Hasidic Buses: What Is Critics' Real Motive?

First published in Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Oct. 25, 2011 BROOKLYN – Earlier this week, the media discovered that a private bus line (although one with a public franchise) between Hasidic Williamsburg and Hasidic Borough Park maintains separate seating for men and women, with women relegated to the back of the bus. To those who are familiar with the Hasidim and the ultra-Orthodox (as opposed to those who consider themselves "modern Orthodox"), this is no surprise. According to the halachic (traditional rabbinic) interpretation of the Torah, men and women must remain separate for two weeks out of the month because a woman is considered "unclean" during her period. This often is reflected in actions that would be considered extreme by the outside world. For example, in many Hasidic communities a woman who is having her period cannot sit in the same car seat as her husband. She can’t even pass a salt shaker to her husband at this "time of the month" – she must put it down on the table, and then he takes it. One of the reasons for separation between men and women in the public sphere, such as on this bus, is that a man might inadvertently come into contact with a woman who is having her period. The other is that any contact between men and their wives or close female relatives is considered a temptation and an invitation to adultery. This is reflected, for example, in the long dresses and long-sleeved blouses that Hasidic women must wear – this is called snius (modesty). Many ultra-Orthodox (or "black-hat Orthodox") and Hasidim won’t even listen to a women’s voice singing lest it arouse passions – the term for this is kol isha ("the voice of the woman"). Personally, my interpretation of Judaism is much, much more liberal than that of the ultra-Orthodox, and I more or less agree with Mayor Bloomberg that because the bus has a public franchise, its operators should follow city law and let men and women sit together. However, the reaction from the non-Jewish world (and some Jews) on the blogosphere is somewhat disconcerting. Like the controversy over circumcision in California, many people who just don’t like Jews, hate Israel or hate religion in general have seized on this issue like a dog seizes a bone. They say, more or less, "See, how primitive Judaism, and religion in general, are! These primitive people shouldn’t be subsidized. Indeed, no one can be an intelligent person unless they reject religion and nationality!" The trouble is, however, that you don’t hear much of those arguments about Islam (women sit separately in the mosques, and the religion has rather prescribed roles for women), the Amish (in whose churches women also sit separately) or any number of other religious sects that have similar beliefs. No, it is only Jews who are asked to give up their beliefs or customs in the name of "universalism." I myself belong to an egalitarian congregation with a female cantor, and I would be thrilled to death of a group of Hasidic women started a movement to give them more equality in religious life. I would support it wholeheartedly. But this movement has to come from within – not from what they perceive as a hostile world. So, maybe it’s time to stop being so self-righteous about the Hasidim and their buses. Multiculturalism is for Jews, too!

Let's Vigorously Enforce the Anti-Trust Laws!

By Raanan Geberer Brooklyn Daily Eagle Oct. 18, 2011 BROOKLYN — Despite some of the rhetoric one hears, it’s not necessary to totally overthrow the status quo to effect some of the changes the “Occupy Wall Street” movement wants. One good step in the right direction would be to vigorously enforce the anti-trust laws. Anti-trust legislation came into being in the 1890s after the efforts of magnates like John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil to crush competition, often by extra-legal means like burning down competitors’ oil wells, and to establish monopolies or near-monopolies. The net result was that economic power was concentrated in an extremely small number of companies — just like today. Often, the public was forced to endure high prices for commodities because there were few other places to go. During that decade and up until the beginning of World War I, the government, under leaders like Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, vigorously initiated one action after another against such giant corporations as Standard Oil, J.P. Morgan’s National Security Company and James Duke’s tobacco trust. Afterward, especially during the prosperity of the 1950s and ‘60s and after the Reagan “revolution,” anti-trust legislation took a back seat. Conservative economists like Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman argued that anti-trust legislation was harmful to business because it stifled potential innovations and improvements. The last major anti-trust prosecution, that of Microsoft, was defeated on technicalities. But the problems that led to Teddy Roosevelt’s vigorous prosecution of the entities he called trusts still remain. Free competition still exists at the Main Street, mom-and-pop level. For example, if a bakery store exists in a small town like New Paltz, and another one opens three blocks away, the two will compete honestly. But at the higher levels of society, it’s a different story. For example, how many people know that food companies often actually pay for shelf space in supermarkets? (And I know this because I once worked for a supermarket trade publication.) Thus, the public will never know many products that it could come to embrace because the smaller companies that produce them won’t have the ability to pay that the food giants do. Also, there are many allegations, such as those from the New America Foundation, that Walmart, the nation’s largest retail chain, often makes its suppliers suffer by insisting that its suppliers accept low prices. When Walmart (and for all I know, some other giant retail chains as well) demands this, the supplier has to accept these prices because the chain buys such a large amount of its products. This can then lead to layoffs and plant closings because the supplier has a harder time staying in business. Does trust-busting actually deprive the public of innovative products? I say it’s the opposite. Let’s look at the Tucker car. The Tucker car, which came on the market briefly in 1948, was one of the most innovative vehicles ever produced. But after pressure from the Big Three (according to Jeff Bridges’ Tucker: The Man and His Dream), bought-off officials from Michigan began a regulatory campaign against the small company. Eventually, Tucker was exonarated, but by that time the company was out of business. Also, look at the credit card industry. Credit cards are known for their high interest rates. It would make sense that at least one large company, in order to compete, would lower its interest rates substantially. Why hasn’t this happened? Sounds mighty suspicious to me! Let’s have a new Teddy Roosevelt and a new round of trust-busting!

Zuccotti Park and Participatory Democracy

By Raanan Geberer Originally Publshed in Brooklyn Daily Eagle NEW YORK — The other day, I took a short trip to Zuccotti Park, the headquarters of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that has so many people up in arms. One of the first things that strikes one is how small the demonstration really is. The area it occupies, if one were to compare it to Brooklyn, is comparable to the area of Cadman Plaza Park north of the War Memorial — not even the entire park. But within the park, there were lots of people, mainly young people. Some were camping, some were giving out material, some were merely curiosity seekers. Being a veteran of many mass demonstrations during the 1970s, one difference is how democratic the current protest is. Major decisions among the group members are resolved by a “general assembly.” In contrast, during the ’70s, decisions were made from the top down by “steering committees.” Also, during the ’60s and ’70s, highly organized, ideological (and I would say elitist) Leninist groups like the Socialist Workers Party and the Progressive Labor Party, who were admirers of totalitarian societies, put all their energy into dominating and manipulating any protest groups that formed spontaneously. Here, in contrast, most of the demonstrators did not have any kind of an “agenda.” Indeed, many of today’s far-left groups, like international A.N.S.W.E.R., were nowhere to be seen at Zuccotti Park (although others, like the Industrial Workers of the World, were there). All the protesters know is that something is wrong with this country, and that the deck is stacked against them. The majority of them are college graduates who have been unable to find jobs or housing. If anything, the gathering was oriented toward what used to be called participatory democracy. One young man whom I spoke to told me that the members didn’t know enough to make any “demands” on the larger society. Rather, he said, the demonstrators would spend their time talking to each other, debating issues and trying to discover any common ground. Only after this would they formulate a platform. It was a true marketplace of ideas, with anyone and everyone represented, from prisoners’ rights groups to a young lady who protested the use of temps as “permanent workers,” but without the benefits. Side by side were a member of the Green Party, some evangelical Christians, a few Hasidim and even a representative of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. There were some who praised Obama and others who felt that there was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. All of them co-existed without the bitter, back-and-forth insults that were typical of the 1960s and ’70s movements. No one called the police “fascist pigs” — instead, they called on the cops to join them. And in the process, many underlying assumptions of American life were questioned, at last. One young man held up a placard saying, “Corporations are not democracies.” When I asked him about yearly shareholders’ meetings, he compared them to the “legislative bodies” of the former Soviet Union, which basically acted as a rubber stamp for high party officials. I had to agree. Another table served as the “people’s library,” where people donated books and others borrowed them. Curiously, one saw few artifacts of the electronic age — smart phones, iPads, etc. What one saw in Zuccotti Park was participatory democracy, the type that Tom Hayden and company wrote about in the Port Huron Statement in 1960. There have been brief times when this type of democracy has flourished — during the Paris Commune in 1871, during the early days of the soviets in Russia before they were compromised by the Bolshevik bureaucrats, during the sit-down strikes in the U.S. during the 1930s, during the brief rule of the anarchists in Barcelona in the 1930s — and, now, in Zuccotti Park.

National Infrastructure bank: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Published in Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Oct. 5, 2011 BROOKLYN — In Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s recent telephone press conference, which mainly concerned money for transportation projects in President Obama’s Jobs Bill, she also touched on another important matter. She voiced her support for an unusual concept — a National Infrastructure Bank. The government would identify infrastructure (road, bridge, rail, mass transit, airport) projects that need to get done and contribute seed money. Then, it would recruit private investors to contribute to repairs or new construction. Gillibrand said that she’s often run into businesspeople who want to contribute to such projects, but have no opportunity to do so. The measure was actually introduced in the Senate in 2008, but has been stalled since then. This is extremely important. Businesses or individuals who want to contribute to the operations of, say, Central or Prospect Park have every opportunity to do so. The same goes for the museums and the performing arts. But let’s take myself. I’m a lifelong rail fan. If I suddenly find myself with a large sum of money, and I want to contribute to the repair of the Culver Viaduct, I have no means of doing so. Let’s take another example. The recent flooding of the Ramapo River all but wiped out the Port Jervis line of MetroNorth in Rockland County. If I were a business owner in one of the affected towns who wanted to contribute money to the rebuilding of the line, I would probably have to call about 20 government offices and make about 50 calls before I found the opportunity to do so. So let’s have the National Infrastructure Bank, sooner than later. I dare say that if that bank had existed since the 1930s or so, we would still have the New York, Westchester and Boston railway; the Putnam Line of the New York Central; and the North Shore Line of the Staten Island Railway, because interested parties would have had the opportunity to step up and contribute funds to ensure those lines’ continued operation. Bob Diamond might have completed his Red Hook trolley line, provided that investors came forward to support it. The parks have their support groups, and so do the arts. Now, let’s give road and rail projects a chance!