With the economy battered from all the hits it has absorbed from the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the finger pointing is in full swing. The "know-it-alls" have taken the elevator up and mounted their high horses, berating irresponsible lenders who recklessly extended loans to undeserving candidates. "What do you expect when you loosen the reins; availing credit to a high-risk population?" they self-righteously postulate to anyone willing to listen.

But is allowing more people the opportunity to buy a home an immoral idea? There must be an upside here somewhere.

Think about your first job, your first client, or the kid who included you in the kickball game on the first day of school. We've all benefited from undeserved kindness, been trusted on potential rather than past performance. No track record, no history of credit worthiness; someone takes a chance, and then the rest is up to us. And so it goes we are trusted and we trust others, we take risks and are entrusted with other's confidence.

It's a hazardous business this trust thing; the opportunities for abuse abound. From laziness to outright cheating, con artists make a nice living off other's munificence. And so many seem to be getting away with defaulting.

And when victimized by the recipient of unearned trust, we tend to shame the other and recoil, lock our trusting instinct away, resolved never to be fooled again. It's a pity. Just as cash stuffed under the mattress sacrifices opportunities, trusts withheld wither and die within.

So now what? Should the FDIC terminate all "high risk" loans, should kids only play with well-credentialed friends? And why should I be a chump and make my payments?

Let's look at this issue from a spiritual perspective. As much as we might dislike facing it, we are all gratuitous beneficiaries. Without even having us filling out a credit application, G‑d has entrusted each one of us with a soul. Before even having done one mitzvah or shown any sign of success, a literal piece of G‑d is ours. No collateral, no cosigner, nothing more than our word to be righteous and not evil, and G‑d places His most precious asset in our untested hands—purely on the optimism that we will justify His risk.

It's so tempting to take the money and run; many seem to get away with it. And despite the evidence to the contrary, G‑d continues to believe that we are a reasonable gamble.

A metaphor: A king makes a feast and invites his most honored ministers to celebrate with him. They dig in to a scrumptious meal. Out in the back, the wait staff and the cocker spaniel eat pretty good too; a banquet like this produces some pretty fine leftovers.

A pragmatic observer might conclude that the dog has a better deal; he eats the same food as the partygoers without fidelity to the monarch—they don't even need a tie. Some might even encourage the guests to "take a hint"; leave the hard work for the poor saps who don't know any better and live off the leftovers. Why not make a decent living without breaking a sweat?

On the other hand, the clever waiter, having brushed up against nobility, resolves to graduate from the kitchen to the dining room.

So know ye all lenders of capital or compassion: there are crooks out there that will betray your trust. Yet the only way to profit is through risk and there is no greater beauty than trust requited. And know all ye recipients of kindness: much can be siphoned from the bighearted, yet if you chose that path it leads to the doghouse when your place card reads "dais."

G‑d is an unregulated lender, trusting undeserving folks with unreasonable capital. Let's make him look like a genius by growing His investment!

The Rebbe has followed G‑d's lead, entrusting us with the mission of making the world a better place and preparing it for the Redemption. Let's be as good a risk as the Rebbe thinks we are!

The AP announced yesterday that, for the first time, Barack Obama has overtaken Hillary Clinton in super-delegate endorsements, erasing Clinton's once-imposing lead in this area. With Obama leading in the popular vote, pledged delegates, and now super-delegates too, he has virtually secured the Democratic Party presidential nomination. According to all political pundits, the question is not if, but when, Clinton will bow out of the race.

An astounding political upset. Not long ago, Mrs. Clinton was considered a shoo-in for the '08 Democratic nomination. She boasted significant leads in national polls, as well in campaign fundraising. The primaries were going to be a mere formality that would rubber-stamp her presumptive candidacy. The chances of a novice politician upending her run was almost inconceivable.

But it has happened... A political newcomer has managed to upset the establishment. Despite formidable obstacles, Obama has earned the nomination hanging his presidential hopes on one mantra: the promise of change. The people have spoken. They are more comfortable with a person who promises change than a person who rests on the laurels of his or her experience.

There has got to be a lesson we can learn from the "Obama Phenomenon"... And not just a lesson for future political candidates, but one that we can implement in our personal lives.*

Is experience required in order to make sweeping change? Apparently the consensus is that it is not. Changing habits and routines is perhaps the most difficult thing to do; this is true regarding Washington culture or personal tendencies. And there's only one thing more powerful than the force of inertia, and that is determination and willpower.

If there's a true desire to change, then no obstacle is insurmountable. If experience is lacking, then willpower will motivate the person to find the necessary information, tools, and the proper advisors. In the words of our sages, "Nothing stands in the way of willpower."

So... Graduating rabbinical school is not a necessary prerequisite to becoming a spiritual person. You don't need experience in mediation and diplomacy to become a good spouse, parent or friend.

What an inspiring message. Makes no difference where you've been and what you've done. You inherently possess the ability to make of yourself whatever you so choose! A desire to change is all you need. It's a winning formula...

There are some other lessons I've learned from the OP. I will be posting them, G‑d willing, in coming days. Meanwhile, I'd love to hear from you; what kind of lessons have you taken from this news? Use the comment section to let your voice be heard. But... let's stay above personal politics and attacks. Let's see if we can remain focused on the positive.

Disclaimer: I'm not professing to know whether if elected Obama will really bring change. By the same token, I'm not vouching for Clinton's experience. I'm just analyzing their proclaimed virtues, the choice they presented to the voters, and the decision the voters made.

Excerpted from an article, Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness, that appeared in the journal Science this past month:

A large body of research has demonstrated that income has a reliable, but surprisingly weak, effect on happiness within nations, particularly once basic needs are met. Indeed, although real incomes have surged dramatically in recent decades, happiness levels have remained largely flat within developed countries across time. One of the most intriguing explanations for this counterintuitive finding is that people often pour their increased wealth into pursuits that provide little in the way of lasting happiness, such as purchasing costly consumer goods.

We suggest that investing income in others rather than oneself may have measurable benefits for one's own happiness.

As an initial test of the relation between spending choices and happiness, we asked a nationally representative sample of 632 Americans (55% female) to rate their general happiness, to report their annual income, and to estimate how much they spent in a typical month on (i) bills and expenses, (ii) gifts for themselves, (iii) gifts for others, and (iv) donations to charity. The first two categories were summed to create an index of personal spending, and the latter two categories were summed to create an index of pro-social spending. Entering the personal and pro-social spending indices simultaneously into a regression predicting general happiness revealed that personal spending was unrelated to happiness, but higher pro-social spending was associated with significantly greater happiness.

If this interpretation is correct, then people who receive an economic windfall should experience greater happiness after receiving the windfall if they spend it on others rather than themselves. We tested this prediction by examining the happiness of 16 employees before and after they received a profit-sharing bonus from their company. [The] employees who devoted more of their bonus to pro-social spending experienced greater happiness after receiving the bonus, and the manner in which they spent that bonus was a more important predictor of their happiness than the size of the bonus itself.

Finally, despite the observable benefits of pro-social spending, our participants spent relatively little of their income on pro-social ends; participants in our national survey, for example, reported devoting more than 10 times as much money for personal as for pro-social spending each month. Although personal spending is of necessity likely to exceed pro-social spending for most North Americans, our findings suggest that very minor alterations in spending allocations—as little as $5 in our final study—may be sufficient to produce nontrivial gains in happiness on a given day. Why, then, don't people make these small changes? Tests revealed that participants were doubly wrong about the impact of money on happiness; we found that a significant majority thought that personal spending would make them happier than pro-social spending and that $20 would make them happier than $5.

G-d spoke to Moses saying: "Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me an offering..."—Exodus 25:1-2.

Our sages have pointed out the curious wording of this command: should not G-d have instructed the Israelites to give an offering, rather than to take one?

But the precise wording teaches us that when we give a charitable contribution we are actually taking more than giving. In the words of the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 34): "More than the benefactor benefits the pauper, the pauper benefits the benefactor."

G-d created the world based on a system of rules that He conjured. These rules encompass all of creation—both its matter and its spirit. Many of these rules are of the cause-and-effect variety. You throw a ball in the air, it will come down. You plant a seed, a plant will grow. You forget your wife's birthday, all sorts of bad things happen. You give charity, and you end up getting.

In His kindness, he gave us creation's master blueprint, the Torah, which contains all the rules—whether explicitly or encrypted.

Some of these rules are intuitive, some are not. Sometimes it takes a scientific study to empirically demonstrate the truth of one of these rules.

Who knows? Maybe the next study will confirm that closing one's business on Shabbat actually increases revenue...

Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran a cover story exploring the policies of the three presidential candidates vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear threat. They all agreed that a rush to war would be imprudent, but that's where the consensus ended. Here's how I read their positions: One candidate favors negotiating with Iran without any preconditions. Another isn't really sure what to do—but absolutely will not negotiate with a terrorist state. The third candidate would love to take military action, but senses that in the current political climate that isn't the wisest thing to say.

Which got me thinking: What is a Jewish approach with respect to evil regimes?

Then I realized: One second, how do I define evil altogether? So here goes:

I believe that there is a difference between evil and hurtful. Two people can be equally damaging, but one is evil and one isn't. By the same token, two people can be equally evil, but only one is hurtful and damaging.

Examples:

a) Two people set out to commit murder. Both pull the trigger. One of them succeeds in executing his heinous plan, while the other's gun jams. One has been infinitely more hurtful, destroying a life and wreaking havoc on many others. The other is equally evil, but has not managed to be (as) damaging.

b) Two people rob a bank. One does so because he has bills to pay, and feels incredible guilt. The other simply gets a kick out of it. They have both committed equally criminal acts, but one exhibits an evil trait while the other has succumbed to weakness.

We all make mistakes, often hurting others in the process. But usually these offenses are triggered by weakness or an honest mistake. The parent who spoils his child is simply misguided, definitely not evil. An evil person, to my mind, is one who hurts others in cold malice or sadism, or because of a warped personal philosophy—with no compunctions about it.

Now, I think that the same principles holds true on the global scene. There are good regimes and evil ones. I'm not sure there can be a "gray area" in this area. Good regimes make mistakes all the time. Catastrophic mistakes at times (Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza strip is one such example—already painfully exposed as such by the barrage of rockets and the recent deaths). Sometimes the leaders of good regimes are greedy and corrupt and need to be prosecuted, but the motivations and governing principles of these nations are not evil.

And then there are "evil empires," as President Reagan once fittingly called the former USSR. Nations whose dictators – yes, as a rule these nations are led by dictators, because the masses are rarely innately evil – are on a pathological ego trip. Their goal is to dominate others. They have successfully forced their own populations into submission, and now they are drunk for more.

This past Saturday night we ushered in the holiday of Passover. 3320 years ago, our nation was extricated from the death-grip of an evil nation.

"And the Egyptians were evil to us and tormented us, and they imposed hard labor upon us" – Deuteronomy 26:6; part of the Haggadah liturgy.

If they tormented us and forced us into slavery, is it necessary to add that they were evil? Torah is written concisely and is not known for adding superfluous adjectives.

It seems, however, that the Torah is discussing their intent.

We had never harmed the Egyptians—to the contrary, Joseph, the one who single-handedly saved the land from a catastrophic famine, was from our ranks. But the entire slavery was designed to hold us hostage in the land—we were to be a token of Egyptian supremacy. It wasn't merely a national weakness of character, it was a Nazi Germany-esque desire for domination.

What was G‑d's "approach" with regard to this evil regime? Well, He certainly didn't negotiate. His message to Pharaoh was blunt and to the point: "Let my people go or I will devastate you and your land. There will be nothing left by the time I'm finished with you..."

It seems then, that the Torah's account teaches us that you don't negotiate with evil. Idealistically speaking, this is because negotiating with evil lends legitimacy to an illegitimate entity. Practically speaking, the evil party won't negotiate in good faith. If he's evil, if he's rotten to the core, then he'll always be looking to undermine you and will pounce at you when the moment is opportune.

Instead G‑d unleashed on Egypt a torrent of plagues. The stated goal of these plagues was to bring Egypt to submission: "And Egypt will know that I am G‑d." An individual or entity that thinks that power is the answer to all will only be vanquished through a stronger demonstration of power.

I recognize that this is a sensitive and polarizing issue. This is only my humble little opinion on that matter. I'd love for you to share your thoughts in the comments below.

Have a happy and kosher Passover!

The recent government bailout of Bear Stearns and the prevailing concern about the mortgage crisis and what it means for local banks has the 1980's culture of corporate takeovers readying for a comeback. I figure there has to be something here that's a) positive and b) relevant to our service of G‑d. There must to be a "bright side" spin to this whole takeover phenomenon.

Consider an alternative scenario: a corporation reaches its output capacity and seeks new avenues for growth. A keen-eyed executive searches for an under-funded enterprise with a valuable product. They enter into a partnership, providing the capital to allow the Mom & Pop venture to grow to a level it could never have achieved on its own.

Judaism has its spiritual embodiment of this model: a Rebbe.

A Rebbe is a tzaddik, a wholly righteous Jew who has mastered his personal mission. He then turns his attention to infusing the undercapitalized startups of the generation with G‑dly vigor and shepherds them to otherwise unattainable heights, pumping spiritual capital into the corner stores and empowering them to spiritually swell beyond their own abilities.

A Rebbe's leadership does not diminish one's independence it enriches it. Like the conglomerate that seeks out the investment, it does so precisely because it values what the startup already is; the corporation seeks to augment its new partner not alter it. In fact, the investor's sharp eye often sees value that the small business never realized was there.

This Wednesday, the 11th of Nissan, is the 106th anniversary of the birth of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of righteous memory—a leader who personified this idea.

The Rebbe sought out Jews with an unprecedented vigor; he saw significance in every individual by virtue of the spark of G‑d invested within him or her. All too often we undervalue ourselves, thinking that we are a corner store when in fact we can be an international conglomerate. We think we are okay when we are great; that we are the simple son when inside there is a wise son eager to break out. The Rebbe infused us with his spiritual wealth, empowering us to discover our abundant, though often latent, abilities.

Perhaps this is why the Rebbe dispatched thousands of emissaries beyond the "enclave" of Brooklyn—despite the pleas of well-meaning contemporaries who feared that exposure to the "outside" would do irreparable damage to young impressionable couples. Like a venture capitalist that sees the undervalued company, he was willing to take the risk of investment, confident that the "gamble" would pay huge dividends. The Rebbe saw G‑dliness everywhere and trusted his emissaries to see the same. He didn't send them to "bestow upon strangers," but to evoke the natural G‑dliness from within their brothers and sisters.

A Jewish leader is obsessed with the needs of others. Everyone else gets to go to sleep at night; content to concern themselves with their family's needs. Perhaps they are active in their neighborhood or city, even their state or country, yet at some point they say "dayenu" (enough); sorry that's not my department. I often tell people who question why we refer to the Rebbe as the "leader of the generation," and not just the leader of the Lubavitch Chasidim: "The response is simple; no one else wanted the job!"

May we merit to believe in ourselves as deeply as the Rebbe believes in us.

Three items from this past Friday's New York Times:

BEIJING — Tibet will be reopened to tourists on May 1, a decision announced Thursday even as Chinese authorities showed no sign of lifting restrictions preventing foreign journalists from freely visiting Tibet to report on episodes of ethnic unrest.

Tibet has been closed to domestic and foreign tourists since March 16, two days after violent riots erupted in Lhasa. State media have reported the police in Aba fired on Tibetan protesters after they tried to storm a police station. Overseas Tibetan advocacy groups have asserted that up to 20 Tibetans were killed...

BEIJING — A Chinese court sentenced an outspoken human rights advocate, Hu Jia, 34, to three and a half years in prison after ruling that his critical essays and comments about Communist Party rule amounted to inciting subversion. Critics say his conviction is part of a government crackdown to silence dissidents before Beijing hosts the Olympic Games in August...

SEOUL — North Korea's rising tensions with the West, along with soaring international grain prices and flood damage from last year, will probably take a heavy toll among famine-threatened people in North Korea. The warnings followed a report on Thursday that North Korea's government had suspended distribution of food rations for six months in Pyongyang, the capital. The report was released by Good Friends, a relief group in Seoul that collects data from informants in the North.

Korea's isolationist government asked for foreign aid in the 1990s only after a famine killed more than one million people of an estimated population of 23 million...

This week's Torah portion, Metzora, discusses tzara'at, a disease that causes skin discoloration. Though the symptoms of this ailment are physical, our sages teach that it is triggered by lashon hara, evil talk about another. Lashon hara isn't (only) slanderous talk; we are forbidden to discuss another's faults and misdeeds even if true. The Rebbe explains that speech has the ability to reveal that which is hidden. Speaking negatively about another reveals and reinforces those very negative qualities—just as speaking about another's strengths and talents brings those qualities to the forefront of his consciousness.

Is this an endorsement of the Chinese and North Korean simple philosophy: instead of dealing with an issue, deny its existence—and then silence anyone who dares to suggest that the problem does exist?

Let's hear what you guys think...

Zach Dunlap's story, which took place in Oklahoma City, is a unifier.

No matter what side of the organ donor argument you are on, when you read Zach Dunlap's story you will probably take a step back—to contemplate.

Zach Dunlap, 21, was "more dead" than Terri Schiavo was before he woke up from his coma.

He was pronounced dead in Wichita Falls, Texas, after he was injured in an all-terrain vehicle accident. After seeing the results of a brain scan in which "there was no activity at all, no blood flow at all," his father, Doug, approved organ harvest from Zach's "lifeless body."

But as family members were paying their last respects, they wanted to check if he was really dead. He wasn't. Zach suddenly moved his foot and hand and reacted to a pocketknife scraped across his foot and to pressure applied under a fingernail.

Incredibly, though Dunlap said he has no recollection of the crash, he does remember one thing and that is hearing the doctors pronounce him dead.

"I'm glad I couldn't get up and do what I wanted to do," Zach said.

"Just makes me thankful, makes me thankful that they didn't give up."

This is quite a horrifying statement. How many other "brain dead" people heard doctors declare them dead? How many others were given a death sentence while lying helpless in a hospital bed?

Four months after he was declared brain dead and doctors were about to remove his organs for transplant, Zach Dunlap says he feels "pretty good." I would say he should. Not just because he's alive and well, but more so for the message his story sends the rest of us.

The story of Zach Dunlap should make a lot of people feel good—all those who understand that while there is breath there is life.

No matter what side of the argument you are on – pulling the plug or not, donating organs or not – this story really has to make you think.

Perhaps when it comes to life and death decisions people are too quick to pull the trigger.

Certainly one thing we can learn from Zach Dunlap's "return to life": Not enough effort is made to watch cases like this and allow them to play themselves out before we pull the plug.

As I've stated before on this forum, I'm not an economist. I regularly tune out when in it's time for the Wall Street report. I'm still waiting for the day when my large stock portfolio will cause me to be interested in the NASDAQ...

In fact, on those few occasions that I do pay attention to the market analysts, I don't understand much of what is being said. Take the current financial crisis as an example. The financial markets and the US dollar are plummeting because of the "sub-prime mortgage" catastrophe. Having no clue what a sub-prime mortgage is, I'm reduced to imagining an evil cabal plotting to destroy the American Dream by seducing naïve citizens to sign on the dotted line that will spell their eventual doom. These would be the same people who put poison in the candies they give to trick-or-treaters...

But a recent financial news story caught my attention. The Consumer Confidence Index has sunk to an all time low. The goal of the CCI is to gauge the mindset of the public vis-à-vis the current and short term future financial outlook. The results of their monthly survey are a reliable indicator of future spending habits, which has a huge effect on the state of the economy.

This month's reading was 64.5. Considering that any reading below 100 is viewed as negative, and that we have currently sunk to a five-year low, this is disturbing news, indeed.

There are many variables that affect the economy, many of which are beyond our control. But it turns out that our mindset – our optimism or pessimism, our saving or spending habits – plays a pivotal role in determining whether we will descend into recession or catapult back into economic expansion.

This principle is true in our personal lives as well. Our lives and wellbeing seem to be manipulated by a variety of influences. But in truth, our mindset and choice of reaction is more powerful than all these external forces combined.

If we fall into the trap of pessimism, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But if we can muster the strength to think positively and remain optimistic, we can weather anything.

A federal appeals court has overturned a "Passenger Bill of Rights" enacted by the New York legislature. The law was passed in response to lengthy delays on New York runways during the winter of 2006-07, and required airlines to provide food, water and fresh air to passengers stuck on the ground during long delays.

The court ruled that New York's Passenger Bill of Rights conflicts with a federal law that prohibits states from regulating airlines. A patchwork of laws by states and localities would be impractical and harmful to consumer interests. "If New York's view regarding the scope of its regulatory authority carried the day, another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel."

The onus is now on the federal government to enact a similar law to be uniformly applied within all the states. The House has already passed such legislation, and now there's hope that this ruling will lead to action in the Senate, too.

My first thought as I read this news item was that, thankfully, the judicial branch has pulled through once again—the system is operating exactly as intended. While the court conceded that the intentions behind the bill were laudable, and the current situation certainly requires redress, nevertheless, good intentions don't always justify behavior.

There are good-intentioned acts that may be wrongly executed, or for which the timing is off. Or, perhaps, I may be the wrong person to tackle this project—it's not my jurisdiction altogether. This is a concept that can be applied to virtually every area of life – business, family, and religion too – and an objective outside observation is needed to determine the proper course of action.

But it occurred to me that this whole episode is perhaps a metaphor for something deeper, too.

After all, we are all travelers; spiritual entities journeying through a terrestrial realm. We have rules that guide and limit us—we all have to buckle our seatbelts and certain potentially dangerous items are banned on board all flights. But each of us also has his or her own needs; and each of us are entitled to a "bill of rights" that addresses them.

To whom do we direct our demands concerning these needs? There are so many bodies that have some sort of jurisdiction over us and seemingly have the ability to provide some or all of our needs—our employers, our spouses, the government, etc.

Well, the US Court of Appeals just ruled that it is the federal government's responsibility. When addressing our basic needs, the buck stops right at the top.

In the words of the Rebbe:

Torah study and the observance of mitzvot are the wedding ring with which G‑d betrothed Israel and obligated Himself to provide them with sustenance and livelihood.

So, we turn right to the Top and ask that You provide the needs of each and every one of us. After all, You put us on this journey.

The markets have been very volatile lately and according to most experts the United States has entered a recession. All of this uncertainty and financial difficulties is a result of the credit crisis that was sparked by the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. On Monday of this past week everything came to a head with the collapse of Bear Stearns, one of the world's largest global investment banks.

It was bought by JP Morgan Chase in a stock swap worth $2 a share. Bearing in mind that its stocks were worth $172 a share in January 2007, this was a humongous downfall of a massive financial institution. Needless to say many people on Wall Street lost money and many companies went into crisis mode.

The focus is not only on the banks and financial institutions that are in trouble because of the credit crunch, but also on the people that are getting hurt. Many people got into a three- or five-year ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) and when their mortgage adjusted to a higher rate, they could no longer afford payments and their homes went into foreclosure. As more homes were taken back by the banks the housing market in many areas started to fall. People who borrowed one hundred percent for their home immediately started to have negative equity issues. With nothing to lose many have walked away from their homes, leaving the banks with further loses and their mortgage-backed securities significantly devalued.

It Take Two to Tango

Clearly it takes two to tango and this credit mess is the combined fault of both the banks and borrowers—they were both deceptive with each other. Borrowers were able to get home loans without having to prove their income; many therefore deceived the lenders regarding their real salaries. Lenders for their part were offering people with bad credit interest-only loans for above-market interest rates that seemed manageable at the time of the transaction. In many cases they were not, however, up-front about what would happen when the rate adjusted. Any reasonable outsider was able to see that this deception would come crashing down at some point, to everyone's detriment.

Indeed this is what has been happening over the last eight months or so. Banks no longer trust people and there is virtually no such thing as a no-doc-loan anymore—if you want a loan you have to prove your income. Banks don't even trust their fellow banks anymore.

The Torah Predicts a Crisis

It is fascinating that all of this has come to a climax on Monday of this past week. Jews have a custom to study the week's Torah portion according to the way it has been divided for the day of the week. Tradition has it that within each daily portion there are elements that relate directly to the happenings of that particular day in any given era.

On Monday we studied the laws that pertain to the asham, the guilt offering that was brought up on the Altar in the Temple by a person who had sinned. There are numerous reasons why a person would bring a guilt offering. One of them is for dishonesty. The Torah says in the end of the previous week's portion (Leviticus, 5:21–25), "If a person sins … by falsely denying to his fellow concerning a deposit, or money given in hand, or an object taken by robbery, or he withheld funds from his fellow … [he] shall then bring his guilt offering to the L-rd."

Bear Stearns as a Guilt Offering

On Monday of this past week—the day Bear Stearns finally fell—we read more about the offering that a dishonest person must bring to gain atonement (Leviticus, 7:1-4), "And this is the law of the guilt offering. It is a holy of holies … And the kohen shall cause them to [go up in] smoke on the altar as a fire offering to the L-rd. It is a guilt offering."

It seems clear to me that the fall of the mighty Bear Stearns and the shaky US economy and the volatility in the markets is a result of dishonesty that has taken place over the last few years and Bear Stearns was the sacrifice offered as a result of this. In fact many experts have said that the liquidity crisis is a direct result of a lack of trust between banks.

If the economy is to recover, all of us—financial institutions, Wall Street professionals, and regular people alike—must take the Torah's advice to heart and there must be a collective repentance and atonement for the dishonesty of the past. Let us hope that Bear Stearns is the only sacrifice needed for this atonement to take effect permanently.

This past Friday, the Reader's Digest magazine announced its "2008 Hero of the Year." Every month the periodical features a heroic individual. At the end of the year, the readers are asked to choose the individual whose heroic act stands out from the rest. This year's elected hero is Moezeldin Elmostafa, a Sudanese immigrant taxi driver.

In 2006, the Duke lacrosse team scandal was making waves in the national media when Elmostafa received a phone call from one of the player's attorney. Elmostafa had driven that player home on that fateful night. Elmostafa agreed to testify in the player's defense, vouching that the player was in his cab at the time of the purported assault.

Little did Elmostafa know that the prosecutor in the case, Michael Nifong, wasn't exactly motivated by a sense of fairness and justice. Two weeks later, Elmostafa was arrested on a charge relating to a minor crime—charges that were settled years earlier. He immediately realized that this was a strong-arm attempt to scare him into recanting his testimony.

But he stood firm on his principles. With his limited funds he hired an attorney to defend him against the frivolous charges—and he gave his exculpatory testimony under oath.

Eight months later the Duke players were cleared. Nifong was disbarred. Elmostafa was heralded as a hero.

Now, there are two types of heroes. There is the "good samaritan" type hero who experiences a moment of complete transcendence. On a moment's notice, when espying a fellow in danger, he risks life and health and rushes to a victim's aid. Most of the heroes on the Reader's Digest ballot were of this ilk: the men who following a tornado saved children trapped in a collapsed school; the man who jumped into a frigid river to save a woman and her child; the man who fought a pit bull that was mauling a pedestrian. Regarding such heroes the Talmud says, "There is one who earns his World-to-Come in one moment."

But the readers – wisely, in my estimation – chose a person whose heroism wasn't a spur-of-the-moment act. They chose a hero who for an extended period of time lived in fear—but nevertheless stood by his convictions. A person who was willing to live by his ideals, no matter the consequences. His heroism wasn't an extra-curricular activity; it defined who he was.

There are two types of holidays: a) Purim. b) All the others.

All other holidays are other-worldly experiences. We spend time in the synagogue, not at the workplace. We suspend our daily routines and focus on spirituality. Yes, there's Chanukah, whose eight days are normal workdays, but the holiday's observances are all of a spiritual nature. We light candles—a metaphor for spiritual light, Torah and mitzvot. We pray and recite the Hallel, Psalms of thanksgiving.

And then there's Purim. The day's prayers are minimal—no longer than your average weekday. Instead, the day's mitzvot focus on community and family. Gift giving and feasting. Good food and wine. Very un-transcendent.

That's because the heroism we demonstrated during the Purim events wasn't transcendent. Haman issued his decree on the 13th of Nissan. The decree called for the Jews' annihilation eleven months later, on the 13th of Adar. Though Haman was hanged, the decree was never rescinded. And for eleven months the Jews lived in fear for their lives.

But there was an escape route. Haman's decree was aimed against "Yehudim," Jews who rejected idolatry. Life and security were guaranteed for anyone willing to abandon Judaism.

But throughout the eleven month period, not one Jews exercised this option. For more than 300 consecutive days, every Jew woke up, ate, went to work, spent his leisure time, went to sleep—all with a loyalty to G‑d that trumped the most basic instinct of self-preservation. They lived and breathed mesirat nefesh (supreme self-sacrifice).

Their heroism was rewarded. "On the day the enemies of the Jews had thought they would dominate them, the situation was reversed: the Jews dominated their enemies." And a holiday was established.

But can this miracle be commemorated with an other-worldly, transcendent synagogue session?

To my dear friends and family,

Daniel and I just got back form paying a shiva call to the family of Segev Avichayil, a young boy murdered in the Merkaz Harav terrorist attack Thursday night. I was expecting a terrible scene of crying and shouting, of blaming and lots of unanswered questions. What we encountered was the exact opposite.

The apartment was a modest one, the only interior design being the Torah-books lined living room walls. This was clearly a home of Torah and piety. At least a hundred people were crowded into the room, all listening while the father of this young man spoke with total composure and clarity. Segev's mother and sister sat quietly listening to words which are difficult to imagine coming from a man whose son had been so cruelly torn from him. I tried to absorb every word, knowing that I was in the presence of greatness and would probably never encounter strength like this again.

Rabbi Avichayil was telling all the heartbroken people who came to comfort him that he was not broken. He said that he, his wife and all of their remaining children were stronger in their faith and love for G‑d than ever. He said that G‑d has chosen this time for the Jewish nation to return to its borders, and the terrorist was just an agent to test our resolve to resettle the land. G‑d had now chosen a new path for him and his family to embark on, and all he could do was thank G‑d for having been graced with such a precious soul for the years his son lived.

Someone there asked if he had questions for G‑d. He said that the Talmud is written in a way that there are always more questions to be asked, deeper layers to reveal and understand. He said that he did not have questions of G‑d; he just knows that he can not understand everything yet. He said that he had no questions, just perhaps he felt a lack of clarity. He went on to describe his son Segev, a boy so connected to Torah at just fifteen years old. He loved to learn with his father, and had deep respect for his father. He stood when his father entered the room, and always was very interested in how his father was doing. He called from yeshiva all the time to speak to his parents and siblings; always caring so much for what they were doing and how they were. He went regularly to the hospital to dance and sing and make people happy. His father asked him once if he was embarrassed to do it, and he could not understand the question. Why should he be embarrassed to make people happy? We have truly lost a special soul.

Segev's rabbi from Merkaz Harav was there. He told us that the reason Segev had been in the library the night of the shooting and not in the study hall was because the study hall was crowded and he did not want to be distracted from his learning. The terrorist killed all the students who could not escape the library fast enough. Segev died with his holy book still open in his hands.

May G‑d bring consolation to this beautiful family, who raised their son with the most beautiful Torah values and love for Judaism. May we see the redemption quickly in our days. We must all continue to pray for peace for the Jews in Israel, and for protection from the evil reincarnation of Haman and Amalek.

May we hear good news,

Most people won't lose their jobs due to such behavior. I won't stop visiting my doctor if I find out that he is guilty of such an offense, nor will I stop using my plumber or accountant if they made such errors in judgment. I hire these people for the services they render; their private life isn't my concern.

Yet, according to news reports, Governor Elliot Spitzer of New York, who recently was considered a rapidly rising star in the political arena, will today resign his position after being implicated in a vice crime. Polls show that an overwhelming majority agree that Spitzer must leave office. Other than the clergy and politics, I can't think of another job that would be jeopardized by behavior of this ilk. Even the top executive of a Fortune 500 company would get a pass.

Defrocking a clergyman for such behavior is understandable. Morality is his job. How can one guilty of such an indiscretion continue pontificating about the virtue of chastity? But how does such behavior affect the way our elected officials balance a budget or preside over public matters?

I think this is another example where, as a society, we proclaim one thing, but deep down we have a different opinion altogether. We talk about the importance of "separating church and state"; of having a purely mechanistic government. We claim not to make any spiritual or moral demands of our leaders whom we elect to "purely secular" posts.

But in our heart of hearts we know that our success as a nation stems from our professed relationship with G‑d—in "whom we trust." Without this relationship we are lost and doomed to corruption and chaos. And we expect our leaders to live according to this ideal.

Politicians come and go. We'll be fine—we still know what's right.

There are no words to describe the mourning and grief; no words to rationalize or explain.

Eight young yeshivah boys gathered in a school library cruelly gunned down by beasts disguised as humans.

May G-d welcome their holy souls into His loving embrace. And may He tenaciously avenge their blood.

My G-d, have we not suffered enough already? How much longer will You allow Your beloved nation to suffer such tragedies? It is the month of Adar, a month when You told us to increase our joy. How, now, are we to be joyful?

We believe and trust that all You do is good. But the time has come for belief and trust to be replaced. Seeing Your goodness instead of trusting in it. Feeling your love instead of believing in it.

There's an old joke about three people, one of them a member of the Israeli Defense Forces, who were shipwrecked and landed on a remote cannibal-infested island. They were captured before long, and as cauldrons of water were being hoisted on to the fire, the generous natives offered to grant each of their captives one last wish.

The first doomed man requested a pen and paper, and penned a farewell note to his family. The second person asked for a five-course –non-human-meat – final meal. The Israeli then asked that the tribal leader punch him in the face. A strange request, but in their final moments on earth, people don't always think coherently... As soon as the Chief socked him, the Israeli pulled out an Uzi and mowed down the hapless captors.

"Why did you wait until he punched you before shooting them?" the two relieved friends asked.

"And have the world say that I was the aggressor?!"

Nice joke, but, as I sadly learned this week, it does not at all reflect reality. It seems that regardless of how she is socked, any action Israel takes in self-defense will be viewed as "unwarranted aggression."

Reading the international reaction to the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflagration, I was unsure whether to laugh or cry.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon accused Israel of "disproportionate and excessive use of force." Israel's "close friend and ally," the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas, used words like "genocide," "massacre," and "international terrorism" to describe Israel's actions. A statement issued by the EU condemned the "recent disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces against the Palestinian population in Gaza." Saudi Arabia compared Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip to Nazi war crimes. Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister expressed concern about the Israeli retaliatory measures "because of their impact on civilians." And Pope Benedict called on "both Israelis and Palestinians" to unconditionally halt the violence.

The "moderate Palestinian" leadership based in the West Bank also suspended peace talks with Israel. The Palestinian representative to the United Nations explained that the Israeli attacks threaten to destabilize the region and "derail the peace process."

Wow.

After months and months of relative inaction in the face of daily rocket barrages, the Israeli government decided to take action to defend her people. The decision to act followed the death of a civilian in Sderot from Kassam fire, and the landing of rockets in Ashkelon, a southern city with a population of 100,000+.

So here's my question: We see that Israel will never have an acceptable "excuse" to pursue the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure and rocket factories. Such action will inevitably trigger universal condemnation. So why wait to be punched in the face before embarking on a self-defense mission?

Perjury is in the news again. In the aftermath of the Baseball Steroids Debacle, Congress is now asking the Justice Department to investigate whether a certain star player lied under oath during the course of a congressional hearing on the matter. If convicted, this player faces up to five years behind bars.

Interestingly, though many baseball players were implicated for using steroids and other banned performance enhancing substances, and many have openly admitted their mistake, no one is facing criminal charges for their drug violations. It seems that perjury is considered a more severe offense.

Why is that? As a society, we don't view lying as a punishable offense. Yet if someone lies under oath, we're quick to bear down with the full force of the law. Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart learned this lesson the hard way.

When a person makes a statement under oath, he is creating a trust. The judges who preside over courts of law as well as members of Congress are our representatives. As such, an oath made in front of them creates a trust between the individual and "the people."

We don't quickly forgive breaches of sacred trusts. The subject of the prevarication is not so relevant; we can forgive many indiscretions. But to break a trust? That we refuse to pardon.

The Talmud tells us that before a soul descends into a body, it is administered an oath: "Be righteous and do not be wicked." Many have questioned the logic behind this oath. Tell the soul what's wrong and what's right, inform her what's expected of her—why an oath?

Perhaps this is one explanation: As long as there is no "trust" then every act is judged based on its merits. If it's a good deed, it has to be weighed to determine how beneficial it was. In the case of an offense, how bad was it? Is it excusable?

But once a sacred trust has been established, then a mitzvah is more than a "good" act—it's an act of integrity and loyalty. And next time we are tempted to disregard a "trivial" prohibition, let's just think of it as perjury.

Two stories caught my eye this past week:

New York City's Madison Square Garden recently hosted the 132nd annual Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. Dog owners from around the world came to exhibit their purebred pooches. In what is considered by many to be America's most prestigious dog show, the judges award the dogs who epitomize the published standards for each breed. For example, this year's winner was a 15 inch beagle, which – according to WKC's standards – is a dog with a "muscular body, bold attitude and hardy bearing." Its ideal disposition oddly reminded me of my children: "smart, independent and easily bored, they will get in trouble when unsupervised."

In response to this show, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) released a TV ad showing a hooded KKK member making himself at home at a meeting of the "purebreds"-only American Kennel Club. According to PETA, the pageant is irresponsible because "it promotes dog breeding and spurs interest in 'purebreds' while animal shelters overflow with unwanted mutts who are in desperate need of homes."

"When it comes to contempt for 'mixed breeds' and a fetish for 'pure bloodlines,' there's not much difference between the KKK and the AKC," says PETA Vice President Daphna Nachminovitch..."

Second story, off the AP wire:

A California court recently issued a verdict in an inter-neighbor dispute.

Mark Vargas had asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels. After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

Both sides say they want to do what's best for the environment. Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife. Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters that his solar panels reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and more effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

These two stories share a common thread—a characteristic so typical of many if not most of today's disputes.

Yes, there's still plenty of evil out there, and the battle against the forces that relentlessly represent oppression and hate still continues. But for the most part, in our age that stands on the threshold of the Messianic Era, humanity is beginning to accept moral and ethical ideals. But we still fight. One environmentalist pitted against the other; one animal lover equates his fellow animal lover with a KKK member.

I don't know who is right in either of these disputes. And no matter who is right – and perhaps, as is often the case, both parties have a valid point – it seems that the tactics used are less than savory. But here's what I see: we have well-intentioned individuals fighting each other over the same cause. It's an unfortunate fact that sometimes we can be striving for a specific goal, and the methods we employ are actually detrimental to that cause.

Let's bring the issue somewhat closer to home. We all want to be spiritual. Are the methods we are using to attain spirituality furthering the cause, or are they hurting the cause? Are the trees that we are planting perhaps blocking our souls' "spirituality panels"?

It's great that we have the right intentions. Really, no sarcasm whatsoever intended. But we have to be certain that these intentions are properly directed.

Thankfully, G‑d gave us a Book of Directions.

An interesting news item I recently stumbled upon:

A man died last night after driving a black Toyota into an artificial pond in Central Islip while trying to evade the police. Three officers who tried to rescue him from the water were also taken [to the hospital] with hypothermia. The driver had been acting suspiciously in a Home Depot parking lot, sitting in the car with the lights off, and had drawn the attention of the police. When officers knocked on the car's window, the driver did not respond at first, but then put the car into gear and drove into the water, nearly running over one of the officers... (excerpted from NY Newsday, Feb. 10).

What possessed these officers to jeopardize their lives in an attempt to save an obviously deranged individual who just moments earlier demonstrated that he could care less about them? By jumping into the frigid waters, the officers demonstrated incredible love for their fellow—from whence came this love for an unloving individual?

But I don't think that the officers viewed it as an act of love. In their eyes, they were simply discharging their duty. Part of their job.

Care and love, not as an emotion, but as a duty! That's certainly something we can learn from.

"If you come upon your enemy's bull or his stray donkey, you shall surely return it to him. If you see your enemy's donkey lying under its burden would you refrain from helping him? You shall surely help along with him" (Exodus 22:4-5).

And when we act lovingly, the emotions will follow. And even if they won't... the main mission has already been accomplished!

In a post I wrote last Friday, I promised to give a spiritual spin on the economic stimulus package recently passed by the Congress. Before I get to that, though, I want to respond to some of the comments that came in on that post. Here are two of them:

"While you think that giving money to the public is a good thing to do, you should be aware that it only make the poor people poorer, and the rich people richer"—Margaret Granut, MI.

"America needs a stimulus package like an Alcoholic needs another shot! We need to curb OUR spending and Credit Card usage!"—Richard.

Point well taken. Throwing money at the needy isn't the long-term solution. Yet the Torah tells us to give charity. This means that while "tough love" and encouraging self-sufficiency is important, there is also a time and place for giving a needy person a needed "shot in the arm" and the ability to get himself back on his feet. And it seems that politicians across the aisle agree that now is such a time. I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that they are correct.

Now, back to the "spiritual spin":

(I hope I'm not oversimplifying... If you are an economist, maybe now is a good time to read my other posts :) )

In a democratic, free-market society, the government taxes its citizens—whether through appropriating part their income, sales taxes, property taxes, or in America, all of the above and more too... The revenues from these taxes are then given back to the citizenry in the form of services. Security, roads, hospitals, emergency services, schools and more.

The rest of the citizens' income is spent at their discretion. But this spending, too, benefits the general economy, and ultimately increases the government's tax intake—and, in turn, the amount of services they can offer. It's a big wheel...

But when things are going belly-up, the government steps in and infuses some cash back into the economy—stimulating commerce that will benefit the economy as a whole, and get the wheel turning again.

These economic principles mirror the "spiritual economy." G‑d gives us all life, money, talents, etc. He then asks us to give back a percentage of these commodities, such as charity, money spent on mitzvot, and a Torah education for our children. But these "taxes" are not meant to line G‑d's pockets, He throws them right back at us in the form of more health, wealth, and miscellaneous services.

Our remaining "non-taxed" resources are then spent at our discretion—but they, too, are for the betterment of society. We are to use them in productive manners, and all with the objective of having more resources to give to G‑d and our fellows.

At times, however, a person's spiritual economy is tanking. He's in deep debt: using more than he can afford to give back. At such a time, it is G‑d's turn to step in and give a little boost. If He gives a little special attention – some more health, wealth, and peace of mind – the person will be able to get back on his feet and become a productive member of the spiritual economy.

Am I far out? Let me know!

Have a great Shabbos.

Boosting the Economy

So, the economy is sliding. The housing market is in the doldrums, citizens are having a tough time making ends meet, and the national debt is dangerously climbing.

Well, we are a superpower; we shouldn't have a problem dealing with such trivial issues. Two options that come immediately to mind: a) Nationalize all the Fortune 500 companies. b) Give Australia an ultimatum: Hand over all your diamond mines or be nuked.

Yet, our government chose an altogether different route.

CNN: The House on Thursday quickly passed a Senate-approved economic stimulus package and sent the bill to the president's desk for his signature . . . The deal, passed in the Senate on a 81-16 vote, includes rebate check amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child...

Yup, facing difficult times themselves, the solution the government came up with is to give out money. Pretty amazing, inconceivable a century ago, and goes to show how our world is becoming a better and more humane place.

Yes, the politicians continue to wrangle and rant. How much should the rebates be? Who should be receiving them? And, as many of the analysts are pointing out, the politicians' primary motivation is victory in next year's election. But at the end of the day the bill was passed. Once again the horses have led the wagon to the desired destination.

What is the spiritual spin on boosting the economy? Check back next week...

Have a Good Shabbos all,

Submitted by Rabbi Menachem Posner, a good friend and a member of Chabad.org's "Ask the Rabbi" team.

Super Tuesday came and went and I stayed home.

Since I turned eighteen I have always taken the opportunity to exercise my right and duty to participate in the electoral process.

Why did I bother? Didn't I know that in overwhelmingly Democratic New York my lone conservative vote would never have any affect come the general election? Florida, Michigan…maybe, but New York?

I guess that my religious zeal carried over to my political philosophy.

Maimonides writes that every individual should view the universe as perched on a delicately balanced scale. Every small deed counts. One extra mitzvah and you've tipped the scale in a positive direction and Moshiach comes. One less mitzvah and…

That's why I always marched over to the old, red five-story holdover from the days before public schools needed to be wheelchair accessible or fire-safe, and signed my name on the dotted line.

But this year I didn't. I could say that it was because none of the contestants were particularly appealing. But, heck, I voted in those local elections when I chose candidates based on the number of syllables in their names! So why didn't I vote today?

I finally realized that politics is not religion. G‑d is infinite, so He can make my tiny actions important. But politicians can't. If my vote doesn't count, it's a waste of time and I don't have enough of that as it is.

But a mitzvah, even a small one, is not a waste of time at all.

Maybe one of the reasons why Menachem didn't vote is because he's getting married in less than a month. Mazal Tov! – N.S.

An analysis of federal inspections records revealed that at least 17,000 bridges in the U.S. went more than two years between safety inspections, this according to a recent MSNBC.com exposé. This despite the fact that Congress in 1971 ordered rigorous standards for inspecting bridges every 24 months.

Perhaps this exposé was intended to induce indignation, but on me it had the opposite effect. It demonstrated how thankful we ought to be:

• We live in a country where our government's top concern is its citizenry's welfare. They regularly enact regulations to ensure the safety of our drinking water, elevators, medicines, bridges, the air we breathe and even the Barbie dolls our children play with.
• You'll have to read past the report's first few paragraphs—but it's there. The author reluctantly concedes that the bridges that received late inspections comprise less than 3% of the U.S.'s 592,000 vehicular bridges. So most bridges are inspected on schedule, and a fraction of them are also inspected—a bit late.
• I'm most gratified that the author of the report chose not to take a positive upbeat attitude. a) That wouldn't have left me much what to write about. b) When journalists focus on the negative, the appropriate government agencies are prompted to act—to make a currently good situation even better and safer.

So what's the lesson in this for us? Here's one thought:

Every individual is a little island. Throughout our lifetimes we build an elaborate infrastructure of bridges that connect us to family members, friends, and our Creator. Building a bridge is a tedious process, but once it is sturdy and structurally sound, we tend to forget about the importance of bridge maintenance.

And when a bridge comes crashing down, we suddenly realize: the cement was crumbling over there... the underpinning were compromised by that storm... the suspension lines were wearing out over there. Now we are facing a huge construction job, when regular maintenance could have spared us the hassle.

Do the inspection yourself. Don't wait for a bridge to fall, or for someone else to do an exposé on one of your bridges...

Close to 150 million people tune in every year to watch at least part of football's championship game. Compare that with the approximately 15 million who tune in to your average World Series game—the difference is pretty stark, and certainly not reflective of the fan base of the respective sports.

The reason? A single winner-take-all game is much more exciting and important than a seven-game series. No one game of the series that determine the basketball, baseball or hockey champion is as consequential as the Super Bowl. So your team lost one? No reason to panic, tomorrow will be another game...

The Super Bowl is also more interesting because anything can happen in a single game. This gives the weaker team a better chance of winning; the outcome is less predictable.

So where am I going with all this?

Every day we have different struggles; we're always facing one sort of contest or another. How important is it to be victorious? So you want that piece of non-kosher cake, you want to skip that prayer, or you want take a pass on doing that favor for your friend... Is it a big deal? Tomorrow you'll get it right!

I guess it depends whether you view each struggle as part of a series, or a Super Bowl.

And if you're in Super Bowl mode, you get another advantage: in any one game, anything can happen. You can win even if you think you might be outmatched in this particular area.

The following observation was passed on to me by my friend, Rabbi Moshe Goldman, member of Chabad.org's Ask the Rabbi team:

Leafing through the New York Times business section (rabbis always read the business section...), I happened upon a brilliant marketing strategy being employed by Anheuser-Busch. In a departure from the approach of years' past, the advertising powers decided to narrow their focus to promoting only the "core brands" of the company, namely Budweiser and Bud Light.

Robert C. Lachky, executive vice president for global industry and creative development at Anheuser-Busch, was quoted as saying that "We have to go to the mother lode. If you focus on your core brands, the rest of the portfolio will benefit."

Pure genius. I mean, this is really a great concept. Heck of a way to live. Let's examine this idea and see how it can apply to us as people (and not mere beer buyers).

Like any company, each of us has our "core brands" in addition to the "rest of the portfolio." There are those things which are essential to our identity and those which register as peripheral and secondary.

Our core brands were, are, and forever will be the Torah and Mitzvot, G‑d's design for a purposeful, happy life. The rest of our portfolio is our careers, our moods, our wardrobe or _______ (fill in the blank).

Investing time and money in the rest of the portfolio is a terrible strategy, without a doubt. It will only lead to a confused mind, sleepless nights and most importantly, no solution or growth. The core brands carry a company or a person through the roughest of times. Dependable, solid and important; they are the reassuring bedrock of faith in an unstable market. The rest of the portfolio can be bought and sold at whim and don't really make a huge difference at the end of the day.

The Rebbe would commonly advise people who wrote to him about the various troubles they were facing in life, that the blessings and flow of life are channeled to the Jew via the conduit of Torah and Mitzvot. As such, if one needs more blessings, the surest way is to "widen" that conduit, by increasing one's commitment to Torah and Mitzvot.

If I may paraphrase the Rebbe's words: Invest in your core brands, and watch the rest of your portfolio benefit.

I wonder what Mr. Lachky has been reading lately…

Giuliani is out of the race. An unimagibale prospect some 2-3 months ago. Wondering why he suffered such an incredible free-fall? See Primary Madness.

Super Bowl fever sweeping over you? My good friend Dovid Zaklikowski tackles the game's "spiritual side." Some nice ideas to share with your gameday party pals: Touchdown.

One of the things that President Bush railed about in last night's State of the Union Address was pork barrel spending, euphemistically known as "earmarks." (I love the name, by the way; who is going to stand up and say: "I'm all for pork barrel spending!") It's one of those issues that politicians love to grumble about—but no one wants to actually do anything about it.

[Before you start condemning them for this, let's consider: do we have a tendency to do the same thing? Are there certain issues we just love to harp on, "horrible evils" that require attention—but please don't ask me to take action?

Excessive television viewing, hiring an Xbox to babysit our kids, sedentary lifestyles, spouses—all things we love complaining about, but too good to do without. Let the other person conquer these evils...]

Now for the hard part. Let's identify pork barrel spending (and I'm not talking about money here) in our personal lives. I have some ideas—but let me first hear what you guys think!

They sat in the congressional chamber that is divided down the middle by an aisle. And providing easy access to the restrooms is not the primary function of this passageway... Defeating the people on the other side of the aisle – and the ideas they represent – in next year's elections was foremost on their minds. And there they gathered last night to hear the State of the "Union" Address.

And rightly so. We may have different ideas, but this nation is united around the ideals expressed in a certain two-century old document. Good ideals. Just ideals. Yes, we have disagreements, and sometimes we foolishly let them get to our heads and we take them personally, but every once in a while we have to take stock and realize that we are a union. And the state of the union is strong.

We have many different problems and threats that we must address. We'll handle them all—as long as the union remains strong.

I think we can all use occasional State of the Union assessments. In our marriages. In our synagogues. And for us Jews, as a nation.

The presidential campaign is top news these days. Fair enough. The quest to occupy the most powerful political office in the world is certainly news-worthy.

Looking at the pack of contenders, however, leaves me disillusioned. Who will win their party's respective nomination—the one who most successfully pandered to their party's most radical base? Which one of these individuals will win the general election—the one whose focus groups were most on target or the one whose political consultants conceive the more outrageous smear campaign? Is there a true leader with real vision among the lot?

Is it just me, or do many of you agree that that the reins of our magnificent and storied nation will (again?) be in the hands of a person whose primary interest is creating a personal legacy? Am I being cynical to think that the prime motivation of these candidates is ego and the fulfillment of a personal fantasy?

With these people at the helm, will our nation move forward or backwards? And to think that the policies of this superpower nation have global impact...

But to be honest, our nation has trailblazed the way in so many positive areas: equal rights, government programs that benefit the needy, religious freedoms, to name a few. Most of these initiatives were spearheaded by politicians not very different than the ones we have today. How does this add up?

Here's a cute story that I think explains the dynamic:

The fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch, was once conversing with a French-educated self-described intellectual, who explained that he refused to believe in angels or other spiritual entities that cannot be perceived with the five senses.

The Rebbe responded with a parable:

"Two French intellectuals are traveling in a horse-drawn carriage en route to a prestigious academic conference. They occupy their time with scholarly discussions; profound theories and abstruse intellectual concepts abound.

"Now, the horses are dreaming of the hay they will eat when they arrive at their destination. In the unlettered coachman's mind, he is already savoring the spirits he will buy with the paycheck he will receive at the trip's conclusion. And all the while, the passengers' minds drift in worlds unimaginable to the horse and coachman.

"Now," the Rebbe concluded, "the fact that the horses are thinking of hay, does that in any way negate the factuality of the topics the intellectuals are discussing?"

Ironically, the horses and the coachman – notwithstanding their base gastronomical aspirations – are the ones leading the scholars to their convention...

As we get nearer and nearer to the Messianic Redemption the world is becoming a better place. Not because of the leaders, but because of the passengers.

So, fellow passengers, what are we doing today to better the world? Comments welcome!

Hi everyone, and welcome to my blog! Though I've written other articles for Chabad.org, I'm very excited about this new venue. We'll try for a casual and informal approach; with a focus on conversation and dialogue.

About this blog:

It's very easy for a news blog moderated by a person holding religious, morally-conservative views to degenerate into a diatribe against the state of our society, and particularly the stories that the news media chooses to highlight: "Hey, did you see on the news what that actor/singer/model/sports player (fill in the name du jour here) did?! Look how morally bankrupt our society is! If only more people would accept the wholesome lifestyle advocated by the Torah!"

While this is true – and this is a helpful attitude for a religious person suffering from an inferiority complex – this blog will take a very different approach. We will look for the positive lesson inherent in every news story. The down side: we might not get our acquaintances to despise us for our holier-than-thou airs. The up side: training ourselves to use everything we see or hear about to enhance our service of G‑d and our interpersonal relationships.

G‑d didn't create this world because He takes masochistic pleasure in watching a world descend into anarchy and godlessness. To the contrary, He envisioned a world whose inhabitants steadily improve themselves and their habitat. And if this is what He desired, it's clear that this is what's happening: the world is becoming better and holier. Let's not be fooled by external trappings, let us look and see where and how the world is improving. Let us use these improvements as lessons in our personal lives.

This isn't an easy task. I'm really hoping that you all will help me out!