Eliminating Readers' Comments

Our electronic media has its advantages along with its disadvantages.  Inviting readers to comment, even with a screener to approve what appears often enriches the original thoughts or moves them in a different direction but it can introduce some ugliness too.  Blog formats such as Medscape and KevinMD where my medical articles appear depend on input from specialized and interested readers who share some of the skills and experiences of the original articles.  They are moderated, at least until the responder is known by the editors not to be a troll, and are invariably polite even when expressing disapproval of what was published.

Major forums like CNN or big daily newspapers will get thousands of comments.  Once a critical number is passed, any being read becomes less likely while trolls getting through becomes nearly a certainty so editing may not be very important.

People may not like doctors as a group or their doctor specifically but medical care does not engender hate.  Political news does, perhaps even depends on some of it, religion can, which may be why the Freemasons devoted to brotherhood among members has banned these topics of discussion from their gatherings.

The Forward, the Jewish daily that now only has an electronic version to which I subscribe, sits at the intersection of Jewish identity, American political divisions, and Israel as a frequent flash point.  Many of their news and opinion pieces reflect top notch reporting and analysis, others seem more amateurish.  Irrespective of the individual writers' talents at expression, the subjects stand on their own.  They used to invite reader comments but recently eliminated this forum, even with mandatory approval of a moderator before appearing.  My input had been somewhat frequent, viewed by me as a perk for my annual subscription fee, though I almost never came back the next day to see if their editor approved what I had submitted.  That's probably because I really didn't care.  The purpose of that input was more for me to digest what I thought I had understood of the article or editorial, its implications, maybe possible future directions.  Influencing any other reader was not part of my personal expectation.  And if they eliminate that feature for everyone, it may be they didn't like the readers' feedback, other readers complained, or they frittered too much valuable editors' salaries reviewing the comments.  I don't feel slighted but do think they may have disinvited some readers who valued their own opportunities to contribute.

That feels very different from a temporary tact by David Harris, CEO of the American Jewish Committee, and fellow two years ahead of me in college.  He expresses his views on Israel and Anti-Semitism in many forums, including Twitter.  What he did, and apparently reversed, was set criteria of who met his importance standards for offering feedback to what he expressed.  Being a Nobody, I didn't, something I resented enough to Unfollow him for a few weeks in lieu of his more junior staff who would retweet the boss' positions.  Some of us value our place in the community of readers and very much resent being selectively declared Nobodies even when we are.

While I liked commenting on some of what The Forward brings to the Jewish arena of ideas, I don't feel deprived by this editorial decision on their part.  They have a Facebook presence which does not require a subscription fee and where trolls are part of the platform.  And I can always submit a more formal Letter to the Editor.

Who's Better Me or Nobody?

Zero usually starts both an ordinate and an abscissa, the point of comparison.  Right upper quadrant is fully positive, left lower quadrant doubly negative and the other two a mixed message, one given to me by my synagogue this past week.

There is a Presidentially appointed nominating committee.  The recycling of officers has done great harm, being reaped for several years, accentuated by wandering around our new shared space where the landlord seems to have their people more engaged with new ideas and initiatives.  We have experience, as the trademark of our VP's either 10 years experience or one year experience repeated 10 times.  But turnover is low and desire to give up the comfortable niche to become President even lower.

More striking though, has been two slots of the Board assigned to NOBODY in the current and prior slate.   They will claim that they cannot get people to accept, and as I've not been asked, I will take a safe assumption that in the wisdom of the President's trusted advisors, NOBODY would have more discernment as a person to advance the future of our congregation than I would.  NOBODY must be pretty good; he or she has two seats times two years, or four seats.  It would be interesting to take a poll at the Annual Meeting where the official election occurs to see who else the Nominating Committee acting in good faith blackballed, or judged less capable or valuable than NOBODY.  Doubt if I am the only one or if the virtual blackballing might even be received as a personal slight.  But it was.

There are indeed times when I am better than NOBODY.  Torah has to be read by not only SOMEBODY, but an adult male past Bar Mitzvah.  Knowing how to do it helps but technically is not required.  I do not know if NOBODY is an adult male past Bar Mitzvah.  I do know that if he is, he doesn 't know how to do it.  That makes me definitely better than NOBODY as a Torah reader, and this year as a Megillat Ruth reader.

And as Woody Allen taught us, 80% of life is showing up.  NOBODY has a way of not showing up.  I guess the Nominating Committee opted for the special 20%.

While I do not particularly like entering the building of our landlord, where a lot of my down experiences with organized Judaism occurred, I still take Ben Zoma's advice, trying to learn from all people.  They've done better with Kehillah development than we have and defining their purpose.  They once had machers who swooped on peons.  Now it looks like they have more targeted leadership that asks the question of who can help with their initiatives.  We have fallen behind and don't seem to want to seek out talent or evaluate individuals for what strengths they might bring.  We default to NOBODY.  NOBODY ever gives you a hard time or tilts the vote.  He or she doesn't contribute a lot of skill or insight either.

Judaism's Gospel of Wealth

As a high schooler, I received an assignment in history class to read and report on Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.  He took the position that certain projects of public benefit needed concentrations of money to be effective.  To distribute small amounts to everyone would leave everyone unserved but investment in a large project could be accessed by everyone.  The Jewish World has taken that position, creating a very effective network of social services and advocacy that is highly dependent on a few large donors.  In exchange they acquire a certain amount of influence and can hire talent of lesser personal means to implement programs.  The price, though, may be resentment by the nobodies, some of whom become somebodies, unwelcome without wealth and disinclined to sign on when they now have wealth.

Jay Ruderman, scion of the Meditech fortune that makes my hospital function and director of the Foundation that received the proceeds, issued a blog in the Times of Israel expressing legitimate concern for how these institutions will continue their good work as the top talent begins to retire and as the next generation turns interest to hospitals and museums instead of Federations and synagogues.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-once-in-a-generation-chance-to-transform-judaism-from-the-top-down/

As I retire from clinical practice soon, having spent about half my career in the Catholic health system, I'm haunted a little by how much better they treated me from one institution to the next than the Jewish organizations did.  Even as a nobody, my Jesuit medical school and Catholic residency hospital instilled some importance.  They wanted me.  Jewish Federation wanted my possessions, be it my treasure or the medical degree that would be parlayed into treasure later.  I felt convenient at times, troublesome at times, but never unconditionally important the way I was in my medical environments.  Undoubtedly my assessment of my experience gets played out many times over in the form of attrition and a desire to leave Judaism to their and my betters while I pick and choose those Jewish menu items attractive to me at the time with no serious instilled loyalty.

Yes, Andrew Carnegie imparted an important lesson that was adopted by the Jewish people of means to be generous in community needs.  Where they may diverge, though, is the expectation that anybody could go to a Carnegie library or a Carnegie Hall to derive benefit.  He made sure there was no aristocracy.  That does not seem to be true of Jewish wealth which seems far more inbred with a current uncertainty of succession and a participation that seems a fraction of what it could have been.  Money will only get you so far.  I've been a member of two synagogues that were highly endowed but eventually did not have people for a minyan to read Torah on shabbos.  Money to sustain programming and initiatives matters but talent and loyalty makes the organizations vibrant.  We seem to have sacrificed that.  It may be hard to recapture, especially if leadership takes on the form of a cloning experiment.  I agree with Jay Ruderman that the face of Judaism is a lot different now than when the original benefactors took charge.  I would be a bit skeptical though to think that the generosity to social nobodies is any different.