Fast of Ninth of Av in 2021 today and Ha’aretz is an Enemy of the Jewish People by Victor Rosenthal and W.C. Fields - The Diner Sketch and Israelis Create ‘Hybrid’ Human-Animal Organ for Transplants and COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, RAND study finds
Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
Also known as the Fast of Ninth of Av, this public holiday in Israel takes place on the 9th day of the month of Av. In the western calendar, the date will fall between July 17th and August 14th.
On Tisha B'Av, Jews around the world mourn the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem and the pain and suffering that the Jewish people have experienced for generations.
Traditions of Tisha B'Av
Many Jews worldwide observe the religious holiday of Tisha B'Av by fasting, praying, and reading Bible passages related to the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.
Religious Jews have kept Tisha B'Av for centuries as a day of communal mourning for the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem.
The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans under Titus, who burned it down in 70 AD.
For Jews, the ninth day of the month of Av also commemorates multiple tragedies in Jewish history, ranging from God decreeing that the Israelites would wander in the desert for 40 years to Jews being expelled by decree from England in 1290 and from Spain in 1492.
The Orthodox Jewish organization Chabad ranks Tisha B'Av as "the saddest day on the Jewish calendar," even more somber than Yom Kippur.
The Fast of Av begins at sunset the previous day and lasts for more than 24 hours.
Jewish law demands that during the three weeks preceding the day, Jews limit rejoicing: no weddings, no haircuts, no listening to music, and swimming is prohibited. In the last nine days of the three weeks, no one is allowed to eat meat or drink wine except on Shabbat, or even wash clothes.
On Friday's blog, I gave all the restrictions of Tisha B'Av, please review this blog
The Three Musketeers at the Kotel
Ha'aretz is an Enemy of the Jewish People by Victor Rosenthal
Ha'aretz is more than just a left-leaning newspaper.
It is an enemy of the state, and in fact, an enemy of the Jewish people, whose future depends on the state.
Today, when Israel and Jews are under attack throughout the world, when international organizations have been turned into lie factories targeting Israel, when the Jewish State is accused of the very crimes – terrorism, murder, apartheid, genocide – that her enemies are either guilty of or aspire to, an Israeli newspaper, owned and operated by Jews, is a primary propaganda organ of those enemies.
Every day, the paper – which publishes both a Hebrew print edition that few Israelis read, and an English internet edition that is read around the world by decision-makers in governments and businesses – pumps out its vileness. Every day its writers present a slanted version of events in which Israel and Israelis are oppressors, occupiers, murderers, racists, thieves, and liars.
By virtue of its Israeli origin, this Stürmer gains credibility. Perhaps you don't believe everything you read on Aljazeera's website, but this is an Israeli newspaper; indeed, it's been called the NY Times of Israel, the paper of record.
Today there is a typical example. In an editorial, they excoriate the Yamam, the Israel Police counterterrorism unit, accusing it of committing a "cold-blooded execution" of a man named Ahmed Abdu. They call it "Israel's own death squad," equating it with the ones operated by South American dictators.
Their accusation is based on a security camera video: it shows someone in a car getting shot. That is all it shows. But let me quote the Ha'aretz editorial:
The footage and neighbors' testimonies leave no room for doubt: Ahmad Abdu, 25, of the Amari refugee camp returned from a night out with friends. They dropped him off at his car. He entered the vehicle and started it, then a SWAT team emerged in a civilian car, blocking his way. Three Yamam police officers got out and shot at Abdu point-blank as he sat in his car. They then dragged him out, apparently to make sure he was dead, left him on the road and quickly left the scene.
The response by Border Police spokesman Tamir Faro to the incident is no less shocking and outrageous: He ignored the evidence in front of him and sufficed with the claim that the shooting was done "according to the rules of engagement." In other words, the execution of an unarmed man in his car, while he's not endangering or threatening a soul, in a deserted street doesn't breach Yamam's rules of engagement. Are we to deduce from this that this special unit is licensed to kill?
I can tell you exactly what it is possible to deduce from Tamir Faro's statement, because I am personally acquainted with officers who serve in the Yamam, which is possibly the most competent police unit of its kind in the world, and their rules of engagement have been explained to me. I deduce that Abdu was not an unarmed man, because had he been unarmed, he would not have been shot.
It is true that the Yamam was charged to do targeted killings during the Second Intifada. They have not had such an assignment since then, and in any event, Ahmad Abdu was not important enough to be the subject of one. Recently the Yamam has arrested some perpetrators of high-profile murders, like the killer of Esther Horgan, and (unfortunately, in my opinion) they were taken into custody unharmed. Abdu was wanted for questioning regarding a non-fatal shooting at a demonstration.
The explanation of why he was shot is found in the rules of engagement, which permit the officers to shoot if the suspect reaches for a weapon, points it at them, or opens fire on them. And this is undoubtedly what happened.
What is the "evidence" that Tamir Faro supposedly ignored? Is it in the video in which Abdu is not even visible until after he is shot? Is it in the statements of family members interviewed by Ha'aretz? The answer is that Ha'aretz has no evidence. Only those who were on the scene know whether Abdu was armed.
These are not rookie policemen who might have panicked. They are professionals who arrest dangerous terrorists night after night, and show great restraint, even when they are arresting someone who they know is drenched in Jewish blood. Why would they suddenly decide to "execute" a small-time terrorist?
Amos Schocken, the publisher of Ha'aretz is Israel's modern day version of Julius Streicher, who incited anti-Jewish hate in the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer. Streicher was hanged for his crimes, but Schocken and his hatchet man Levy are careful to stay within legal boundaries, so they will probably not even be punished with a lawsuit.
W.C. Fields - The Diner Sketch
[From "Kovacs Corner" on YouTube.com] - William Claude Dukenfield, known professionally as W.C. Fields, with his bizarre and iconoclastic sense of humor, certainly influenced Ernie Kovacs. It had been written that when Fields delivered the story outline of this 1941 film, "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break", the suits at Universal Studios thought the film was so surreal that they recut and reshot parts of it. After which they quietly released the film to movie theaters and Fields from his contract. This sketch, featuring character actress Jody Gilbert, gives a new meaning to the term "customer service".
[Updated October 16, 2010]
I found this in the Wikipedia dictionary...
"Gosha" is also the beloved name of "Chuminji", a cute and baby Indian god of good health. He is favourite of pink-rosy cheeked plump kids. Hithero popular with small kids, the god is supposed to be childlike. He is offered "pohe" (an indian dish consisting of flattened rice) and "gulaabjaamuns" (also known as "waffle balls", it a dough consisting mainly of milk solids and flour in a sugar syrup flavored with cardamom seeds and rosewater or saffron) in worship. He rides on a duck and keeps a rabbit as an advisor and a cat as bodyguard. He lives in "Goshdesh". When happy, he blesses anyone with pink skin and plenty of fats, making them look babylike.
I can only suppose that he was throwing a thinly vailed comment about the waitress' (Jody Gilbert) large stature?
Israelis Create 'Hybrid' Human-Animal Organ for Transplants
Our goal is to change the world and change the face of modern transplantation medicine," said Dr. Shahar Cohen, one of the technology's inventors.
By United With Israel Staff
Researchers at Tel Aviv's Beilinson Hospital may have a found a solution for the human body's rejection of animal organ transplants. They developed a "hybrid" organ with both animal and human qualities.
Dr. Shahar Cohen explained to the Jerusalem Post that the primary reason for organ rejection is the internal lining of the transplanted organ's blood vessels. The coating serves as a point of contact. What Beilinson researchers did was create an organ from a pig with human blood vessels that were coated with human placenta cells to make it more recognizable as "friendly" to the body.
The placenta, said Dr. Cohen, is the "ideal organ that connects two human beings and plays a key role in maintaining the connection between mother and fetus."
He added that the hybrid method has been successfully tried with several organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, kidney and pancreas. Cohen hopes to begin transplanting the hybrid organs into humans in five years.
The availability of hybrid organs would dramatically cut down patients' waiting time for organ donations.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Health's Health Resources and Services Administration, 107,245 men women and children are on the national transplant waiting list. An average of 17 people die every day waiting for an organ to become available. HRSA added that 39,000 organ transplants were done in the U.S.
"Our goal is to change the world and change the face of modern transplantation medicine," Cohen told the Post, "We want to eliminate the waiting list and have an unlimited supply of organs available for transplantation, and a future with less anti-rejection drugs in humans so they have less side-effects and fewer problems related to immune suppression."
COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, RAND study finds
COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, study finds
Those who pushed 'shelter in place' policies share the blame, but everyone feels the consequences
As we begin to pick through the rubble of the early days of the coronavirus that started in Wuhan in an effort to determine with some specificity the origins of COVID-19, and whether it was accidentally or purposefully released from a Chinese lab, it is important, too, that we assess the wisdom of our public health approaches to the disease.
Chief among those approaches was the institution of lockdowns across a broad range of populations.
The pathologies of the lockdowns are clear and have been both predicted and recorded. They include increased risk of preventable deaths from cancer, heart disease, etc., as well as psychological trauma, resulting in increased homicides, accidents and suicidal ideations, caused by long periods of isolation.
What is less clear is whether the lockdowns served any useful medical purpose.
Fortunately, two researchers at the RAND Corporation and two researchers from the University of Southern California have done an analysis of the medical value of the lockdowns (which they refer to as "sheltering in place," or SIP, policies). They looked at 43 countries and all of the states in the union, and published their assessment in June as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Shelter-in-place orders didn't save lives during the pandemic, research paper concludes
You may have missed the report. It has not received much coverage from the media, who must be busy with some incredibly important and hard-hitting story about Dr. Anthony Fauci or the first lady.
Let's remedy that oversight.
The RAND/USC team is unsparingly direct: "[W]e fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases."
So, the lockdowns didn't reduce the number of deaths, failed to prevent any excess deaths, and in fact resulted in increased deaths.
Additionally, countries that locked their citizens in their homes were experiencing declining — not increasing — excess mortality prior to lockdowns. In other words, lockdowns probably made the situation worse.
The researchers were again direct. "If SIP were implemented when excess deaths were rising then the results … would be biased towards finding that SIP policies lead to excess deaths. However, we find the opposite: countries that implemented SIP policies experienced a decline in excess mortality prior to implementation compared to countries that did not implement SIP policies."
Moreover, unless you lived on an island, it did not seem to make any difference when the lockdowns were implemented. They were ineffectual at best and led to increased mortality at worst.
From the study: "It is also possible that the average effects in our event studies might hide heterogeneity (differences) in the impact of policies across countries and U.S. states. For example, SIP policies might be more effective when implemented early in the pandemic or SIP policies might work better when community transmission is high. … Overall, we find little evidence of heterogenous effects except that SIP policies seem to be more effective in island nations or … Hawaii."
Finally, there was no advantage to locking down early or staying locked down longer. The researchers noted: "We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies."
So, the duration of the lockdowns made no difference.
The simple fact is that COVID-19 was and is a highly infectious respiratory disease to which everyone is eventually going be exposed either naturally or through vaccines. The disease tends to kill older people and those with preexisting respiratory challenges or who are obese.
The RAND/USC study makes it clear that all the lockdowns accomplished was to add personal, psychological and economic devastation to the terrible personal and societal toll of illness and death.
Everyone involved — from President Trump and his public health advisers who initiated the first lockdown (remember "15 days to slow the spread"), right on through to those who continue to insist that isolation for everyone, even those not at risk, is the correct course of action — share the blame.
But all of us share the consequences.
See you tomorrow bli neder. today is the fast of Tish A'bov