The Worst Of the Tragedies At Charlie Hebdo

Read the articles and do more research, and the worst of the tragedies at "Charlie Hebdo" will become very clear to you: a Holocaust survivor was the direct target of those who murdered 12, injured 11, and affected many others at "Charlie Hebdo". A survivor of the Nazi invasions into French Tunisia, Georges Wolinski (ז''ל והי''ד) moved to mainland France only to live into his 70s and avoid the fate that he could've had in what became a part of Vichy France. He was also the son of a Volyn'ska-rooted Yehudi Ashkenazi  and a Tunis-rooted Yehudit Mizrachit.

Wasn't that his paternal family endured horrors, including pogroms, at the hands of Imperial and Soviet Russia enough? Wasn't that has maternal family endured centuries of Anti-Semitic Arabocentrism enough (and he was a teen during the aliyot from Arab countries in 1948!)? Now he, also a son of survivors of Anti Semitism, became the victim of the Anti Semitism that he and his family were able to elude when Germany and the "Grand" Mufti (more like a "Satan Gadol") invaded one of the countries in which his maternal family had endured enough Anti Semitism, and to which his paternal family fled to escape Anti Semitism.

That, either an irony or a paradox created by G-d, is the worst tragedy at "Charlie Hebdo".

PS Vive le peuple de Yisra'el!

Public OpinionPoll Results

Speaking Of Stereotypes...

I had to deal with, quite frankly, slander against me because I pointed out that the policepersons who saluted their murdered colleagues had Black men among them. As I told her:

To assume that I put Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the same category is wrong. Also, I've even gone out of my way to support certain politicians because they are Black (e.g., Charles Lollar and Pinkston Harris. I'm glad that Larry Hogan has a Black Lieutenant Governor, Boyd Rutherford). I don't like the WASP and WEC mentality that some in the GOP have held for years. I come from Jewish families on both sides even (long story), and I've defended the Lemba Jews and Falasha Mura. As an Ashkenazi Jew from Crypto-Jewish families, I could easily back off and not defend the Lemba (who were slandered in a bogus study by an Indian oceanographer who claims that the CMH type that they have is not a kohen one). You can't assume, then, that I have contempt for Blacks.

I suppose, then, that I was stereotyped as much as she alleges that I stereotype Blacks.

To Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz At HaKotel b'Yerushalayim

Rabbi Rabinowitz,

Think of the song "Light One Candle". Part of the song goes, "Don't let the light go out; it's lasted for so many years." So have our people, 'Am Yisra'el, Ha'Or L'Goyim. We have lasted for millennia, ever since Yitzchak was conceived and born; and then Yitzchak conceived and had born to him two sons of his own, one of whom became Ya'akov Avinu.

Without Imoteinu, our coming forth and longevity as a people would have been impossible. Without achoteinu, habanot imoteinu, none of acheinu would have been able to conceive and have born to them successive dorot m'Yisra'el. Without further dorot m'Yisra'el, we would've died out as an 'am.

Therefore, your banning of HaNashot HaKotel is a chillul HaShem and a chillul zichronot ha'avot v'imahot. Even Ya'akov Avinu told even Imoteinu, "'Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; 3 and let us arise, and go up to Beth-el; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.'" (From Bereshit 35, JPS 1917) Why do you, then, put away achoteinu as Imoteinu put away their strange g-ds?

Please consider whether to put away achoteinu, habanot Imoteinu, like Imoteinu put away strange g-ds is an avodah tovah. If it is an avodah tovah, then to have put away Imoteinu would have been tov, would it not have been?

Toda v'Chanukkah Tovah.

One Twitter Trend Which I Particularly Despise

Now I'm really beginning to resent that #followforfollow trend. As I've said, I don't do it (I follow who I want to follow); and I really resent those who unfollow me when I didn't even solicit their follow in the first place. They act like I played that follow-for-follow game and/or they usually unfollow me without even an explanation or a hint as to why.

I've had at least four people do it (I say "four" because four specific ones initially were on or came to the front of my mind.), and two of whom did so record. The one unfollowed me (today) pretty much as soon as he followed me (yesterday), and the other unfollowed me recently (as I found out). The two others unfollowed me a while ago.

Here's a trend for them (and others who treat other Tweeters as my unfollowers treated me): #unfollowforunfollow. 

Is "The Jerusalem Post" Ignoring History?

They apparently are. Then again, they may just be cutting it short. Still, isn't cutting off a part of history essentially ignoring it (at best)? (At worst, cutting off any part of history is either denial of it or even unspoken support of what happened at a point in it.).
Jeremy Sharon, the Post reporter who wrote the history in question, reported:

One of the most striking aspects of the 33rd Government of Israel was the absence of the two haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, from the coalition.
Since 1981, at least one of the haredi parties has been a coalition partner in 11 out of the 15 governments since that time.

Is he kidding?  Even though Shas was absent (or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had been deceased since October 7th of last year, which Sharon himself reported) and United Torah Judaism was absent, that doesn't make "the absence of the two haredi parties" (or any other Haredi party) a fact! On the contrary, the Haredim have always been in the government since then-PM David ben Gurion gave Agudat Yisra'el power.
All one constituency needs is an umbrella or big-tent party to be in its government, and that constituency is there for as long as the party is there. In this case, Agudat Yisra'el has been in HaMemshalah Yisra'el since before the "Declaration of Establishment" was written.
Therefore, for Jeremy Sharon and The Jerusalem Post to claim that the Haredim were missing from even one of the Israeli regimes, let alone four, is dishonest and (at best) sloppy or even (at worst) yellow journalism.
How would it be yellow journalism? For starters, yellow journalism itself

was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.

Therefore, to claim a Haredi absence is yellow journalism in its own sense. To state that "the two haredi parties" were absent is sensationalistically acting like the Haredim were entirely absent, after all.
Besides, Jeremy Sharon also noted that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had appointed an heir∗:

Roi Lachmanovitz, a former Shas spokesman, said that the designation of Moshe as inheritor, in particular of the rabbi’s library and publishing rights, gives him increased influence within the Shas party and the Yosef family.
Lachmanovitz noted that it had been Yosef’s other sons who had been chosen for public roles. Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef was nominated by Yosef himself, before he died, to be the new Sephardi chief rabbi, and Rabbi David Yosef was appointed to the Shas Council of Torah Sages after the rabbi passed away.
“Moshe and his wife are returning to the center stage, because whoever has control of the books and library... can direct the [haredi] public, can tell the public what the rabbi meant. They will have increased status because of this,” he said.

In conclusion, Jeremy Sharon cut off 34-67 years of history (34 years counting from 1947-1981; 67 counting from June 1947-2014) and submitted a yellow-journalism article for The Jerusalem Post to print and publish (and apparently fell for his own revisionism).

Update (10:54:45 PM EST on December 8, 2014): Now here comes the "Told ya."

Here's Looking At You, Dad...And Pop-Pop, And Great-Granddad, And Whoever Else

This, again, is where the mixed feelings come in. I am staring at a picture of a notable actor. I am staring at a picture of a relative (I'm not joking. I said that "Danilovich" was a patronymic in his case. Then I saw the pictures, and I knew who Pop-Pop pretty much looked like. Right now, I see maybe who Dad will look like down the road.). I am also staring at a picture of the guy who raped Natalie Wood and murdered Jean Spangler.

What do you do when you know that your family wreaked havoc on the world and yet had some of the most-influential people come out from among them? Even my granddad, one of the three IRS Agents who served tax papers to Richard Nixon, came from the Daniloviches.

A long time ago, my aunt Mary (z"l) told me of the following exchange at a funeral:

*Fist slams on table* "Do you know what that Jack Czarnecki did today?"
"That's my father."
"Oh...I'm so sorry."
"No; it's okay—I agree with you.

And this coming on the day before the anniversary of Great-Granddad's suicide...




What the heck have we done?

My father's current wife with her late in-law father on her and my father's wedding day. She put this picture up after he passed away.

On the Rusnak Family Reunion Page. My dad is behind his wife and her daughter. The Rusnaks are another story, too, by the way; I'll just leave my description at that for right now.

And the mistaken obituary will be published for real soon. I guarantee you that. I guarantee you that since God finally did in Jack Czarnecki (and I have never backtracked from saying that), He will do in Kirk Douglas. Here's hoping, too, that Lana Wood can finally name her sister's rapist.

That shouldn't be said about a relative (ideally at least), although truth outweighs family loyalty—and in the end, might save the family in at least the next few generations. I know that the truth saved my generation (at least me and my sister), and I hope that'll it save the ones to come (for all sides of the Danilovich Family, too, might I add; not just "Katarzyna" Danilówiczowna Czerniecka's side, and certainly not just Kirk Douglas' side).

As an in-law Danilovich (my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki) told my Aunt Mary, "I want to talk about it." That's exactly what I myself intend to do as a Danilovich and as a human being, so that I don't see my family wrecked again or wrecking the world again—and so that many other families won't wreck themselves or the world again.

With 2014 and 5774 Almost Over...

A lot is already over and becoming over for me:

1. Right now, it's December 1, 2014 and Kislev 7, 5774. So, both the current Gregorian and Biblical years are almost over.
2. My Reilly just turned eight months old on November 25, 2014. So, her puppyhood is almost over. (I'm crying right now. Where has the time gone?)
3. The Kittleman campaign is over.
4. My chances at talking once more to some relatives are over. Granduncle Tony (z"l) died on July 31, 2014; and Grandaunt Bern died on November 20, 2014 (z"l). May I see them both at HaTechiyat HaMetim (Even though Mashiach seems to tarry, I wait for Him and hasten His Second Coming, as well as His return after the Tribulation. May Reilly and I be Raptured together, by the way; whether both of us are living or dead, or one of us is living or dead.).

There's also a lot of other times, matters, chances, etc. that are over for me. By the way, there is Scriptural proof that animals do have souls, although they have different kinds of souls. They either go into soul sleep, since their souls go down, or they wait in Abraham's Bosom (where hakedoshim had to wait until Mashiach died, rose, and conquered death) and certainly do not go up for judgement, since they can't reason like humans can.). Incidentally, someone on the Jews For Jesus forums along time ago pointed out that animals have souls per Bereshit 1; and I think that, that was a part of what got me eventually wondering if animals do actually have souls, and finding that (unlike plants), animals do have souls. Those who take the Jewishness out of Christianity (Nazarene/Messianic Judaism) and/or don't read Tanakh for what it is conclude that animals have no souls at all.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go give Reilly extra scritches.