Orchid

Here's another macro flower shot that I took a while back. My florist allows me to shoot whatever he has in the store while he prepares my flowers.

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/2.8, 1/25 second
(Note: *Never* shoot handheld [as I did here] at 1/25 with a 100mm lens. You're going to get camera shake. I was *extremely* lucky that this shot came out as clear as it did. I shot this before I knew any better.)

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

The Wolf

Previous Photos:
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

A Step In The Right Direction

Ynet is reporting that a new college for Chareidi women will be opening in Netanya next year. The college will offer courses in accounting, bookkeeping, tax consultation and other subjects.

Personally, I think this is a step in the right direction. Someone in the Chareidi community is realizing that not every woman can be a schoolteacher or a secretary and that if the Hareidi community is to have any chance of surviving in it's present form, education opportunities for women need to be expanded. This is in sharp contrast to earlier times when, only a few short years ago, education opportunities were being taken away from women.

It will be interesting to see what (if any) opposition springs up to this college, how successful it will be and what (if any) effects it will have on the chareidi community at large.

In any event, expanding educational opportunities is usually a good thing and, as such, I'm happy to see that the chareidi community is taking a step in the right direction.

The Wolf

(As an aside, I find it funny that the picture that Ynet put up for this article is so clearly not a chareidi woman.)

Off Topic: Just Because I Hate Stupidity -- How To Win At The Lottery-- NOT!

I know this is off-topic for this blog, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to comment on this. Today's New York Daily News has an article called "Playing to win: Insider tips on winning the lottery." The article discusses some of the lottery games that are available in New York and gives tips on picking the right numbers to win.

I won't comment on the fact that the lottery is often correctly called a tax on those that are poor at math. I won't go on about how the odds of winning the lottery are so remote as to be practically nil. I just want to discuss the "tips" that the author provides and point out how stupid and illogical they are. The article gives nine tips and, sadly, of the nine, only one actually makes any sense. That one is the first one:

REDUCE THE ODDS

There are three lottery games in New York (aside from scratch-offs and the daily numbers games). Those are Mega Millions (with the highest odds and usually the highest payoff), Lotto and Take 5 (with a top pot of about $100,000 and much better odds of winning). The article notes that it's much easier to win $100K with Take 5 than to win millions of dollars with Mega Millions. This tip actually makes sense -- sometimes. If the Lotto or Mega Millions pot is large enough, it's possible that the expected value for those games could be greater than the Take 5. You have to do the math to find out which game will give you the best odds and the best return.

The rest of the tips, however, are worthless. As you read them, I want you to keep two principles in the back of your mind:

1. Assuming the game is not rigged, any set of numbers has exactly the same probability of coming up as any other set. 18-19-20-21-22 is just as likely as 2-8-11-23-38.

2. As the old investment adage goes, past performance is not an indicator of future results. Let's say you flip a coin (again, assuming the contest isn't rigged in some way) 100 times and, against all odds it comes up heads 100 times in a row. What are the odds of it coming up heads on the 101st throw? The correct answer is 1 out of 2. This is because the coin doesn't have a "memory" of previous flips. Each flip is independent of every other flip and the effects of one flip have no effect on any future flips.

So, keeping these two points in mind, let's look at the remaining eight tips offered by the article:

MIX IT UP

Quoth the article:
When it comes to picking numbers, you want as balanced a playing card as possible. Never play all one-number groups, like all 20s (21-23-25), nor all single-digit numbers, like 1-5-9. "If you play it that way, squishing all your numbers together, you're not playing a balanced game," Howard says. "You should give a relatively even mix between high numbers and low numbers, because the numbers are drawn across the number field."

The truth: It doesn't matter. All combinations have an equal chance of coming up on any one draw. The odds of getting any set of five numbers all in the 20s are exactly the same as getting any other specific set of five numbers.

EVEN IT OUT

Similar to the last tip, the article suggests not playing only even numbers or only odd numbers. Again, keep my first principle in mind.

DON'T COUNT ON 1-2-3-4-5

Quoth the article:
It's the absolute worst number combination to play in any lottery drawing. "It's guaranteed not to win," says Howard. Not only are these digits all at the tail end of the number spectrum, but the odds that consecutive numbers will ever be drawn are slim to none. Yet, it's the most popularly played number set. "Even after my 25 years of preaching against it, they (lottery retailers) still must sell 20,000 tickets every drawing with that combination," she says.

Again, see my first principle. 1-2-3-4-5 has just a good a chance of winning as any other combination.

It should be pointed out that, assuming the article is correct (that a lot of people play 1-2-3-4-5), then you may be at a disadvantage if you are playing a game where winners split the pot (such as Mega Millions or Lotto). But in Take 5, that is not the case. In addition, of course, if 1-2-3-4-5 are going to win, then it doesn't really matter how many people pick that combination... if you don't pick it, you're not going to win anything.

SPLIT FROM THE CROWD

Again, from the article:
Don't play patterns (picking numbers that make a line straight across or down, that make diagonals, or that make an initial) because, believe it or not, everyone else has the same idea. "There have been 150,000 tickets in just one drawing of people playing patterns," Howard says.

See my point on the last tip. The same thing applies.

AVOID ANNIVERSARIES

The article contends that becuase people tend to play birthdays and anniversaries, they often don't use numbers past 31. If you do this, the article contends, you are not playing a "balanced game."

Once again, let's repeat the mantra: Any single combination of numbers has the same odds as any other set.

NIX THE QUICK PICKS

From the article:

When playing Quick Pick, a computer generates the number combinations on your playing card — and it doesn't have your best interest in mind.

"Don't play them!" she says. "What the computer generated for me were the most awful combinations — all these things that I told you not to do. The computer would generate all lower numbers, or all higher numbers." Pick your own.

Again, it doesn't matter. The numbers the computer picks have the *exact* same odds as any other set of numbers. Your "best interests" are meaningless in a situation like this.

DON'T COPYCAT

This tip says that you shouldn't play numbers that have been drawn recently. The article even states that if you play numbers that have recently won, you will only make it more difficult for yourself to win.

To counter this bit of stupidity, I urge you to go to the second principle I stated above. It doesn't matter what happened in the past. Assuming the game isn't rigged, what happened in past drawings has absolutely no effect on future drawings. You have just as good a chance of winning by playing the numbers that won the last jackpot as by playing numbers that haven't won in three years.

DO THE MATH

Howard has, however, used winning numbers to come up with a mathematical formula to predict future winners.

"Were you to add up the five winning numbers for the last drawing, and do that for each of the drawings going back to the beginning of the game, you'll find that 70% of all the winning Take 5 numbers have a sum between 75 and 125," she says. "So when playing Take 5, the sum of the five numbers you pick should add up to between 75 and 125."

This is one of the stupidest pieces of advice I've seen. This would only matter if you were gambling on the sum of the numbers (as you might do in a game of dice). But you're not gambling on the sum of the sum of the numbers, you're gambling on the combination of numbers.

I'm sorry to take you all off-topic, but I can't help but try to fight stupidity whenever I see it, and this ranks right up there.

The Wolf

Still Homeless After Three Years? Can Someone Please Explain This?

Yeshiva World News is reporting that, three years after people were booted out of their homes in Gush Katif, at least some of the former residents are still homeless and without a livelihood.

Now, I'll admit that I'm certainly not familiar with all the facts on the ground. Perhaps there is some information that I am missing that would help to make this phenomenon explainable. But, on the surface, I can't see how otherwise healthy individuals and families can still be homeless three years after a forced evacuation. Is there something that is preventing them from getting jobs and renting an apartment somewhere? Is there some legal barrier to their moving into another city in Israel? Are there some exceptional circumstances that prevent them from moving on with their lives?

Barring some odd situation or legal barrier, I can't imagine why people would still be homeless three years later. Can someone please try to help me understand this.

The Wolf

Hey, Mr. Producer, How About Doing Ten Minutes Worth of Research?

This Sunday evening, CBS will be airing a TV movie called Loving Leah. It's a fictional story about a woman in the Lubavitch community who, recently widowed and childless, will now end up marrying her husband's brother. Of course, the brother is not Lubavitch (or even religious), but that's a separate issue.

Of course, the producers could have actually called up a rabbi -- any rabbi -- Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, whatever, and asked "hey, do Lubavitch Jews actually *do* that anymore? Do they really have widows marry their dead husband's brother?" Of course, no one performs yibum anymore -- in fact, we've pretty much outlawed it and mandated chalitzah. But no -- why let a few facts get in the way of a good story?

This reminds me of the episode of Grey's Anatomy where an Orthodox Jewish girl decided it's better to die than to receive a porcine heart valve transplant. Again, a simple phone call to any rabbi would have revealed that any rabbi -- from the frummest Orthodox to the most secular Reconstructionist would have told her that she is not only allowed to have the transplant but that she should actually do so.

What really annoys me about this is not so much the fact that they got it wrong -- heck, we all make mistakes. But the fact that they got something wrong in a community that 98% of the viewing knows nothing about (or worse, has gross misinformation about) only helps to perpetuate bad stereotypes about Lubavitch Jews and Orthodox Jews in general.

So, how about if, instead of making stupid mistakes and painting Orthodox Jews in a bad light, producers actually pick up a phone and run a thirty second plot summary by a rabbi -- any rabbi? Is that too much to ask?

The Wolf

Hat tip: Pesky Settler. (Go to PS's blog and see the YouTube clip of Susan Essman [one of the stars of the show] trashing Lubavitch Jews).

Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?

This close:

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/4, 1/1250 second

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

The Wolf

Previous Photos:
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

Kiryas Joel vs "Non Heimish" Cab Companies... This Story Doesn't Pass The Smell Test.

HaMercaz is reporting a story about the town of Kiryas Joel and their plans to deal with issues arising from cab companies in the city.

According to the article, Kiryas Joel has five "heimish" cab companies. However, lately, non-Jewish cab companies have been gaining market share in the village due to cheaper costs.

The story alleges that some of the drivers from the "non-heimish" companies are illegal aliens without driver's licenses and that many of the cars are not inspected.

One suggested solution is a requirement that drivers obtain a special permit/mediallion (requiring a background check).

The article concludes (bolding mine):

"The law will benefit the five heimish and responsible taxi firms operating in Kiryas Joel," the article concludes. "The law will strengthen the ability of Kiryas Joel residents to further patronize their own brethren."

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this stinks to high heaven?

The Wolf

(UPDATE: The original source for this story was Frum Factory.)

Shutter Speed & Light Trails On The Brooklyn Bridge

One of the keys to taking good pictures is to make sure that you allow the right amount of light into your camera. Your camera (whether film or digital) is, in essence, a light-proof box. A picture is taken when you press down on the button and allow the shutter in the lens to open. This allows some light into the box which then hits the film or the digital sensors, creating the picture.

There are two ways to control how much light gets into the camera when you press down on the shutter. The first way is to control wide the opening is. Some lenses allow you to create a very wide opening, while others force you to use a more narrow opening. I discussed one of the effects of choosing the appropriate aperture (that's the fancy word to describe how wide the opening is) in a previous post.

Another way to control the amount of light is to control how long the opening in the lens is kept open. Some high end cameras have a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 of a second. That means that the lens is kept open for only 1/8000 of a second. My camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/4000. Of course, for some shots, you'll want to use a very quick shutter speed. If you're taking a still picture of Derek Jeter swinging a bat, you'll want a very quick shutter speed, because his bat is moving at high speed. If you hold the lens open for a long time (such as 1/30 of a second), then the bat will appear as a blur.

The shutter speed that you choose for your picture is crucial. The reason is because if you choose a shutter speed that's too quick, you might not get enough light into the camera to make the shot work. If you choose a speed that's too slow, your subject will appear blurry. Even if your subject stands completely still (suppose it's a building), you can still have a blurry subject if your shutter speed is too slow. The reason for this is camera shake.

Most people are unable to keep their hands perfectly still. Hands have a tendency to involuntarily shake. As a result, even if you think you're holding your camera perfectly still, chances are that you are not. Your shaking hands may not make a difference if your shutter speed is 1/4000 of a second (unless your hands shake very quickly!), but at slower shutter speeds, you begin to notice the blur in your pictures. At what point does camera shake start to become an issue? Well, the rule of thumb is that you should never shoot at a speed slower than 1/focal length. So, if you're using a 50mm lens, don't shoot at speeds slower than 1/50 of a second. That means that if you're using a lens with a longer focal length, the effects of camera shake become more pronounced. With a 300mm lens, you shouldn't shoot anything slower than 1/300 of a second.

So, what happens if your lens is opened up as far as it will go, and you still can't get enough light into the picture without shooting slower than the recommended speed? The best solution to this problem is to use a tripod. By using a tripod, you eliminate most of the problems associated with camera shake. Since you're not physically holding the camera anymore, you can now shoot at slower speeds.

While the technical aspects of shutter speed are all fine and well, I suppose you're wondering what you can do with it creatively? Well, there are some things you can do. A few weeks ago, I posted a picture of Grand Central Station. In the picture, I left the shutter open for 30 seconds. During that time, some people moved and some didn't, creating some "ghosts" in the picture.

Another fun thing to do with shutter speeds is to create light trails. I took these two shots on the Brooklyn Bridge last April, shortly after I purchased my camera.

Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 21mm
f/22, 4 seconds



Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 23mm
f/16, 2 seconds

There are two plazas on the bridge where you can stand and walk out over the vehicular traffic that is moving on the bridge. I didn't have my tripod with me, so I held it very firmly against the railing of the bridge* and snapped the picture. Because I had the shutter open for so long (2 and 4 seconds) and because the traffic on the bridge was moving at a normal rate, the light trails remained, even after the cars themselves had moved on.

If you have a camera where you can control how long the shutter remains open, I encourage you to play around with it. There are lots of fun things you can do with the shutter speed.

Have you done anything creative with shutter speeds? If so, let me know and post a link to it in the comments.

In the meantime, as always, comments, critiques and criticisms about the pictures I posted are always welcomed and appreciated.

The Wolf

* Having a tripod wouldn't have helped so much anyway. One major problem that I have about taking pictures on the Brooklyn Bridge is that the *entire* bridge shakes!

Previous Pictures:

Previous Photos:
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

Because We All Know That An Ipod + Kid Can Only Have One Outcome...

Matzav.com is reporting that a new poster (viewable from the link) is being used to highlight the inherent dangers in modern technology. The poster shows two pictures of a kid -- the first a typical yeshiva bachur in a white shirt, with a kippa and a nice smile.

The second picture shows a kid with a baseball cap on backwards, wearing a T-shirt, presumably in the act of yelling something and making an "L" with his fingers.

The two pictures are accompanied by a letter which reads as follows:

Dearest Abba and Mommy,

Just wanted to thank you for the iPod touch you got me for my birthday. It’s the coolest thing! Seriously. I use it all the time to access the most disgusting stuff in the world! You would like totally faint if you knew. Anyway, OMG! It’s like the sickest thing ever. And the internet is WAY fast. It only takes me a few seconds to download the WORST videos and photos imaginable. I can literally get anything I want and talk to anyone I want. Bet you had no idea when you bought it. That’s too bad, cuz, you know, I was just an innocent 7th grader full of potential. You probably had high hopes for me - sorry, but that’s history now. I don’t really care much about learning - or anything else - anymore and I’ll probably drop out of school pretty soon. So long and thanks for ruining me. You rule!

Love, Chaim (a.k.a. “tank”)

Of course, a more reasonable approach isn't possible, right? After all, it never occurred to them that this might be a possible outcome:

Dearest Abba and Mommy,

Just wanted to thank you for the iPod touch you got me for my birthday. It’s the coolest thing! Seriously. I use it all the time to listen to music!

I know that deep down you wouldn't give me something that could potentially be dangerous if you didn't think I could handle it responsibly. I know that if you didn't think I could handle it, you wouldn't let me have it. And I thank you for giving me the education and grounding to know how to use it responsibly. I've always appreciated that you were the types of parents of whom I could ask almost any question without fear. I'm so happy that we have the type of relationship where I can ask you, without fear of getting in trouble, if a particular song or video is appropriate for me. And because you've shown me that you're reasonable and not overbearing parents and that your opinion is trustworthy, I know that you have my best interest at heart if you say that something is not for me.

I know it must be very hard to let go and trust me to use this Ipod. I know that you're proud of me and because I know that you have such high hopes for me, I will do my best to make sure that I don't disappoint you.

Oh yeah, and I also know that you'll be watching over me as I use this Ipod. So I'd better not mess up if I want to keep it. :)

Thanks for showing so much trust in me and for being good and understanding parents.

Love, Chaim

How about, instead of demonizing the technology, educating kids in the responsible usage of it; and allowing parents to determine whether or not their children are capable of using a tool responsibly?

The Wolf

Are Labels Inherently Bad?

Over at the Coffeeroom, someone began a discussion about the practice of labeling that goes on in the Orthodox Jewish community. The OP began with a very reasonable question:

I was always wondering... if we are supposed to have ahavas chinam, why do people constantly label different people? Labels mean different things to different people, so there really is no point, is there?

The majority opinion seems to be that labels are a bad thing. I, on the other hand, seem to be not so convinced.

I agree with the idea that labeling is bad when people use it to form rejectionist attitudes. And perhaps, in practice, it's bad because those attitudes inevitably form as a result of the labels. But what if we could somehow eliminate that? Are labels, in and of themselves, a bad thing?

I don't think so. Labels do serve for identification purposes. Since our nation's founding, people have used labels for identification -- this one's from Yehudah, this one's from Z'vulun, etc - and there is no inherent disadvantage to being from one shevet or another. Likewise, there should be no inherent disadvantage to being MO, Chabad, Chareidi, Breslov or whatever. As long as you are Shomer Torah U'Mitzvos, it shouldn't make a difference. The label simply shows that you identify with one particular hashkafah. But as long as no one is putting you down because of it, why is it bad?

Who knows? Maybe I'm totally off the mark on this. But I'd like to hear what you have to say.

The Wolf

Between Tanach and Chazal...A Very Interesting Set of Lectures

Since the time the Torah was given, Jews have always loved books. The vast amount of Jewish writing available is enough to keep a person occupied for well over a lifetime. We have writings in our canon that originate from every era of Jewish existence... except one.

There seems to be period after the close of the Tanach (shortly after the building of the second Temple) and the earliest writings of Chazal (the Mishnah, the Tosefta, Sifra/Sifre, etc.) where there are no writings that are a part of our establised canon. How is it that there are no writings from this period? Did the Jews of the time period just stop writing things until the times of the Mishnah?

The answer, of course, is no. There actually are works that originate from that time period. Rabbi Shalom Morris, the assistant Rabbi at the Lincoln Square Synagouge, gave an interesting four part lecture this past summer covering some of these works titled "Between Tanach and Chazal," highlighting those works and their significance to Jewish learning today.

Part 1 - The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha covers the "Biblical" works that did not make it into our final version of Tanach. The book of Susanah is looked at as an example of such a work.

Part 2 - Josephus talks about the works of the famous (or infamous) Jewish general. In particular, there are some interesting portions regarding the personal history of Josephus and some of the stories that he relates and how his versions of the stories differ from the versions that we have in the Talmud.

Part 3 - The Dead Sea Scrolls talks about the documents that were found in the caves in Qumran during the period of 1947-1956. Aside from the history of the scrolls and the controversy surrounding the release of their contents, Rabbi Morris takes us through some of the documents in the scrolls. For example, there is a scroll in Qumran that has a version of Ashrei with the Nun pasuk intact! But it's not the verse we are told about in the Gemara in Berachos. Is it possible that the Nun verse was perhaps added in at a later date?

In addition, Rabbi Morris takes us throught the MMT document, which is a letter from the head of the Qumran community during the time of the Maccabees to the Kohen Gadol, outlining some of the differences of opinions that they had with the established Temple leadership regarding ritual. The important part here, however, is that it demonstrates that some of the opinions and disputes mentioned in the Mishnah in Taharos (which wasn't compiled until centuries later) pre-date its compliation by centuries.

One last little teaser: They found tefillin at Qumran as well. Did they find Rashi's tefillin or Rabbeinu Tam's?

Part 4 - Megillat Ta'anit takes us through the scroll which deliniates the dates on which one is not allowed to fast because of victories that happened to the Jews on those days. Or is it a scroll of days on which one *is* supposed to fast? Or is it both? And what's the origin of this scroll (scrolls?) anyway? Aside from just providing a list of dates, together with some of the works of the Apocrypha, you can gain a valuable insight into the history of the times.

Personally, I've always been a fan of learning history through reading the documents of the day. By reading about how the people of the time felt and viewed matters, you always get a much better perspective on the events and culutre of the day than through the eyes of a historian centuries later. I love this set of shiurim and I encourage anyone interested in Jewish history to listen to them.

The Wolf

A Worthwhile Event To Go To

I hope to attend. I hope you will too. I hope it's productive, peaceful and a Kiddush HaShem.

And I also hope SuperRaizy won't mind that I ripped this graphic right off of her blog... though I suspect she won't.

The Wolf

On The Wings of Gerber Daisies

One area of photography that I happen to enjoy very much is macro photography. Macro photography is all about taking pictures of items up close. I took this shot of one of the flowers that I brought home for Shabbos last week.

Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/5, 1/30 second

While I have a lens that specializes in macro photography, most digital cameras have a macro setting that will allow you to take macro pictures with the lenses that are on them. You may not be able to take 1:1 (life size) pictures with them as I can with this lens, but you can still get some nice macro shots (remember my sunflower? -- that was with a point and shoot.) with a standard P&S with a macro mode.

Just for reference, here is the whole flower...


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

The Wolf

Previous Photos:
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

This Must Be The Stupidest Tznius Story I've Ever Heard

From a Chabadtalk thread:

Well mcp, just for the record, a few years ago I was driving and I almost crashed because I was driving with my eyes closed, only because I tried to avoid seeing a couple of young women who were very poorly dressed...

I find it extremely interesting. Of course, one is required to be martyred rather than engage in prohibited sexual relations. The gemara even takes it to an extreme where they prohibited a dying man from hearing a married woman's voice. But, in that instance, there was no danger to anyone except the potential sinner. And yet, this guy knows better*... because he's not only willing to risk his own life by closing his eyes while driving, but he's also willing to risk the lives of his passengers and anyone else on the road.

Talk about being a tzaddik on yenem's cheshbon (someone else's account)!

The Wolf

* Actually, he doesn't know better. The halacha is that while you are required to die rather than sin sexually, you are not required (or permitted) to kill someone to prevent them from sinning sexually. If this applies to someone who is actually sinning, it certainly applies to someone who is an innocent passenger in a car or walking or driving on the road. Or that's my take on the matter. However, I'm not a rav. If anyone knows otherwise, please feel free to say so.

Hat tip: OnionSoupMix

Mistakes of the Past Come Back To Haunt

Firstly, I'd like to thank everyone who wished me well when I was feeling ill earlier this week. I had been under the weather to one degree or another since the previous week, but Tuesday was, by far, the worst day. Normally, I fast extremely well, but Tuesday was such torture for me that by 1:00, I had to give it up. I ended up eating on a fast day for the first time since my Bar Mitzvah -- truly a weird experience. Baruch HaShem, I am feeling much better now. Now, on to business...

HaMercaz is reporting that R. Shmuel Kamenetzky is not objecting to Lipa's new concert. I suppose that's a good thing. The article goes on to discuss the events surrounding the cancellation of Lipa's "The Big Event" last year. In the article R. Kamenetzky is quoted as saying that people are upset about the cancellation from last year, and he doesn't understand why.

What's difficult to understand is why R. Kamenetzky doesn't understand the reason for people's anger. After admitting that he signed the banning document in undue haste, that the rabbonim did not follow the standard procedure for deciding on such matters and that they did not do due diligence in investigating the circumstances surrounding the concert which resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the concert's organizers and the loss of revenue for a worthwhile charity, I would think that he would understand why people are upset.

If people are going to entrust our rabbonim with the power to decide that certain events are permitted or prohibited, it is encumbent upon those very same rabbonim to investigate the matter before making a decision with large finanical consequences for many people. Had the rabbonim done their best to investigate the matter and gotten it wrong, I think that not so many people would be upset -- none one (including the rabbonim) are perfect and they, like everyone else, can make mistakes. But when they make important decisions without performing a diligent investigation into the matter, that's when people get upset. People expect leadership based on facts and information. People will accept if a rav says assur (prohibited) or muttur (permitted), provided that the decision is based upon a proper review of the facts surrounding the situation. But when the rabbonim "wing it" (so to speak) and make decisions based on a lack of information (or worse, biased and blatently false information), that's when people rightly become upset. To quote Stan Lee: with great power comes great responsibility. If a gadol is given the power to make important decision, then he has to be responsible for the inputs that goes into those decisions.

And, of course, the damage to Lipa is still ongoing. In the article, R. Kamenetzky relates the following:

“Last night I was at a certain affair,” R' Kamenetzky said on Monday. “Reb Lipa had to come there for some reason. He sang. And someone came over with Tainas to me. And I said, as far as I know there is no problem with letting him sing. As far as I know he is an Ehrliche Yid.”

The Wolf

Related Posts:
The Big Event Cancelleation: Lipa Says The Rabbanim Were Lied To (linked to in the post)
The Gedolim And How They Relate To The Common Person

Forgive the light blogging...

... but I've not been feeling well of late - and feel particularly sick today. In fact, I'm just about ready to eat on a fast day for the first time in over 25 years. I'll be back with something later if I feel better.

The Wolf

About the Topics that Make It On My Blog

A commentator left this off-topic comment on an earlier post:

I can understand a completely-Torah related site deciding to make no comment on what is going on in Israel right now. But on a site which records your various interests and notes the various things that catch your attention, your lack of any comment having to do with anything but tracking silly antics in the world of black hat Orthodoxy and your photography hobby leads to the impression that it just doesn't mean anything to you.

Personally, I feel that if someone has a complaint about my blog that is not related to a specific post, it would be better to send the complaint via email. But be that as it may, I'll respond publicly to my anonymous critic.

You are correct that I have not (as of yet) posted on the Gaza War. However, the fact that I have not done so does not mean that I do not care about it. There are a number of reasons why a topic might not make it on to my blog. One reason might be that it's a topic that I simply like to avoid, such as Israeli politics. Another reason might be that it has nothing to do with this blog, like American politics. A third reason is that I might simply not have anything new or different to say about it. The Gaza War is in this category. Yes, I hope for a quick end to the war. I hope and pray with all my heart that Israel wins a decisive victory and that the danger to the Jewish people in Israel be ended as quickly as possible. But aside from that, I really have nothing new to add to the debate. I don't blog just for the sake of "hearing myself talk." If I'm going to put up a post, it's usually because I feel that I might have a point to make that hasn't been made yet, or I might have a new insight into the situation. But if I have nothing new to add, I'm not going to post just to say "It's terrible that there's a war and I hope we win." There are plenty of bloggers who are closer to the situation, there are plenty of bloggers who are more well-informed and plenty of bloggers who are more capable of giving an intelligent analysis of the situation than I can.

Trust me, if I have something new or unique to say about the Gaza War, I will. But please don't automatically assume that the lack of statement on my part means I don't care.

The Wolf

Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too

In the vast majority of cases, you want your shots to have sharp focus. A shot being out of focus can usually ruin a shot so badly that it can't be saved, even with post-processing.

However, there are times when you might want to shoot an out of focus shot on purpose. One reason might be to create an effect of vagueness and abstraction. By shooting the right types of subjects out of focus, you can get some interesting photos.

From Wolfish Musings Pictures

Both images taken with Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/2.8, 1/125 second

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

The Wolf

Previous Photos:
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