A Modern Rendition of The Little Red Hen

The idea for this blog struck me last night, when I was reading the original story to my nephew. It occurred to me that such a book would never fly in mainstream circles nowadays, and I endeavored to write a more up to date version. I was somewhat disappointed to discover that it had already been done by an unknown author, and done quite well, but decided to share it with my readers anyway:

MODERN VERSION

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat.

She called her neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a public high school graduate and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.

But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat some and sell the rest."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights! Or, I'll Call The ACLU" yelled the goose.

"We'll sue", yelled the pig, "a biased judge without the proper constitutional oath will see it our way." And they painted "unfair" and "selfish" on their picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That is the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful. I am grateful."

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

CLASSIC VERSION

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who lived in a big farm-yard.
She had three fluffy yellow chicks.
One morning as they were busily scratching about the yard, looking for something to eat, the little red hen found a grain of wheat.

"Look!" she said.
"See what I have found. Who will help me to plant this grain of wheat?"

"Not I," said the duck. "I must go down to the pond for a swim."
"Not I," said the cat. "I have some visitors coming in a few minutes."

"Very well, I will then", said the little red hen, and she did.

After a while some weeds appeared among the stalks of wheat.
One day the little red hen asked:
"Who will help me to weed this wheat?"

"Not I," said the duck. "That sort of work doesn't agree with me."
"Not I", said the cat. "I would not be able to tell the weeds from the wheat".

"Very well, I will then", said the little red hen, and she did.

After a while the wheat began to ripen:
"What fine wheat we have," said the cat and the duck.
"Yes, indeed, it is time to reap the wheat," said the little red hen. "Who will help me to reap this wheat?"

"Not I", said the cat.
"Not I", said the duck.

"Very well, then I will", said the little red hen.

She cut the heads off the grain very carefully and put them in a bag.

Then she called to the cat and the duck and she asked, "Now, who will take this wheat to the mill to be ground into flour?"
"Not I", said the duck.
"Not I", said the cat.

"Very well, then", said the little red hen, "I will take it myself".

So the little red hen trudged off to the mill, and in a few hours she was back with a sack of fine flour.

"Now, who is going to make this flour into bread?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I", said the duck.
"Not I", said the cat.

"I will, then," said the little red hen, and she did.

Soon the loaf was ready for the oven.

"Now, who is going to bake this bread?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I", said the cat.
"Not I", said the duck.

"Very well, then", said the little red hen. "I will do it".

So the loaf of bread was baked and it was baked, and it was beautiful, golden and crusty. The little red hen put it on the kitchen table, and the cat and the duck came into the house and looked at it longingly.

"Well now, who is going to eat this loaf of bread?" asked the little red hen.

"I will", said the duck quickly.
"I will", said the cat stepping close.

"Oh, no, you won't", said the little red hen. "I am going to eat it myself".

Then she called her little chicks together, and they ate the whole loaf of bread. Not a crumb was left for the duck and the cat.

It's "You Should Go Mi'chayil L'Chayil", Not "Mi'Chayal L'Chayal"! Continued

It's hard not to notice that women of all ages and nationalities seem drawn to the apparently irresistible allure of a man in uniform.  Considering the ill-fitting form and the nauseating color of Tzahal uniforms, I don't think this is about the uniform itself, but rather about what it represents.

As I see it, the most frightening and risky thing about a romantic attachment is the fear of casting your lot in with an independent entity who, like you, has bechira chofshis and can make whatever decisions they fancy.  It is difficult to escape that nagging doubt in the back of your mind that you may not fully know this person with whom you are aligning yourself, and that one day there may arise a situation that you haven't discussed at which point they will behave in a manner contrary to your desires.  What's more, when they do so, what recourse do you have? You can attempt to convince them that your view is correct, but what happens when this fails?  What can you appeal to if you each view a situation completely differently?

This is particularly so for a wife, who often gives up her career and financial independence, relying on her husband to support her and their family, and will even pick up and move halfway around the world to follow her new husband.  It must be terrifying to be subject to the capricious whims of a man you barely know.

However, a woman who marries a man in uniform has a safety net that your average woman doesn't.  She knows that her husband answers to a higher authority (with apologies to Hebrew National).  In a disagreement, it doesn't end up being him versus her, she is able to turn to the higher authority that she knows he respects and has accepted, the military code of honor.

A uniform is an inescapable statement of values.  On a certain level, a man in uniform is announcing to the world that he stands for honor, commitment, integrity, industriousness, courage, and reliability.  He is bound by a code.  Nine times out of ten I can predict the way that my friends in uniform will behave in a certain situation.  And, if they don't live up to those ideals that their uniform represents, all it takes is a quiet reminder that they are failing to live up to the standards which they took upon themsevles when they donned the uniform for the first time.

Which brings us to the question of the avot and imahot.  What was it about Yaakov that caused Rachel to return the love of, and be willing to marry, a complete stranger?  Granted he rolled the stone off of the well, an impressive display of strength for an ish tam yoshev ohalim, but there must have been something more.  Well...he does kiss her.  A part no doubt skipped over in many schools.  But, the interesting thing to note is that the word used for kiss "vayishak" is identical to the word used in the previous pasuk to describe Yaakov watering the flock of sheep, "vayashk".  So the kiss, is actually a form of watering.  And, ayn mayim elah Torah.  Chazal teach us that what was actually happening during this "kiss" was Yaakov showing Rachel his uniform.  He laid out for her the system by which he lived his life, the Torah.  By the end of this conversation, she knew exactly how he would respond/behave in every important situation in his life.  And, she knew that should he ever fall short, she could always rely on this external authority being the ultimate guide in their marriage.

Similarly with Rivkah and Yitzchak.  What convinced this young girl to travel far from her family to marry a man she had never met?  When Eliezer was giving Rivkah gifts, he gives her two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels.  As if this isn't a blatant enough hint, Rashi jumps in to inform us that this symbolizes the two tablets with the aseres hadibros on them.  Just as in the later case with Yaakov, this was Eliezer conveying to Rivkah what her future husband's worldview was.  By the time he finished, Rivkah knew everything that she needed to know about Yitzchak.

I think that it is precisely this lack of an external authority, a situation championed by such reprobates as Rousseau, that has contributed to the poor state of marriage today.  When each spouse believes that their happiness and fulfillment is the ultimate goal of marriage, and their whims and beliefs take precedence over any other, it is a recipe for disaster.  

My berachah to each of my blog readers is that they should strive to find spouses who proudly wear and live up to the uniform of Torah.

Save the Pandas, Kill a Panda

In the last decade of the 20^th century, Kenya’s elephant population fell from 100,000 to 26,000, mainly due to poachers eager to sell the elephant’s ivory tusks.  Zimbabwe, on the other hand, saw its elephant population soar from 48,000 to 67,000 over the same period.  What could possibly account for such a remarkable disparity?  Well, it’s quite simple really.  You see, in one of the countries, the sale of ivory was illegal during this period, while in the other it was legal.  But you’d be quite wrong if you guessed that Kenya was the country in which ivory sales were legal.

I have very little positive to say about Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, who I believe is a racist thug who is responsible for, in the words of The Economist, “the most dramatic peacetime collapse of any country since Weimar Germany", but this may be the one thing that the socialist murderer got right.

Zimbabwe introduced a program called the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) which transferred ownership of the country’s elephants to twenty-four tribal villages on whose land the elephants roamed.  According to Zimbabwe’s Department of Wildlife, following this action the elephant population grew by 5 percent a year, close to the 7 percent maximum reproduction rate for the species.  Today, Zimbabwe faces the challenge of having too many elephants, 5,000 more than the country’s land can sustain.

What is behind the success of this program? Simple, capitalistic, economic self-interest.  Prior to the program, the elephants were pests.  At best the villagers turned a blind eye to poaching, at worst they actively participated.  But, once they had a vested interest in the elephants, they started actively protecting the herds from poachers (many of whom were subsequently hired by the villagers to protect the elephants from other poachers), culling them to prevent starvation caused by overpopulation, and taking all means necessary to ensure that their investment continues to produce ivory and profits.  Poaching dropped by over 90 percent.

A World-Wide Fund for Nature report estimates that CAMPFIRE has increased household income in rural Zimbabwe by 15 to 25 per cent. Wildlife conservation and husbanding is now the principal source of cash for rural communities such as Tsholotsho on the southern boundary of Hwange National Park. No indigenous species has become extinct in Zimbabwe: indeed, populations are stable or growing.

As a result of the CAMPFIRE initiative, Zimbabwean villagers have dug water-holes and arranged food deliveries for elephants in times of drought (a truly remarkable turn-around from the days when elephants were regarded as a dangerous nuisance). They have also reduced tree cutting and annual burning of grazing lands to assist in wildlife management; and instead of just shooting or trapping wild animals to protect themselves, they have erected solar-powered electric fences to protect agricultural land and villages. Locals are trained as game wardens, scouts and tourist guides and assist in local wildlife management.

Money from tourism and trophy hunting is used to pay compensation to local people whose livestock or crops are damaged by wildlife. Earnings are also directed towards building basic village infrastructure such as irrigation systems, mills, schools and hospitals. (http://www.adamsmith.org/80ideas/idea/77.htm)

It’s really quite simple economics, when people buy ivory products they confer a value on elephant herds which leads to an incentive for villagers to ensure the continued survival of elephants.  In addition to the ivory sales, Zimbabwe also makes a tremendous amount of money selling permits to big game hunters who want to bag an elephant.  If this concept is still difficult to grasp, imagine what effect the outlawing of meat consumption would have on the cow population in the United States. It would practically disappear overnight.

By way of contrast, Kenya outlawed the sale of ivory. When the ivory trade was banned, a massive black market was spawned driving up the price of ivory from $200/kg to as much as $2,000/kg. This, naturally, created a huge incentive for poachers. The government employed rangers, with no real incentive to protect the elephants, have proven no match for the poachers.

One of the great success stories of privatization in the United States, which deserves a blog piece of its own, is the turnaround of Bryant Park in NYC from a squalid, dangerous place in the early 1980s to the gorgeous park that it is today.  Since 1996 it hasn’t accepted a single dollar of government money.  The idea is simple, if everyone owns something, no one owns it.  If you need more convincing, compare the state of public restrooms to those found in office buildings or malls.

In truth, the best thing that could happen to an endangered species is for private ownership to be legalized and some economic worth attributed to it.  Perhaps it’s time to start spreading rumors of the rejuvenative effects of Panda sweat.

Emerald City Up In Arms

Way up in the Pacific Northwest, in the most beautiful corner of the United States, members of the Seattle Jewish community are outraged over a new advertising campaign plastering the ad pictured above on the sides of city buses.  The ad text reads "Israeli War Crimes. Your Tax Dollars At Work." and features a picture of young Palestinian children staring at what appears to be the rubble of a destroyed home.  E-mail campaigns have been burning up the web, calling for Jews to write to King County politicians and protest the advertisements.  The Anti-Defamation League quickly came out with a statement: 

“We’re dismayed,” says Community Director Hilary Bernstein, who calls the bus-born advertisement grotesquely one-sided. “Citizens young and old will be seeing this sort of propaganda, this very one-sided distortion. It’s unfortunate.”

When I first became aware of the issue, I have to admit that my instinctive feeling was that, in this case, those who are calling for the cancellation of the campaign are well-intentioned but misguided.  While I believe that the First Amendment has been stretched to extremes that the founding fathers never intended, I think that this is a legitimate case of members of an organization exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.  In the immortal words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire, although she was summarizing his views), "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Those well-meaning e-mail campaigns should instead be directed towards raising money to run a series of ads countering these ads and the "one-sided distortion" that they represent.  Welcome to the marketplace of ideas!

As I thought about the issue, however, I wondered what the response of the metro authority would be to an organization wanting to run a series of ads saying "Homosexuality is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22" or "Islam: Making Terrorists since 610AD." Would they still proudly defend the First Amendment, or would they deem these subjects to be too offensive?  Once they claim the right to make that judgment of what is acceptable, then citizens can rightly ask to have a voice in that evaluation since the bus company is not private.

However, as I looked into the matter further, I found that King County has specific guidelines regarding what can or cannot be placed on the sides of its buses, specifically:

• Pornography
• Alcohol
• Tobacco, and
• As long as the images and material used don't interfere with public safety or insult specific groups to the point that a riot could be incited, vandalism could occur or public safety could be threatened.

Looking at the last point, I think that there is a clear distinction between the Israel ads which protest foreign aid to a country committing, what they claim to be, war crimes, and between the ads that I suggested, both of which could be construed to target a specific, domestic group leading to the incitement of a riot, etc.

And so, I've arrived back at my original viewpoint, leading me to once again share George Bernard Shaw's feelings that, "The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." ;)

I would love to hear other people's opinions on the matter though, so please share.

Lunar Eclipse, American Jewish History, and Menasheh Ben Israel

Tonight, those daring enough to stay up into the early morning will get to witness a total lunar eclipse.  This particular one happens to coincide with the winter solstice, the longest day of the year.  From here on out, days start getting longer once more and Shabbos starts getting later.

The last time winter solstice coincided with a total lunar eclipse was in the year 1638.  This was the year that the Catholic Church in Recife, Brazil closed the two shuls in existence there.  You may not be familiar with Recife, but the 23 Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam (NYC) in September 1654, becoming the first group of Jews to set foot on American soil, embarked from that very community.  Recife, the first organized Jewish community in the western hemisphere, attracted such notable Jews as the brother-in-law of Menasheh ben Israel A”H, who himself seriously considered moving there.

Menasheh ben Israel, descendant of the Abarbanel and author of the classic Nishmat Chaim, was a fascinating character.  A close friend of the Queen of Sweden, Hugo Grotius (Dutch statesmen and philosopher), and Rembrandt, his portrait, painted by the great Rembrandt, still hangs in the British Museum.  His father, a Marrano Jew fleeing the Portuguese inquisition, escaped to Amsterdam, took the name Joseph ben Israel, and named his sons Ephraim and Menasheh, a fitting point considering that we just finished Vayechi.  Menasheh ben Israel is also known for petitioning Oliver Cromwell to allow Jews to return to England.  They had been expelled in the year 1290.  Cromwell, influenced greatly by ben Israel who he admired and befriended, readmitted Jews in 1656.

A small scallop of darkness will begin to appear on the moon's left edge at 6:33 UT (on Dec. 21) corresponding to 1:33 a.m. EST or 10:33 p.m. PST (on Dec. 20). 

The moon is expected to take 3 hours and 28 minutes to pass completely through the umbra.

The total phase of the eclipse will last 72 minutes beginning at 7:41 UT (on Dec. 21), corresponding to 2:41 a.m. EST or 11:41 p.m. PST (on Dec. 20). 

At the moment of mid-totality (8:17 UT/3:17 a.m. EST/12:17 a.m. PST), the moon will stand directly overhead from a point in the North Pacific Ocean about 800 miles (1,300 km) west of La Paz, Mexico.

The moon will pass entirely out of the Earth's umbra at 10:01 UT/5:01 a.m. EST/2:01 a.m. PST and the last evidence of the penumbra should vanish about 15 or 20 minutes later.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/20/total-lunar-eclipse-monday-night/#ixzz18h713sTv

Busy As A Beaver

This is an excellent, short BBC clip on beavers: http://wimp.com/beaverlodge/

The gemara in Eruvin (100b) says that had the Torah not been given we would have learned modesty from cats, honesty from ants, monogamy from doves, etc.  What do you think is the lesson we're supposed to take from the beaver?  There are plenty of other animals who work as hard as the beaver, ants being one example that readily comes to mind.  So, as cliche as "busy as a beaver" is, I'd have to reject that as the solution.  But, beavers are the only animals that I can think of who build and extend their natural habitat, water.  And, as chazal say in Bava Kama, ein mayim elah Torah....thoughts?

It's "You Should Go Mi'chayil L'Chayil", Not "Mi'Chayal L'Chayal"!

Why is it that women seem drawn to a man in uniform? And how can you harness that very same force of attraction to prove as irresistible to women as Yaakov was to Rachel, and as Yitzchak was to Rifkah (yes, this Torah technique works even long-distance)? And ladies, what "uniform" should you really be looking for in a man?

Stay tuned!

I'm Looking For a Spouse, Not an Employee

Resumes. I recently received one which did not inform me what the young lady in question is currently doing with her life, whether she's an introvert or an extrovert, whether she wants to work or stay at home, or whether aliyah is in her future...but, Baruch Hashem, I can inform you that she attended all of the right camps as a pre-adolescent, and her brother's mechutanim's cousin happens to be a dayan in Lakewood. Book the wedding hall!!

My frustrations at receiving these bland, uninformative, pathetic attempts to capture a person's essence in one page are insignificant compared to the tremendous degradation that these girls are undergoing. Forcing a bas melech to describe herself in a page is akin to insisting that someone describe a sunset in ten words or less. If done, it is a paltry substitute and a sorely lacking description of something which cannot be captured in words. Al achas kama v'kama for a person created b'tzelem Elokim.

Granted, many shadchanim whom I've spoken with say that they can't stand the resume system. But, as they tell me, what other options do we have? Seeing as how my mind is currently preoccupied with the Krebs Cycle and the first perek of Kiddushin, I'm unable to tackle this dilemma as of this moment. But, I have a great idea. Why don't we temporarily reassign the focus of the "Chumra of the Month Club"? If anyone can come up with a unique, brilliant solution to this deplorable situation, it is those geniuses who brought us such pearls as the Indian sheitel crisis, the ban on salmon, the ban on NYC drinking water, the electric shaver ban, and my personal favorite the demonization of denim. It is their capacity for re-examining things, which have stood unquestioned for generations, and plucking a problem from thin air, resting on a foundation of twisted logic and sold with a healthy helping of false-piety and fear which will solve the resume crisis! So scatter to your respective kiddush clubs and task these pretentious progressives with their new mission!

At the very least, don't you think it is time for young men and women to inform shadchanim that we're looking for spouses not employees?

The Shadchan's Dictionary

I've compiled this dictionary as an aid to assist you in understanding your local shadchan. Please feel free to submit new definitions.

Active: Once ran or walked a tzedakah 3k. A 5k if preceded by "very".
Ba'alei Tzedakah: Generally applied to the family, wealthy. Warning: The greater "ba'alei tzedakah" the family are, the less likely it is that the match is suited for you and the more likely it is that the shadchan is engaging in shotgun shadchanus aimed at the shadchanus gelt.
Ben Torah: No criminal record.
Best Boy in Yeshiva: He attends, or once attended, a yeshiva; he's male.
Brilliant: Of average intelligence.
Bright: Capable of dressing themselves.
Easy To Talk To: Was unable to get a word in edgewise while on phone with shadchan.
Easygoing: Utter lack of personality and opinions.
Generous: See "Ba'alei Tzedakah" or "Active"
Good Looking: No glaringly obvious physical deformities (e.g. cleft palate, hunchback, cyclopia, etc.)
Gorgeous: 1) Shadchan is a relative, see "Good looking". 2) Legitimately pretty
Growth Oriented: Generally refers to waist size.
Heimish: If male, wears white socks with a suit. If female, wears white socks with heels.
Honest: Has absolutely no future as a shadchan.
Mature: Dealt with shadchan directly instead of through parents.
Modest: For good reason.
Outgoing: Has at least the one friend that was listed as a reference.
Popular: See "Outgoing"
Pretty: See "Good Looking"
Simchas Hachayim: Smiled at shadchan.
Thinker: See "Tzanuah"
Tzanuah: Having a conversation with them will be like pulling teeth.
Warm: 98.6° core temperature.
Warm family: See "warm"