the Irish doAs I get closer to the counter I have an inner dialogue with myself that goes like this — should I tell her, should I not?I’m not about to make an unexpected marriage proposal I’m not coming out to her either
Everyday, the world over, Irish people are bringing international commerce to a grinding halt with their names. All they have to do is insist they be called by the name they were given and watch the chaos ensue.
I would not have recognized the name either, seeing as the letter H is not a real letter in any form of Gaelic, only a modifier for an existing consonant. It was originally written as a dot over the letter, a practice that ended with the importation of printing presses designed for English, at which time the Gaelically “useless” H was made to stand in for the dot.
"Cahir" with an H alone between two vowels makes no sense in Gaelic, and is a partial anglicization based on the pronunciation of TH as an English soft H. Also, two vowels which sit on either side of a consonant must "agree", so a broad vowel (A, O, U) cannot sit across from a slender one (I, E), without the addition of an extra vowel. There are rare exceptions, of course, but it really should be Caithir, Cathair, or Cathaoir, all of which are found as names taken from the word for "warrior".
This is the first series that began it all, Tales From the Green Valley, set in the 17th century. It’s quite amazing.
Coming up this Sunday, March the 2nd 2014 TVO (TV Ontario) will air the premier of the latest installation of the BBC historical “Farm” Series, Tudor Monastary Farm.
This will be the third of the series, following Victorian Farm, Edwardian Farm and Wartime Farm, as well as the spin off Victorian Pharmacy and the original, and now difficult to find, series Green Valley.
I have watched all of the previous series, but for a few of the Green Valley episodes and can highly recommend them all.
I can’t get it to load at the moment, but when I last looked, Edwardian Farm was still available for viewing on the TVO Website
While I was losing my temper and ranting, others were having a bit more fun with the issue. Maybe a bit too much fun.
More importantly what WILL we become, if we take this advice?
The author wonders where the spirit of the Maccabees has gone…does anyone seriously want to become the Maccabees?
The Maccabees who first attacked other Jews, rather than Antiochus and his fellows? The Maccabees who, after their initial success regaining the Temple and securing their religious freedoms, decided to go on to attack and conquer other areas with Jewish populations, forcing their Jews to comply with the new rule and forcibly converting or expelling their non-Jews? The Maccabees whose policies exacerbated the tensions between Pharisess and Sadducees for decades to come? The Maccabees who had their own priestly line installed as High Priest creating dissention (not that others before this who bribed their way in, like Jason, weren’t problematic)? The Maccabees who themselves became as Hellanized as those they opposed? The Maccabees who began murdering each other to inherit the office of High Priest/General/Ruler? The Maccabees who eventually sought a politic alliance with the Roman Senate which actually lacked practical value, and whose infighting prompted a request for intervention which led to the Roman conquest, which set up Judea as client (ie vassal) state to be administered by the surviving Hasmoneans but was the end of Jewish independence? The Maccabees who eventually fell to the Herodian Dynasty, you know, Herod, the puppet governor of Judea who built the retaining walls around the Temple complex, one of which is the Western Wall that Jews today are fighting over and trying to ban each other’s access to?
Yes, what a fantastic idea. Let’s be more like the Maccabees.
Because Jews don’t already throw enough stones at each other (and bottles of urine, and dirty diapers) over access to a RETAINING WALL, so obviously it would be a good idea for us if we controlled the Temple Mount ourselves, so that we can spend the rest of our time fighting each other over it.
Because the simple fact is, guy in modern clothes who appears to be not even wearing a kippah, the spirit of the Maccabees is alive and well. It can be found in those Jews willing to be arrested for throwing rocks and sundry at the Women of the Wall. It can be found in the Sicarri and their followers who spit on little Modern Orthodox girls and call them whores. It can be found in Settlers willing to fight the Israeli army, cost the State millions, and eventually risk war with neighbouring nations, in order to achieve “Greater Israel”. It was found in Baruch Goldstein, willing to open fire on scores of Muslims praying at the Cave of the Patriarchs and it was found in Yigal Amir, the religious Zionist who assasinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin over his plan to withdraw from the West Bank in order to achieve some peace (but more importantly, to consolidate Israeli control in the occupied territories and retain 70% of the land there…hardly a pro-Palestinian agenda).
If, as you desire, this particular “spirit” were to catch on generally, or if those who have it now were to be successful in taking the Temple Mount, I suspect that, as with the Maccabees, and every other “revolutionary” group before and after them, it would not stop there. The Temple Mount would not be enough.
And they would look at you, with your bare head and blue button down collar shirt and see a threat more insidious than the Waqf, and a few idiots throwing rocks. Rocks damage Jewish heads, bare Jewish heads damage Judaism itself, and teach Jews to make light of God’s Sovereignty. Do you think that the people who called knitted kippot (Religious Zionists) “Amalek” are going to let you onto the Temple Mount at all, much less to pray? They would never trust your ritual purity. I can’t imagine any of channel 7’s audience would pass muster with the radicals, except as useful idiots who got them on the Mount in the first place….after that, you’d be sliced off like kosher salami.
In the end, they would throw rocks at your kippot, to say nothing of bare heads. They would spit at your wives, daughters, nieces and granddaughters and throw rocks at them, too.
The French Revolution, for all its great ideals, brought on the Reign of Terror, in which opponents of the Revolution were executed en masse, while rival revolutionary groups fought in the streets until the Jacobins gained control and executed their rivals. The Jacobins became more tyrannical dictators than the kings and nobles they had opposed. What in the behaviour of Settlers, Hardalim and Haredim suggests to you that they would do a better job restraining themselves than the Jacobins?
They would behave with a swollen pride and arrogance that would alienate allies, create new enemies, and drive existing ones into a frenzy. Their hubris would destroy Israel, and take a huge chunk of Judaism with it.
Every Jewish victory achieved by “Maccabean” fervour and revolutionary means would embolden other groups to achieve their ends in a similar fashion: groups whose ideals may not appeal to you quite so much as being rid of the Waqf. If history has shown anything, it’s that revolutionary fervour is a dangerous energy. Once let out of the bag, it’s difficult to contain; like wildfires and avalanches, it has it’s own ends and answers to no one.
Jews are taught that we lost the first Temple because of idolatry, sexual immorality and the shedding of blood/murder and that we lost the Second Temple because of sinat hinam, often translated as “baseless hatred”, making it the equal of all the sins that destroyed the first Temple. However, a better translation would be “pointless hatred”, the word hinam meaning “devoid of cost” or “devoid of reason or advantage”. Ironically, it is often a very costly hatred, but it is certainly one that is unreasonable, and so prone to losing sight of the bigger picture that it ultimately shoots itself in the foot.
In truth, Zealots (facing much worse from the Romans than the Waqf and a few rocks), those spiritual ancestors to the Maccabees you so admire, succeeded in helping create the circumstances that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, which Titus had been planning to spare, and eventually mass uprisings convincing the Romans to outlaw Judaism throughout the Empire, creating the Diaspora and earning the condemnation of Rabbis for centuries to come. (See bottom of page for a quote on the Zealots)
The Zealots burned food that might have lasted years (some say two decades) in order to force the Jerusalemites to fight, rather than sit tight and try to wait it out….after all, a lot could happen in two decades that might distract the Romans and draw them off. Is that the plan here? Force a confrontation for
supremacy, I mean survival, with the entire Muslim world? Would you perhaps like to burn the food stores and poison the water as well, so that we’ll have to retake Greater Israel just to feed ourselves, to say nothing of needing clean water for washing the cohanim and cattle for the altar?
One wonders, what would Jewish life have been like without the Maccabees? Without the Zealots? With a bit less fervour and a bit more patience and emotional control? Who can say for certain….perhaps Judaism would have died out by Hellenism, of we would all have become Christians or Muslims by now…assuming that Islam would still have arisen and been the same without Judaism. We will never know; over and over a significant number chose to revolt, and by all accounts were quite good at it: In a two year period from 115 -117 Jewish zealots and mobs outside of Judea killed an estimated half a million people, mostly Greeks and Romans….without any access to modern weapons and explosives. Kind of puts Al-Qaeda to shame, when you think of it, seeing as from 1998 to 2004 they only managed to kill 4400, and most of those were other Muslims. Of course, the end result for the Jews was defeat and nearly 2000 years of homelessness and contempt.
Totally worth it though, right? Rah, rah, cis boom bah, goooo Masada!
What have we become? With any luck we have become more patient and acquired greater prudence and self-control…..less prone to romanticizing historical figures whose “success” was dubious, short-lived and ultimately costly….and better able to grasp that putting up with the Waqf is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things, and that winning the Temple Mount now, while Jews are still violently clashing with each other over lesser issues, would would cost us far more. Perhaps we have become a people with more faith, either in a G-d who has promised a restored Temple that will become a house of prayer for all peoples, or in the way that time and quiet persistence ultimately pay off better than revolutions and fervour….the British, who had no revolutions, eventually saw greater reforms and freedoms than the French who did.
Or, perhaps you’re right. Perhaps the Jews are, deep down, zealots: perfectly willing to slaughter and starve each other along with the goyim, all in the process of making some idealogical point or scoring one in the eternal pissing contest with the non-Jews around us. Perhaps it just base cowardice or the tempations of comfort that prevent us from seeing that it is a far, far better thing to possess the Temple Mount, even if we all die on account of it, and thus to be able to thumb our noses at the rest of the world and give them the proverbial finger, than to do something sensible like compromise, and see what the years and decades bring to those who wait. It’s not as if the tables are turned and, rather than being the helplessly outgunned Judeans facing the Roman Empire, we are the ones in power and able to consent to a few concessions here and there.
Why bide our time, building our own strengths and repairing our own internal divisions, waiting to see whether the various political and social reformist movements in Islam will win out over their conflict-driven and increasingly desperate fundamentalists, when we can unite Muslims everywhere in one fell swoop by igniting their fears that the Al-Aqsa will be destroyed, and divide Jews everywhere in the process? We could lop off all those annoying peaceniks and liberals, and even most of our moderates with such a move, and still have plenty of Jews left to kill each other over how the Temple Mount should be run.
Which brings us to the last point…what are we going to do with the Temple Mount anyway? The Israeli Rabbinate thus far wants Jews up there even less than the Waqf does. Assuming they change their mind once we have it, some people are inevitably going to want to use it for sacrifices, not just for picnics and Bar Mitzvahs. There are already people planning the rebuilding of the Temple, including the Gush Emunim, whose Underground movement already attempted to blow up the entire Temple Mount, which I hazard a guess, would have destroyed a damn sight more of the archeological finds than the Waqf has. So will it be rebuilt, and who should rebuild it? Which group’s candidate for Cohen Gadol will be the right one? ‘Cause you just know that when people are willing to smash each others windows and beat each other over which Rabbi is the real Rosh Yeshivah, they are not going to be easygoing about who should be High Priest. See: The increasing violence in Haredi communities Oct 2013
What is your plan to deal with the potential violence surrounding each and every single decision the Israeli government will have to make regarding such an emotionally laden site? Do you even have a plan or, like the Underground, do you think this will just magically solve all Judaism’s and Israel’s problems? Something tells me your thinking is more magical than the comradery of pastel-hued miniature equines.
I always have a sneaking suspicion that the Rabbis who thought up the Three Oaths had exactly this sort of situation in mind. After living through a lot of it themselves, they thought ahead and saw the brutality we would become capable of infiicting on each other and decided to stave it off as long as possible. Unlike this author, who does not appear to have thought ahead at all.
It’s shit like this (don’t bother to excuse my Anglo-Saxon, there are worse things that you can say in Yiddish and Hebrew than “shit”, believe me, and some of them are in the Torah and Talmud) coupled with the idiotic bigoted remarks by my Rabbi this past weekend, that have me at the end of my gimel where Jews and Judaism is concerned. A stubborn, stiff-necked people who seem intent on offending and alienating as many people as possible and then pissing and moaning about how everyone hates them. Fine…want to destroy peace with all your neighbours to do something that will incite rioting and infighting amongst yourselves, go right ahead. Destroy yourselves. Just do it without me, and without my support from here on in. I’ve got to clean a house and to start prepping for a Shabbat dinner I’m hosting, so ain’t nobody got time for this shit.
On the Zealots:
The highly embittered refugees who succeeded in escaping the Galilean massacres fled to the last major Jewish stronghold—Jerusalem. There, they killed anyone in the Jewish leadership who was not as radical as they. Thus, all the more moderate Jewish leaders who headed the Jewish government at the revolt’s beginning in 66 were dead by 68—and not one died at the hands of a Roman. All were killed by fellow Jews.
The scene was now set for the revolt’s final catastrophe. OutsideJerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt’s failure, and the Temple’s destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this “security blanket” would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted.
We do know that some great figures of ancient Israel opposed the revolt, most notably Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. Since the Zealot leaders ordered the execution of anyone advocating surrender to Rome, Rabbi Yochanan arranged for his disciples to smuggle him out ofJerusalem, disguised as a corpse. Once safe, he personally surrendered to the Roman general Vespasian, who granted him concessions that allowed Jewish communal life to continue.
During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea.
By gradually raising minimum wage, some small fraction of the six per cent of minimum wage jobs may or may not disappear. But the payoff will be huge, as the whole economy will be saved from disinflation. Poor people spend their money; they don’t use it to bid up assets. But they can bid up prices, starting the slow cycle that leads to increased inflation. -Don Pittis
I have been trying to point this out to minimum wage activists for years: Raising minimum wages does not help the poor because each raise in wages results in a domino effect of rises in rents, bus fares, groceries, clothing and other basic necessities, as well as prices for other things that the poor frequently use or enjoy, like cabs, cable tv, movie rentals, ciggarettes, beer etc
This means that most or all of their gains will be “clawed back” in some form or other and their relative wages compared to their living costs will be the same…in some cases they may end up further in the hole, particularly if their employer cuts any of their hours in response.
Now, I happen to agree that employers should pay their way, and that taxpayers should not be indirectly subsidizing businesses that are making record profits by allowing them to poorly pay their workers, some of whom must then must be bailed out by government programmes like subsidized housing and welfare top-ups to supplement their inadequate wages. However, lets face it, not all minumum wage workers work for giant box retailers with impressive quarterly returns….lots of them work for struggling small businesses and mom and pop ventures. My workplace is liable to go belly-up with this, and even if it doesn’t, the owners will have to take on more of the hours themselves (and give fewer to their employees) to keep it afloat.
The issue of the economy is another matter. If it helps the economy, and does so without creating more income inequality, then go right ahead. But let’s not pretend we’re doing it for the poor, or that it will help them. But I sincerely fail to see how this plan will stimulate the economy if prices rise.
It’s true that the poor spend their extra money, generally immediately, and on very basic items that form the basis of our economy, while the middle class and rich save money, invest money, or spend extra money on luxury items and holidays abroad (which helps someone else’s economy, not ours). Money is like blood: it’s only useful if it’s in constant motion, and getting to every part of the system. Thus it makes more sense economically to give a million lower income people an extra $10 which will go right back into our economy and gradually bubble back up to the top (as it always does), than to give 10 rich people an extra million which will circle around in the topmost layers of the economy but very little of which will trickle back down. After all, one rich person doesn’t buy a thousand extra loaves of bread that they won’t eat, they buy one really nice “artisan” handbaked loaf and stick the rest in the bank or take it to Cancun
Giving extra money to the rich creates a top-heavy “luxury economy” which provides employment for relatively few workers compared to the amount of money being spent by consumers. The poor, by contrast, take that money straight to the corner store or the grocery, to the clothing or shoe store, or they go out for a meal, or to a movie. However, if all the prices raise after they get that extra $10, then they don’t buy extra goods and services, they go back to buying only what they bought before, and then they don’t stimulate the economy and they don’t create more jobs.
Minimum wage raises put money into the pockets of the poor with one hand, while the same businesses you’ve forced to pay them more pick their pockets with the other.
Thanks PC, because no, I never read my offers before loading them and I didn’t spend 20 minutes compulsively searching your site, and the web for that answer before I gave in, gritted my teeth and just asked. After all the thing says, “coupon disappears after one use” so what I wanted to know was, does “one use” mean “one item” or “one occasion”.
Also, at risk of mild grammar Nazihood, it’s “Every offer” or “Each offer” or All offers” and not “Every offers”
For general elucidation, if you buy two of an item offering points, you do get points for each item, which I found out by checking carefully on my receipt. I will let you know how 3 and 4 items go when I try.
Lesson learned: Want a question answered? Figure it out yourself.
Otherwise this is actually a really good program. Only had it for 8 weeks and already have earned about $80 in free groceries just by buying stuff I already use and trying out a few new items here and there.
It’s inevitable that human beings affect each other: as they say, “No man is an island.” What impacts me will impact you, sooner or later, and there is nothing new about that under the sun. What IS new is the attitude of entitlement we have today, in which some people feel that their very personal and unique sensitivities and idiosyncracies should allow them to dictate everyone else’s behaviour.
Case in point, the Canadian Tire Cat Controversy.
Now, let me first point out that I have suffered from phobias myself, so I do sympathize with the experience. Mine were to traffic (more specifically, I feared I would witness a major accident and some poor person’s gruesome injury and be helpless to prevent it) and to a common household object (that I would be injured by it in a gruesome way).
It was easy enough to hide the latter object out of sight until it passed, and some phobias DO pass in their own time, but the other one is still one I must work at, at least occasionally. A phobia is, to a large degree, a LEARNED reaction, and each time the person gives in to it, and alters their behaviour, they ENTRAIN their brain and REWARD it for the errant response.
It is believed that spider phobia is due at least in part to a similar Stimulus-Response association. The spider, the stimulus, evokes a response, fear and anxiety. Every time the phobic runs in fear from a spider, it strengthens or at least helps maintain this association. Avoidance feed phobias.
Because I allowed my traffic phobia to rule my life, I had to work harder to get rid of it, and those “pathways” still exist in my brain, ready to be reactivated the moment I slip up and reward them. I now refuse to do this, because I deeply resented the ways in which my phobia limited and controlled me, even though major traffic IS a legitimate potential danger (far more so than house cats). I also resented to an even greater degree, the way that it, by extension, controlled and limited the lives of my immediate family members.
I have little sympathy for this woman’s attitude that the entire world should cow tow to her phobia. Even if it had been feasible, I would never have asked people to stop driving in my neighbourhood, or to hide said household object when I came over. I may not have asked to suffer from phobias, or done anything to deserve them, but they were MY problem, and were my responsibility to deal with, which is precisely what this woman needs to do… deal with it! Phobias are treatable, with a high success rate.
Over 80% of people who seek Cognitive-Behavioral therapy (e.g., in vivo exposure therapy) for their phobias no longer panic when they encounter a spider, and this typically holds true indefinitely (ie., people tend to remain cured once successfully treated).
Despite the fact that this type of treatment is so fast and effective, only a small proportion of spider phobics ever actually seek treatment for their problem. The reason is fairly obvious. Understandably, THEY DON’T WANT TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR A LIVE SPIDER, EVEN FOR THERAPY.
Each year tens of thousands of healthy animals must be euthanized simply because there are no homes for them to go to, yet this woman is blithely suggesting that the Canadian Tire could adopt the cats out, just like that. This, the idea that humans should be placed so highly above animals that our merest whims and foibles should come before their needs and even lives, is the opposite folly from the nutty animal rights activists who think that all people should stop breeding so that animals can rule the roost. There is something to be said for moderation and common sense. Allergies and asthma are a legitimate reason to complain about the presence of animals in indoor public spaces, phobias and personal preferences are not.
What this woman really wants is a cat-free world, one that caters to her specific psychological disorder. In essence, she wants not only the right to remain psychologically ill, which is a right everyone indisputably has, but to remain ill with impunity, that is, to remain ill and not have to suffer any consequences for it. That is not a right I am prepared to extend to anyone. If you want to remain sick, and to not even try to deal with your issues, that’s fine….just don’t go demanding everyone else suffer a restricted life along with you. Stay at home, don’t go outside, shop online.
Canadian Tire has, since this complaint, the only one it received, decided to keep the cats out of the public areas unless customers ask to see them. It’s actually quite sad that they decided to enable this woman in her illness and not something to be congratulated….unlike the decision to rescue two animals and give them a loving, if unusual, home. In this they acted in accord with the Jewish view of animal-human relations.