Photo Contest! Win A Signed Copy Of One Of My Photos!

Part of the methodology of becoming a better photographer (or becoming better at anything, I suppose), is listening to feedback -- both praise and criticism. At the end of every photography post, I put a line to the effect of "comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome." The reason, of course, is that it's easy for me to sit back and admire my own photos, but when people give you feedback (especially negative feedback) it motivates you to try and improve.

So, in that spirit, I'm basically asking for feedback on some of my pictures. I've chosen ten pictures from the ones that I previously put up on this blog. Click on the pictures to see larger versions. All you have to do, very simply, is pick two of them and comment on them. For the first, tell me what you like about the picture. For the second, tell me what you don't like and how I could have improved the shot.

That's it. Whomever has the best and most helpful comments (in my opinion) wins. While your comments could be full of photo-jargon ("you should have used an f-stop of f/11 instead of f/5.6..."), I won't be judging the winner based on purely technical matters. I'd love to hear from amateurs too and equal opportunity will be given to those to aren't professionals. While you don't have to send me three paragraphs on each photo, more than a sentence or two for each is appreciated.

Here are the ten pictures I've chosen (in random order):

On The Wings Of Gerber Daisies


April Showers


Empire


Borei M'orei HaAish


Trinity Church 9/11/2008


The Tranquil Road In the Salt Marsh


Hovering Bee


Manhattan Tulips


Dragonfly


Close Up Flower


To enter, send your responses to photocontest1@wolfishmusings.com (note that this is NOT my regular email address) and indicate by name which photos you are commenting on.

What's the prize? Well, the prize is a signed large size (12" x 18") print of the photo you picked as the one you liked. If you're in New York City and are we can arrange a meeting that is convenient to me, I'll even frame it and hand-deliver it. If not, I'll send the picture by mail (see the rules below) and Paypal some money to you for a frame (I'm scared of the idea of sending a frame by mail).


Additional Rules

The decision of the judges is final. There is no appeal. Contest void in Antarctica or where photography is forbidden by law. No deposit, no refund. Entries must be sent to the specified email address - while comments to this post or my regular email address are helpful and appreciated, they are not considered entries for the purpose of this contest. Photo will be signed "The Wolf" (sorry, you didn't think it would be that easy, did you?). Immediate family members are not eligible -- but then again I'd give them a signed print for the asking anyway. Photo will be mailed only in the U.S. or Canada -- if you reside elsewhere, you can still enter, but you'll have to get it from someone in the U.S. or Canada. Contest only open on days that have a "d" and "y" in their names. If you're happy and you know it clap your hands -- it won't help you to win, but it'll feel good. I will determine the exact amount to be sent via Paypal for a frame and my decision is final. The winner agrees to be identified by me as the winner by a nom du blog (or their real name, if they prefer -- if not, I'll keep your real name secret). In addition, the winner agrees to have their comments published when I choose the winner. Thirty days hath April, June, September and November. Contest ends June 1, 2009 at midnight EDT. All rights reserved. Have a nice day. Any questions, put it in the comments or send them to my regular email address - wolf@wolfishmusings.com.

Chabad and Taoism Shouldn't Mix

I find it very interesting that Chabad allows* their girls to use drums with Taoist symbols on them. Would they also allow them to use drums with a Christian cross on it?



The Wolf

* Yes, I'm aware that it was probably in complete ignorance.

Does the Vatican Still Have the Temple Vessels?

It seems to be a common belief among many Orthodox Jews that many of the vessels that were used in the Second Temple are presently in the custody of the Vatican. This belief is reinforced by the famous image of the Arch of Titus, showing the Romans carrying off the menorah and other artifacts from the Beis HaMikdash. Many Orthodox Jews to this very day believe that the looted treasure is still somewhere in the Vatican. Just today, two Israelis (I don't know if they are members of the government or not) tried to prevent the Pope from coming to Israel until (among other demands) the vessels are returned.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical that the Pope has them. While I'm certain the Vatican has an impressive collection of historical memorabilia, including, probably, things that would be of incredible interest to Jewish historians*, I'm not so certain that golden vessels (especially something as large as the menorah) would be among them.

For starters, let's remember that the Romans who destroyed the Beis HaMikdash and plundered its treasures were not Christians, but were pagans. You might expect that if Christians had plundered the Temple, they might have kept the menorah out of some respect for an artifact from their "parent religion." The pagans, however, probably had no such sentimental feelings. In all probability, they probably saw the menorah and other Temple vessels as simply gold and silver -- nothing more. They would simply have no reason to keep them around in a dusty basement somewhere. Rome wouldn't become Christianized for a few centuries yet. It's difficult to say that the pagan Roman emporers would have kept all this treasure around without melting it down and using the gold/silver for their own purposes.

Another factor which leads me to doubt the presence of the Temple vessels in Rome is the fact that Rome has been sacked since the vessels would have arrived there. In fact, the city has been sacked several times:

It was sacked in 410 by the Visigoths
It was sacked again in 455 by the Vandals
It was sacked yet again in 546 by the Goths
And yet again in 846 by Arabs
And again in 1084 by the Normans
And yet again in 1527 by the Holy Roman Empire

I would find it very hard to believe that even if the pagan Romans held on to the gold and silver of the Temple that it would have survived the three barbarian sacks of 410-546 and the latter sackings as well.

Am I wrong? Is there some reason to really suspect that the Vatican is still holding on to the treasures of the Second Temple and that they survived the multiple sacks of Rome? Or is the general perception in the Orthodox Jewish world incorrect and there is little, if any chance, that the Vatican still has these treasures today?

The Wolf

* I once had a rebbe in high school who postulated the silly idea that there was a Talmud Bavli for every mesechta of Shas -- except that the ones that are lost today are actually sitting in a Vatican library somewhere. How the Romans managed to "steal" documents that did not exist until hundreds of years later in another part of the world was not quite explained to us.

Abuse and Going Off The Derech... What's the Relation?

I've been having a discussion (see the comments there) with an anonymous poster over at Yudel Shain about the phenomenon of kids being abused and kids going off the derech.

The anonymous poster made the claim that over 50% of the kids who go off the derech are abused.

I responded by stating that I found that figure to be a bit high. There are quite a few reasons why a kid (or anyone else) might go off the derech -- and certainly abuse is a potential reason to do so -- but to say that over half the OTD people are abused sounded just too far fetched to me. I thought that perhaps my disputant was simply phrasing his words incorrectly.

I asked if perhaps he meant that over 50% of abused kids go off the derech -- which is not quite the same as saying that 50% of OTD kids are abused. While I believe the former is in the realm of possibility, I'm far less certain that the latter is true.

Anonymous reaffirmed his original statement and, as a citation, brought an article by Rabbi Horowitz. In the article, Rabbi Horowitz quoted a person who operates a run-away shelter:

A close friend of mine runs a shelter/group home for charedi runaway kids. I recently ran into him at a wedding and asked him what his thoughts were on the correlation between abuse and the off-the-derech phenomenon. His immediate response was, “Yankie, all I deal with is abuse [victims],” meaning that virtually all the teens in his program were molested.

That's a pretty powerful quote. However, I began to think about it in the context of our discussion. It's possible, I thought, that perhaps this shelter operator is not seeing a representative sample of OTD kids. After all, he's not running a home for OTD kids, he's running a home for run-away kids. Many OTD kids don't run away from home -- heck, I know quite a few people who went OTD as teens who did not have the need to run away from home. On the other hand, kids that are abused (sexually and otherwise) frequently *do* have the need to run away from home. The shelter operator, in answering the question about the linkage between abuse and OTD kids, may be looking predominantly (or perhaps exclusively as per his claim) at abused kids. He never sees the kids who go OTD for other reasons.*

Furthermore, I went back and decided to read the entire article. As it turns out, the third paragraph in the article seems to say the exact opposite of what my correspondent was saying:

This is not to say that a majority of kids who are ‘off the derech’ were abused. But of all the complex and varied educational, social and familial factors that endanger to our children, the most damaging by far, in my opinion, is abuse. The very real threat posed by the external influences from which we all strive (in various degrees) to protect our children – such as media, Internet, and ‘bad friends’ – are all firecrackers compared to the atom bomb of sexual abuse.

Now, I absoltutely agree with Rabbi Horowitz (and my anonymous disputant) that sexual abuse is probably one of the strongest things that can cause a kid to go OTD. It's far more likely that a kid will go OTD from being sexually abused than from watching television, reading books about evolution or surfing the Internet. But all that means is that a kid who is sexually abused has a very good chance of going OTD. It still does not mean that the majority of people who go OTD are sexually abused.

So, what's the story? Am I reading this wrong? Is it really possible that half of the kids who go OTD are sexually abused? Or is my disputant just flat out wrong.

The Wolf


* Intellectual reasons, emotional reasons, or perhaps simply because they find the lifestyle too confining.

Smile!!

I was out shooting on Wednesday and saw this guy at the dog run. I just love his face...

Canon XSi, 75-300mm lens at 300mm
f/5.6, 1/1000 second
Taken at the Leroy St. Dog Run

As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and encouraged.

The Wolf


Previous Photos:
Ducks on Golden Pond
April Showers
The Tranquil Road In the Marsh
Are You Looking At Me?
Sunset Over The Hudson
First Day of Spring
Duck Again!
Llama -- an Unorthodox Picture
Yellow Flower
Koi
Panorama: Empire State
Borei M'Orei HaAish
Orchid
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly

Okay, Sometimes It Takes A While To Come Up With The Follow Up Question...

Around Channukah 2007, I asked my Rav how we can make the bracha of "asher kidishanu... l'hadlik ner channukah" when, in fact, God never gave us such a commandment.*

His answer (which I belive is the classic one) is that we're commanded to listen to the words of the sages, so, in effect, it's as if God Himself did command us.

Okay, that's fine.

I finally thought of the follow up question (yeah, I know it's a year and a half -- I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer):

So, why then don't we recite the bracha of "asher kidishanu... lishmoa divrei chachamim" (to listen to the words of the sages) or some variant thereof. If that's the actual God-given commandment that we're following, then why not that bracha?

Anyone have any ideas?

The Wolf

*Of course, the same goes for the bracha before Hallel and the other mitzvos d'rabbanan.

Standards Of Halacha In The Workplace

Ynet (via Vos Iz Neias) is reporting that a new dress regulation will be taking effect at the Shas' Maayan Torah education network in Israel. Specifically, the regulation states that all women employed there must wear a full head covering when reporting for work. In addition, the only acceptable form of head-covering for women is a scarf -- wigs are not permitted (the article doesn't address snoods or other non-hair-like coverings). According to a source in the article, women have been threatened with dismissal if they do not dress according to code.

This new regulation has many women outraged. As you can imagine, there are women who work there who cover their hair with sheitels or other materials. In addition, the article makes no distinction between married and unmarried women.

Some of the VIN commentors have taken the approach that an employer has the right to dictate how employees dress and if you don't like it, you're free to go work someplace else. That's certainly true. If my boss, for whatever insane reason, dictated that employees come to work in bumblebee costumes everyday, I could either go to the costume shop or find a new place to work.*

However, in the above case, my boss has made his bumblebee decree for arbitrary reasons. In this case, however, there is a rationale behind the regulations -- obstensibly, the rationale is halacha. Whomever is issuing these decrees obviously feels that women are required by halacha to wear complete head coverings. And, I suppose, it's not entirely unreasonable to use halacha as a guideline for employee conduct in a religious office in a religious state.

But one has to wonder just how far this can be taken. If one can rule that millions of otherwise observant women who cover their hair with sheitels are violating halacha (despite the fact that millions of frum Jews around the world and in Israel itself view this as perfectly acceptable and within halacha) and therefore worthy of termination, then where does it end?

Should an employer be allowed to raid the contents of employee lunchboxes to make sure they're only using chassidshe shechita or cholov yisroel? Should an employer be allowed to tell employees that they can't go to an otherwise glatt kosher resturaunt for lunch because it doesn't meet his/her personal standards (real or imagined)? Should an employer be allowed to fire a worker who rides to work on a non-mehadrin bus where one is available? In short, where does it end? At what point do we say that the employer doesn't have the right to enforce his brand of halacha at the workplace

Yes, there is still the principle that a worker is not a slave and is free to quit her job at any time. If she doesn't like the rules, she's free to move on. But that's not really the answer is it? I don't know what the economic situation in Israel is like at the current time, but I can't imagine that they're unemployement problem is any better than ours is here in the U.S. Just saying "go get another job" is not the answer -- it's not always so easy. Who says the person can find another job quickly, and at the same salary? In addition, employees have certain intagible benefits that come from being in a job -- seniority, repuation, familiarity with co-workers and the surrounding of the workplace, job security and other benefits that we all enjoy from working at a place after a certain amount of time. By forcing a worker to move on, they lose a lot (if not all) of these benefits. I'm not convinced that forcing an worker to lose these benefits simply for the sake of someone else's interpretation of halacha (when their own is kept by millions of otherwise frum women around the world) is acceptable and proper.

Again, no one argues that there should be minimum standards of dress for both genders in the workplace. And, yes, halacha should probably play a role in that code in a religious office in Israel. But you can't just apply the strictest standard of halacha. It's simply not fair.

The Wolf



* Yes, I understand that there may be other options, but that's really beside the point.

What's Your Prediction? Great Idea or Mass Apoplexy

Yeshiva World News is reporting that the Star-K will begin a program of training women to be mashgichot. They will be trained to work mostly in catering halls and restaurants.

What do you think the reaction will be in the general Yeshiva world?

Will it be hailed as a way to help women earn a parnassah in this difficult time?
Will it be shrugged off as a "what took them so long?" moment?
Will it be denounced with shouts of "Kol K'vuda...?"

What do you think?

The Wolf

Ducks On Golden Pond

Canon XSi, 75-300mm lens at 300mm
f5.6, //1600 second
Taken at the Salt Marsh in Marine Park

As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome and encouraged.

The Wolf



Previous Photos:
April Showers
The Tranquil Road In the Marsh
Are You Looking At Me?
Sunset Over The Hudson
First Day of Spring
Duck Again!
Llama -- an Unorthodox Picture
Yellow Flower
Koi
Panorama: Empire State
Borei M'Orei HaAish
Orchid
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly

Sometimes I Need To Learn...

...to just keep out of it if the person involved doesn't really seem to want help. And especially when they seem to think that bashing entire groups of people is the answer to their problems.

(Yeah, I know that's somewhat cryptic to most of you. Those who know what I'm talking about will know).

The Wolf