I left my car in a hurry, I didn’t want to be late. As I was closing the car door, it occurred to me that I won’t be needing my jacket during the day, so I threw it back into the car, onto the driver’s seat to be exact, and left for the day. When I came back I started the car and drove off.
Something felt funny about the seat. I figured it was my imagination, I figured my body was playing games with me. Five minutes later, I forgot all about it as I was driving on the expressway going home.
Then I remembered the coat. My hand went fumbling for it on the passenger seat. It wasn’t there. I looked down, and I still didn’t see it. I reached with my hand to the back seat. Nothing. I started thinking maybe I ended up taking it with me to the seminar, and that I’ve left it there.
Then I remembered the discomfort from the beginning of the trip. And it suddenly clicked. I was sitting on the coat. I reached for it, dragged it from underneath me, and two things happened. I found the coat, and resolved the discomfort at the same time. I have learned an important lesson. Actually a few.
It is easier to get used to something than to try and fix it.
If you see something you don’t like, something that can be done better – don’t get used to it.
When things click, it’s quite possible that two things, at least, are out of the way….
On a completely different and less pleasant topic.
The vicious attack in India last week didn’t uncover anything new about Islamic Fundamentalism, about terrorism and about the inability of democracies to confront them in an effort to protect their interests and populations. CNN, Fox News, Sky and BBC were on top of every little angle of the Taj Mahal, and the Oberoi, and even the small Chabad House in Mumbai received its moment in the lime light.
It did uncover a very strange relationship between religion and genetic diseases. The slain couple, Rabbi and Mrs. Gabriel Holzberg had two children with Tay-Sachs disease. One, may he rest in peace, died already. The other is still permanently hospitalized in a special hospital in Israel. As I was reading this disturbing information, I couldn’t help thinking this disturbing, and quite possibly unpopular thought: assuming that the late couple didn’t get screened for Tay-Sachs, and that the very first introduction to this terrible disease was through the birth of this very unfortunate child who died after years of misery. How can the second child with the same genetic disorder can be explained? How were they able to desert him, while going on their mission. (More)
I apologize, it is completely beyond me. Another bothersome point is the attempt by Chabad to raise donations for the young and unfortunate orphan. I would love to understand how a movement, that can afford to have three thousand (3,000, not a typo) Chabad Houses globally, can’t take care of one small child of their own.
As I said, those thoughts aren’t popular. Big Mouth never committed to popular opinions. It is committed to mine…
Notwithstanding, My sincere condolences to all the families who were affected by this heinous crime. May you know no more sorrow. May we all.
Hello! Tay-Sachs carrier couples often have two affected children because they have their second child before the first is diagnosed. Also, some families do place their child in institutions, even in the US. A Tay-Sachs child requires around the clock skilled nursing care. For families that do not have the resources (insurance often does not cover sufficient nursing hours) placing the child in a home is the only option to make sure the child is as comfortable as possible for as long possible. Please know that these parents are not deserting their child but making a very difficult choice believing it is the best option available.
Kind regards
Kim Kubilus
Director of Member Services
National Tay-Sachs & Allied Diseases Association, Inc. (NTSAD)
It shows so much emotional intelligence to criticize a dead couple, that can not defend, even though they wouldn’t have to, their decision to a stranger.
And as a parent, you should know, that it is not never an easy decision to have or not have a child or to be or not be with a child.
“Another bothersome point is the attempt by Chabad to raise donations for the young and unfortunate orphan. I would love to understand how a movement, that can afford to have three thousand (3,000, not a typo) Chabad Houses globally, can’t take care of one small child of their own.”
Following up on Chabad houses on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad, I found the following:
Fundraising
Funds for activities of a Chabad center rely entirely on the local community. Chabad centers do not receive funding from Lubavitch headquarters. For the day to day operations, local emissaries do all the fundraising by themselves. The monies fundraised in the local community is invested in that local community. The emissary takes a minimum salary and seldom goes on vacation. Sue Fishcoff writes: “Emissaries in the field may sink millions of dollars into their center, synagogues and Mikvahs, but their own homes are modest, again patterned after their Rebbe’s lack of personal ostentation.”[64]