Keep on playing!

Dave Brubeck first stepped to the microphone to make a small correction in the program. Instead of being 83 as listed, he was actually 87 and joked, "how time doesn't fly." Later he displayed some more of his humor describing how he wrote the song "London Sharps, London Flats" and dedicated it to his manager after a particularly difficult European tour:

You'll notice how my right hand goes up the keyboard on the sharps and my left one goes down on the flats.

It sounds terrible.

On purpose.

Of course it didn't sound that bad. Actually I hope I can play the piano that well when I'm 87.

Ramsey Lewis may not be as familiar, but is well known for jazz arrangements of other songs. Perhaps the most recognizable piece being a cover of Dobie Gray's "The In Crowd," but he also included a jazz cover of the Beatles' In My Life.
While Dave Brubeck's pieces played with chord structures and time signatures Ramsey Lewis' music more more rhythmic incorporating jazz, blues, gospel, and even a calypso riff.

Anyway, with everything else that's been going on this week, the timing (so to speak) couldn't have been better.

On the other hand, observing apparent instances of hashgacha immediately can have a profound effect on our outlook. Case in point, earlier today I had an appointment at 5:00 PM on the Upper West Side. On a normal Wednesday I would need to rush out of the downtown office, and depending on how well the 1 and 2/3 trains synch up, barely make it in time. But today, having more time on my hands than usual, I decided to head down earlier than usual and read outside on one of the benches in the middle of the pedestrian islands on Broadway. As I sat down to open the book¹ I noticed an elderly woman physically struggling with a younger person who seemed to be trying to help the older one. The exasperated younger woman explained that elder one had a history of dementia and tried to cross the street against the light to get away from her and asked for help in trying to get her to sit down on the bench.

Initially I just tried to diffuse the situation by talking to the elder woman, and eventually did get her to sit down though she was still very distraught. But as I was sorting out things with her aide, she said three very familiar words: "ata medaber ivrit?" As it turns out she was Israeli, initially from Tel Aviv, and a whole lot more lucid when conversing in Hebrew. Without getting into the details I spoke to her in Hebrew, calmed her down, and despite her claims of being completely fine, convinced her to go with the medics to Mt. Sinai hospital.²

While I have no idea what would have happened if I hadn't been there, I do realize that had I not been laid off I wouldn't have been there to help both her and her aide.

And the great thing is that this story of hashgacha is just beginning.

1. In an amusing irony, the book I was reading was The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.
2. She wanted me to come with her, and I might have if I didn't have the appointment (which I made with one minute to spare...again).

While the result is similar to being fired, my current circumstances are really not as severe all things considered other than looking for another job. It was a good run at JPMC - I may be applying to other positions there - and I'm looking forward to resetting priorities and approaching the next challenges and opportunities.

In the meantime, I'm brushing up computer and Rabbinic resumes and hope to use the time productively. Of course any leads would be greatly appreciated...

The discerning reader will notice differences between Haham Faur's, my father's, and my own writings (aside from the drastic dropoff in scholarship and sophistication as found on this blog). What was transmitted to me at least was more of a system of thought which could then be applied elsewhere, but will differ based on individual experiences.

Enjoy!

The Jewish Week reports the "breaking news" that R. Hershel Schachter has once again made irresponsible and controversial statements. From a YouTube clip taken at Yeshiva Hakotel R. Schachter was to have said:

First you have to know what the army is going to do. If the army is going to destroy Gush Katif, there's no mitzvah to destroy Eretz Yisrael...If the army is going to give away Yerushalyim [Jerusalem], then I would tell everyone to resign from the army - I'd tell them to shoot the Rosh Hamemshalah [Prime Minister]," which prompted laughter from his audience...No one should go to the army if they [the army] are doing aveirus [sins]...We're talking if the army is seeing to it that the country is secure, if they're doing the right thing. I'm not sure if the army is doing the right thing...we have to look into that.

This is not the first time R. Schachter has made controversial or irresponsible statements, but rather one in a pattern of such remarks which leads us to the question of the viability of his Rabbinic leadership.

But while the laws in Rambam are usually straightforward, the laws of yehareg v'al ya'avor have several qualifiers and criteria to evaluate, to the point that it became difficult to keep track of all of them in proper sequence. Being the computer geek that I am, I figured that pseudocode could come in handy. The following snippet assumes the functions do(); which entails preforming the sin in question and die(); means to allow oneself to be killed. It's not necessarily the most efficient code mind you, but I'm going for maintainability.¹

big3[] = {murder, idolatry, illicitSexualRelations};

if (governmentDecree == true){
    die();
}
else {
    if (big3[].contains(sin)){
        die();
    }
    else{
        if (nonJewBenefits == true){
            do();
        }
        else if (numJews < 10){
            do();
        }
        else {
            die();
        }
    }
}



There, that should make everything perfectly clear.

Update: Seth Berger contributes the following optimized code:


if( (!governmentDecree || !big3[].contains(sin)) && ( nonJewBenefits || numJews < 10)) {
    do();
}
else {die();}



Update 2: Reuven Weiser corrects Seth's optimization since in Seth's code a non-big 3 sin could still result in do(); if a non Jew benefits. This is incorrect and should rather be:
if( (!governmentDecree && !big3[].contains(sin)) && ( nonJewBenefits || numJews < 10)) {
    do();
}
else {die();}

This sort of confusion often comes up with too much negative logic. We can flip things around to create a slightly more readable optimization:

if ( (governmentDecree || big3[].contains(sin)) || (!nonJewBenefits && numJews >10)){
    die();
else {do();}


1. For Brisker's, of course

I'll leave the actual football discussion to those more qualified, but I did notice three trends with how people relate to the game. The first trend is historical revisionism and occurs when the media completely rewrites the narrative depending on the outcome. Had Plaxico Buress not made the deciding catch, we would be talking about Wes Welker's inspired performance, how Brady's ankle was a non-story, and how Randy Moss made the difference in the game and achieved redemption. Many football games are decided on one play at the end of the game, and yet that microcosm of football will retroactively influence all which preceded it. This is of course most convenient for media writers who are expected to churn out "analysis" on a moment's notice and likely have two versions of the game written up, and will be ready with either narrative regardless of the outcome.²

Given that sports media rarely have opportunity (or capacity) for insight, talking heads will often resort to glib clichés. One such example is the post-game assertion that the winning team "wanted it more." This is nonsense for two reasons. First, in high-profile games such as the Superbowl, it is safe to assume that both teams desire victory. It's the Superbowl after all! One caller to WFAN similarly opined before the Giants/Dallas playoff game that the winner would be "who wants it more." The host correctly responded that it's the playoffs! Everyone wants to win in the playoffs! Secondly, the assumption is that mere desire wins games, not the ability to execute plays.³ Did Plaxico Burress want to win more than Wes Welker? Tom Brady more than Eli Manning? Jason Tuck more than Teddy Bruschi? Tom Coughlin more than Bill Billicheck? Equating after-the-fact results with desire is disrespectful to the effort of both teams.

Finally, I noticed a gender-based clichés in how men and women approach the game. Naturally the men were more into the game, but were clearly focused on the seriousness of each play and how it would effect the outcome. By the end of the game we were joking that according to our conversations were at least seven "biggest plays of the game right here." On the flip side, the hostess had a less-competitive approach to the game, saying more than a few times, "regardless of who wins, this is a really good game." She gets credit for trying, the guys were having none of it, "no, it's about who wins."

Got any more of your own?

1. With few exceptions (the FedEx pigeon, the balloons, Carville/Frist, and the Terminator assaulting the irrationally irritating Fox Football Robot), this year's commercials were particularly depressing This is not surprising considering that Superbowl commercials have collectively declined in quality for several years. This trend started several years ago when the ads became more tongue-in-cheek postmodern self-referential satires of the institution of "Superbowl commercials." Think of the "we just wasted $1,000,000 on this ad" commercials or GoDaddy's commercial which referenced the previous year's commercial. Since advertisers went for snark and clever over funny there has been no going back to the glory days of talking frogs and Bud Bowl.
2. For an amusing example of such a hedge, see the Amazon page for 19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots which includes the following Amazon marketing line, "Buy this book with New York Giants: 2008 Super Bowl Champions by Sports Publishing today!"
3. Another in a long list of football clichés.

All this I can deal with, but then I get the following in the mail:

On the plus side I guess this means I can cash out on social security earlier and join one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country.

Now get off my lawn.

*waves stick*

Today's NYPost reports that the Manhattan DA's office is investigating fraud related to the demolition of the 9/11 damaged Deutsche Bank building. Thus far the demolition process has compounded tragedies from the worst of political bureaucracies to the fire which claimed the lives of two firefighters. WSJ's Daniel Henninger covered the negligence in detail.

But aside from the general risks of government waste, there were some more obvious red flags. As the NYPost reports:

The construction site's manager, Bovis Lend Lease Corp., which was contracted by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to oversee the entire $150 million project, retained the John Galt Company to demolish the building and remove hazardous materials from it.

The LMDC, which purchased the land and the building for $90 million, was under pressure to get the demolition moving because the building was slated to be replaced with a new structure and remained a bitter eyesore next to Ground Zero.

"They were in a bind and wanted it done," one of the sources said.

"They did not ask too many questions, and that may be why there was room for f- - -ing around."

As it turned out, Galt was little more than a corporate entity utilizing officials from two other companies working on the site: Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co., and Safeway Environmental Corp., which had its own questionable histories and little experience.[Emphasis added]

Readers of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will immediately recognize the name "John Galt" as one of the stories main characters. But since "John Galt" is a normal enough name and not as well known literarilly it would be easier to pass off than "Dumbledore and Associates" or "Hamlet Incorporated." But had anyone literate been paying attention, someone should have at least asked if it was a legitimate company. On the other hand, given the irony of The John Galt Company being instrumental in government waste and special interest pandering, it's possible the founders were just being postmodern.²

In either case, the lesson here is that liberal arts can be rewarding - either in identifying fraud, or apparently, perpetuating it pretentiously.

1. Excluding quiz shows.
2. It's possible they could have been referring to the Scottish novelist, but I find this reference more ironic.

I call one of them, "Brooklyn."

I can't really explain why I get so unnerved in Brooklyn. It could be the multi-million dollar mansions situated in anotherwise aesthetically depressed area, or the overwhelming particular Jewisness of the area one that can only be circularly defined as "Brooklyn."

Still, all fears must be confronted at some point so yesterday I joined my mother and grandparents on a little errand running excursion to Coney and J. The thinking was that while the rest of New York would be shut down - I can't remember crusing down the West Side Highway that quickly in midday - Brooklyn would be running along as usual. I didn't break out into hives or start convulsing, but there were definately some notable Brooklyn highlights:

• I was in Eichlers and overheard a father and mother (different families) with respective children recently engaged (not to each other) were comparing notes on wedding preperations (ketuvah, "backup tenaim," etc). In the course of their conversation, the woman complimented the man's tie. In the spirit of holiday, the man replied, "You like the tie? It's yours. I can get these for $5." and proceeded to take off his tie, puts it on the counter, and gives it to the dumbfounded woman.
• Waiting for my mother and grandmother in one of the Brooklyn dress shops, I noticed that the background music was not only sung by female, but the song was "White Christmas." I can excuse the vocalist because the only men who would enter the store would presumably already be beyond saving. But regarding the song choice, perhaps they consider it Jewish Music after all.
• Someone behind the counter of a pizza shop called over a teenager and asked him if he was new in town. The teen said yes and asked how he knew. The man said it was because he noticed that every time the teen got up from a table someone else came and took it, adding with a smile, "you've got to be more careful around here - don't be so trusting."
• And finally there was this priceless exchange at the same pizza store with an obviously appreciative customer:

  "God bless Christmas"
  "Yeah, only a Yid could pull this off."

You know, I may need to take Brooklyn off the list.

Maybe just for Christmas anyway.