Be careful not to promise people you will do something, if you will not be able to do it right away.
While we have an obligation to do kindness for others, learn to say "no" to requests you do not really intend to carry out. While you might save yourself a small amount of uneasiness by not refusing right away, it is unfair both to the other person and eventually to yourself to mislead someone.
Today you can do something for your self and for others and vote for our local hero Arieh King. This is your vote for city council for the Me'uchadim (United) Party. Arieh who I trust says to vote for mayor for Yossi Daitch and I believe that is the right thing to do.
Love Yehuda Lave
How Sherlock Holmes' Creator Saved the 'Scottish Dreyfus'
The greatest detective story writer, Arthur Conan Doyle, exposed the false conviction against a German-Jewish immigrant in 1927, thus saving Oscar Slater from life in a Scottish prison.
Oscar Slater had all the characteristics needed to become a "suspect" of a heinous crime. He was Jewish, German, an immigrant and a gambler. His police file included complaints about assault under aggravated circumstances, he changed his name several times and hung around with dubious underworld characters. There were also rumors that he was a pimp.
So nobody in Scotland raised an eyebrow when he was arrested on suspicion of perpetrating the robbery and murder in December 1908 of Marion Gilchrist, a wealthy elderly woman from Glasgow.
Want to read more articles about Anti-Semitism? Email* I'd like to recieve emails on offers, appeals and commercial info
His possession of a piece of jewelry similar to the one stolen from the murdered woman, combined with the fact that he sailed to America under an assumed name immediately after the murder, were sufficient to convict him – turning a blind eye to many other findings that clearly proved he wasn't the murderer.
His hasty, fabricated trial ended with the heaviest sentence: death. Slater, who was 36, had already planned his own funeral but at the last minute, two days before the date of his execution in May 1909, his punishment was commuted to life with hard labor.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.Walter Benington
He spent the next 18 years in a fortress that was dubbed the "Scottish Gulag," where he suffered from harsh conditions, including hunger, cold and heat.
Slater later testified that he had planned to commit suicide if he wasn't released after his 20th year in prison. Fortunately, in 1927 he was unexpectedly released, and was later acquitted of all blame and received compensation from the government.
Due to his Jewish origins and the anti-Semitic element lurking behind his false conviction, he was dubbed the "Scottish Dreyfus." The person who played the role of Emile Zola – the French writer who fought to defend Alfred Dreyfus – in Slater's criminal drama was none other than Edinburgh-born Arthur Conan Doyle, the famous writer and creator of Sherlock Holmes.
It has been 110 years since the start of this affair, which forever tarnished the British justice system. But very little has been written about it and Slater remains largely unknown to the wider public.
A court scene during the trial of Oscar Slater.William Roughead / "Trial of Oscar Slater"
American reporter Margalit Fox, until recently a senior obituary writer for The New York Times, discovered the story entirely by chance. In a recent email interview with Haaretz, she wrote: "I first learned of the Oscar Slater case more than 30 years ago, when I was recently arrived in New York as a young adult.
"Commuting to work on the New York City subway one morning, I had brought with me John Dickson Carr's 1949 biography of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Toward the end of the book, almost casually, Carr mentions that Conan Doyle was deeply involved in righting the wrongful conviction of a German Jewish immigrant, Oscar Slater, for a 1908 murder in Glasgow.
"I was astounded. The creator of Sherlock Holmes had used Holmesian methods to free a man who had languished in a brutal Scottish prison for more than 18 years? Why in the world wasn't this case better known? But I didn't have a career as a writer – I hadn't even gone to journalism school yet – so I was scarcely in a position to tell this story myself. So I filed it away in that place that Holmes calls the 'brain-attic.'"
In 2013, when she was looking for a subject for a new book, she recalled Slater's story. Fox spent the following years in archives all over Great Britain in order to collect every piece of information about the story. She perused thousands of documents – criminal, legal, personal and literary – and even did field work at sites where the story took place.
Marion Gilchrist, who was murdered in Glasgow in December 1908.William Roughead / "Trial of Oscar Slater"
She published her comprehensive historical-detective study recently in the book "Conan Doyle for the Defense: The True Story of a Sensational British Murder, a Quest for Justice, and the World's Most Famous Detective Writer" (Random House).
Conan Doyle is known as a writer of detective stories, but in real life he was also a successful detective. The more popular his books became, the more he was inundated with requests from people who wanted his help solving mysteries, or doing justice in a situation where the police had given up or in cases where the authorities themselves had distorted the law and behaved arbitrarily.
"While Conan Doyle remains venerated today as a detective writer, he is less well remembered as a crusader – an impassioned public champion on behalf of a range of social issues that outraged his deep sense of justice and fair play," says Fox.
"Throughout his life as one of the most prominent public men in the world (a period that ran from the late 1800s to his death in 1930), he was an ardent advocate for a string of causes, including liberalizing British divorce laws to make it easier for women to extricate themselves from abusive marriages; the exposure of Belgian atrocities in the Congo; an attempt to overturn the sentence of George Edalji, an Anglo-Indian lawyer falsely imprisoned for maiming livestock; and much else," she explains.
The book cover of "Conan Doyle for the Defense: The True Story of a Sensational British Murder, a Quest for Justice, and the World's Most Famous Detective Writer."Random House
In 1912, Slater's lawyer turned to Conan Doyle and asked for his help. "Conan Doyle spent much time and energy re-investigating and writing about the case. His efforts resulted in Slater's release from prison in 1928 and the quashing of his conviction the next year," notes Fox.
Conan Doyle, who was a doctor, created the character of Sherlock Holmes as a "scientific detective," as he put it, someone who finds the solution to mysteries by using his sharp logic and discerning eye – without prejudice and stereotyping.
"Holmes very much used the kinds of rationalist, impeccably logical methods that Conan Doyle had been taught in medical school. He made certain to let only the empirical facts of the case – the clues – dictate the solution, an approach that amply showed Slater could not have committed the crime," she says.
This was in contrast to the prevailing police methods of the period, which involved fingering someone merely for being different and then making the evidence fit the case.
Nowadays, we occasionally hear about criminals who were acquitted thanks to DNA tests, after being erroneously convicted. This advanced technology was not available to Conan Doyle, who used his sharp intelligence and powers of observation. He studied police reports, perused the testimony of eyewitnesses and read the transcripts of the court proceedings thoroughly.
He looked for the small details, whose importance the investigators had "missed." Slowly but surely, he succeeded in unraveling the chain of fictitious testimony that had tightened the noose around Slater's neck.
The hammer with which Oscar Slater was alleged to have murdered Marion Gilchrist. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle proved that the weapon didn't tally with the victim's injuries.William Roughead / "Trial of Oscar Slater"
For example, he realized that the jewelry in Slater's possession bore no resemblance to that stolen from the home of the victim. He also discovered that Slater hadn't fled to America, but that his travels had been planned in advance.
He also found that Slater's small hammer, which had served as "proof" that he was the murderer, didn't match the injuries on Gilchrist's body. He exposed bribed witnesses, corrupt policemen, a biased police line-up, lies and concealed information.
"Under pressure to close the case – and happy to rid Glasgow of an immigrant Jew of dubious livelihood – they pursued him nearly into the grave," writes Fox in her book, referring to Glasgow police detectives.
Conan Doyle worked tirelessly. He published articles in the newspapers, tried to convince influential people, and devoted many years to the story.
"In the face of naked corruption on the part of police and prosecutors, Conan Doyle, working largely on his own and remaining involved with the case at intervals for more than 15 years, ultimately prevailed. Without his work, Oscar Slater would almost certainly have died in prison, as the British authorities fully intended him to do."
But the story's happy end was clouded by a quarrel about money. Conan Doyle was furious when he discovered that Slater had kept the compensation money he received from the government for himself, unwilling to share it with those who had helped secure his freedom.
"So this triumphant story ends on a bittersweet note, but given the differences in the ways that Conan Doyle and Slater had come up in the world, it could scarcely have ended differently," she says.
For Fox this isn't just a matter of history, but a story that is also relevant to today's world, given the hasty judgment and a miscarriage of justice based on class and race differences.
"As I wrote in the introduction to 'Conan Doyle for the Defense,' I little suspected when I began work on the book in 2013 how painfully relevant the Slater story would be to America – and much of the rest of the world – in 2018, when the book appeared," says Fox.
"The Slater narrative, in which a Jewish immigrant was apprehended, tried, convicted and very nearly hanged for a crime that police and prosecutors knew full well he hadn't committed, is every inch about scapegoating: specifically racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and an ugly social process that one scholar has called 'the racialization of crime.' Anyone who thinks that those things aren't relevant to our own time had better take a good look around."
Quotes from my sister
You are your greatest asset. Put your time, effort and money into training, grooming, and encouraging your greatest asset. Tom Hopkins
You've got to get up every morning with a smile on your face – And show the world all the love in your heart – Then people gonna treat you better – You're gonna find, yes you will – That you're as beautiful as you feel. – Carole King
Anyone can be confident with a full head of hair. But a confident bald man, there's your diamond in the rough. – Larry David
As children, we gave huge importance to people's opinions, sure that those opinions reflected the whole truth! Thus, a fragile sense of self-worth is easily destroyed by disrespect. To protect your self-worth, realize that a label can never reflect the entire truth. Ask the magic question: "IS IT TRUE? IS IT THE WHOLE TRUTH?"
Love Yehuda Lave
Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane,
Interview with Rabbi Meir Kahane as He Faces Possible Barring from U.S.
Written November 9, 1990
This interview took place a few hours before Rabbi Kahane's assassination
Q: Rabbi Kahane, you have had an extraordinary life, during which you have become beloved and hated to a degree that few have seen. You are among the most controversial and well known Jews in the world and the pressures on you must be enormous. How do you continue and what do you see as your future?
A: I have done and will, please G-d, continue to do the things I do because the things that I say are true, are parts of the authentic Jewish Idea. The fact that so many cannot see and understand, or attack and defame and worse, is not relevant to truth or to my obligation to that truth. The rabbis tell us that the ALL Mighty appointed Moses and Aaron as leaders of the Jews on condition that they accept being pelted with stones. Things have not changed.
Q: Yet you were barred from the Knesset and also face numerous legal problems. What about them?
A: concerning the Knesset barring – an act of totalitarianism which saw an obscene silence on the part of Jewish liberals and every Jewish establishment group – we are, of course, working on running for the next Knesset within the constraints of the present law. We have studied it carefully and know what changes must be made to have me run. They were changes we did not have the time to make in 1988. This time it will be different and we will use the loophole we have found to run. I must add that if and when, please G-d, we do, we will amass a huge number of votes and seats since the events of the past two years have made countless Jews realize how right I was over the past 20 years. Not only will we be the third-largest party but we will challenge Labor as the second party and no nationalist government will be formed without us. And that will be the beginning of an historic change in Israel and the creation of a truly Jewish state made in the image of the G-d of Israel.
Q: and your legal problems?
A: As of this moment, I await the decision of my citizenship trial in Washington. That entire thing is a sordid example of a joint effort by the United States and Israeli governments to insure that I will not be able to enter the United States since, if I do lose my citizenship, the U.S. will never issue me a visa. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments have a vested interest in my not being able to raise money and support here, since if I achieve even substantial power in Israel, the Baker Plan and every other American attempt to pressure Israel into dangerous concessions will be rejected and U.S. Mideast policy thwarted.
I have a superb attorney, Nat Lewin, one of this country's finest constitutional lawyers, and he believes that we have a strong case in opposing a clearly outrageous political scheme. The great problem here is the judge, Aubrey Robinson, who sentenced Jonathan Pollard to life imprisonment. During my hearing he was openly hostile and sarcastic and his anti-Semitism came through clearly. Even if I lose, I will of course appeal (I have two more appeals), but so will the State Department if I win. The big question is whether Robinson will allow me to enter the U.S. pending that appeal. If not, I will have to depend on good Jews replying to the Israel-U.S. conspiracy by voluntarily sending me the large amounts of funds needed.
Q: And what about your Israeli problems?
A: Two serious criminal cases face me there, both outweighed only by the totalitarian nature of the proceedings. In the first, involving my speech at a protest rally in Jerusalem following the murder of 16 Jews on an interurban bus near Jerusalem, at which I called the Arabs a "cancer in our midst," I am being tried under a British Mandate law that defines "sedition" in a way that any totalitarian state would envy and under which any Jew in Israel could be jailed daily for stating political views. Worse, this law bars me from proving the truth of my statement since under the law truth is not relevant.
For a while there was hope that the case would be thrown out since the state simply forgot to sign the indictment, and the statute of limitations had passed. But the judge in the case (a leftist who had also ruled against the Jews who purchased an Old City building from the Greek Orthodox Church some time ago) allowed the state to rule that an unsigned indictment was valid, since "one could not escape the truth through a technicality." This, in a case in which the truth is not relevant!
The second case involved the murder of two elderly Jews in May 1989, on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, in which I led a large crowd of Jews in a protest march to the Old City, and the police charge me with having refused to disperse (the crowd was tear-gassed and 11 Kach people, including myself, arrested). In the United States a conviction on such a charge would be a minor affair but in Israel the maximum is five years imprisonment (the same as with my first case).
Q: I must return to a previous point since so many people raise it. The lies and defamation and attacks on you must surely wear you down. How do you cope with it?
A: I answered that previously, at least in part. But let me add a bit to that. To begin with, one rule is basic: Never responds to vicious and filthy lies that are clear attempts to defame and destroy and that are funded and planned by enemies of the Jewish people. When one responds to these things, that is exactly what the enemy wants, since it only helps to publicize the defamation. When one gets into the mud with the swine, one must emerge filthy. King David said (Psalms 69:5): "They who hate me without reason are more than the hairs of my head," but he also taught us how to react to the haters in Psalms 39:2: "I will keep a curb on my mouth, while the wicked one is before me."
In a word, one does not bark back at barking dogs if one is a person and not a dog.
This landscape is unbe-leaf-able!
This scene is from Utah
During Passover, an Orthodox Jewish mother walks into
her son's room and sees some kind of white powder on his desk. In panic and anxious she asks him: "What is this?" The young man replies: "Cocaine, Mom, I sniff it and sell it, too." Says the mother: "What a relief, for a moment I was afraid it was (chometz) flour!"
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Crimes and Misdemeanors is a 1989 film about an opthamologist's mistress who threatens to reveal their affair to his wife, while a married documentary filmmaker is infatuated by another woman.
I remember my father telling me, "The eyes of God are on us always." The eyes of God. What a phrase to a young boy. What were God's eyes like? Unimaginably penetrating, intense eyes, I assumed. And I wonder if it was just a coincidence that I made my specialty ophthalmology.
Jack lives in the real world. You live in the kingdom of heaven. I'd managed to keep free of that real world, but suddenly it's found me.
We're all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale, most of these choices are on lesser points. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are, in fact, the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.
When we fall in love, we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom you were attached as children. On the other hand, we ask our beloved to correct all the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted on us. So, love contains in it the contradiction, the attempts to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past.
I've gone out the window.
But we must always remember that when we are born we need a great deal of love in order to persuade us to say in life. Once we get that love it usually lasts us. But the universe is a pretty cold place. It is we who invest it with our feelings. And under certain conditions, we feel the thing isn't worth it any more.
If it bends it's funny. If it breaks, it's not funny.
Idea for a farce. A poor...loser does a documentary of a great man and in the process learns some deep values.
I'll be honest. You're not my first choice.
Comedy is tragedy plus time.
DialogueLester: If you play your cards right, you could have my body.
Halley Reed: Wouldn't you rather leave it to science?
Halley Reed: [about Lester] After all, he is an American phenomenon.
Clifford Stern: Yeah, but so is acid rain.
Lester: I told you I'm putty in your hands.
Halley Reed: What am I gonna do with a handful of putty?
Halley Reed: [on the philosopher Lewis Levy] He was very eloquent on the subject of love, didn't you think?
Clifford Stern: I wish I had met him before I got married. It would've saved me a gall bladder operation.
Halley Reed: [about Lester]: He wants to produce something of mine.
Clifford Stern: Yeah. Your first child.
Sol Rosenthal: Whether it's the Bible or Shakespeare, murder will out!
Judah Rosenthal: Who said anything about murder?
Sol Rosenthal: You did.
Clifford Stern: I actually wrote you a love letter.
Halley Reed: I didn't get it.
Clifford Stern: It's probably just as well. I plagiarized most of it from James Joyce. You probably wondered why all the references to Dublin.
[Judah is telling Clifford about the murder, disguising it as an idea for a screenplay.]Judah Rosenthal: And after the awful deed is done, he finds that he's plagued by deep-rooted guilt. Little sparks of his religious background, which he'd rejected, are suddenly stirred up. He hears his father's voice. He imagines that God is watching his every move. Suddenly, it's not an empty universe at all, but a just and moral one, and he's violated it. Now, he's panic-stricken. He's on the verge of a mental collapse, an inch away from confessing the whole thing to the police. And then one morning, he awakens. The sun is shining, his family is around him and mysteriously, the crisis has lifted. He takes his family on a vacation to Europe and as the months pass, he finds he's not punished. In fact, he prospers. The killing gets attributed to another person — a drifter who has a number of other murders to his credit, so I mean, what the hell? One more doesn't even matter. Now he's scott-free. His life is completely back to normal. Back to his protected world of wealth and privilege.
Clifford Sten: Yes, but can he ever really go back?
Judah Rosenthal: People carry sins around. Oh, maybe once in awhile he has a bad moment, but it passes. With time, it all fades.
Clifford Stern: Yeah, but now his worst beliefs are realized.
Judah Rosenthal: Well, I said it was a chilling story, didn't I?
Clifford Stern: I don't know. I think it would be tough for someone to live with that. Very few guys could live with something like that on their conscience.
Judah Rosenthal: People carry awful deeds around. What do you expect him to do, turn himself in? This is reality. In reality, we rationalize, we deny, or we couldn't go on living.
Clifford Stern: Here's what I would do: I would have him turn himself in. Then your story assumes tragic proportions. I mean, in the absence of a God, or something, he's forced to assume that responsibility himself. Then you have tragedy.
Judah Rosenthal: But that's fiction, that's movies. You see too many movies. I'm talking about reality. I mean, if you want a happy ending, you should see a Hollywood movie.
Mount Zion Wedding of Rabbi Bittner
In many ways like the Story of Ruth and Boaz, Rabbi Bittner marries for the first time at 80 to a new Jew of 50. May they enjoy long years of happienss
Solar-powered electric car set to launch in 2019 - and it'll be cheaper than you think
Because God is in Heaven and you are on the earth, therefore let your words be few (Ecclesiastes 5:1).
I remember reading that every person is born with an allotted number of words that one may speak during one's lifetime. When this allotment is exhausted, one's life comes to an end. This idea would explain the above verse: God is infinite, but people live in a finite world where everything has its limitations. Some things may be greater, other things may be less, but nothing on earth is infinite. Since the number of words a person may speak must also be finite, we should speak as little as possible simply to extend our lives.
Even if one does not accept this concept as factual, it is an excellent guideline. People on a fixed income will budget themselves carefully, since any unwise expenditures may deprive them of the means to obtain necessities. If we think of our words as being limited, then those squandered in non-essential conversation have become unavailable to us for more important things.
When we discover that we have wasted money, we are likely to become very upset with ourselves. We usually then resolve to be more cautious and discriminating in our future purchases. Let us now think back on how many words we have wasted, and even if they were not outright lies or slander, nevertheless, they were simply useless. We would be wise to make a reckoning of our words as well as our money and similarly resolve not to be wasteful of them in the future.
Today I shall ... ... consider my words as valuable assets which, while in sufficient supply, are nonetheless limited; I will therefore try to act accordingly.
See you tomorrow
Love Yehuda Lave
Rabbi Yehuda Lave
2850 Womble Road, Suite 100-619, San Diego United States