The ‘Divine Passive’: Bureaucratese Is Also About Weaseling Out of Personal Responsibility

Divine Passive Voice

By Jacquelyn Landis

Most writers know the difference between active and passive voice. In active voice, there’s a clearly identified agent performing an action:

Tiger Woods made a hole in one.

The subject of this sentence, Tiger Woods, is the agent who is performing the action: making a hole in one. In passive voice, the subject isn’t performing the action; it’s being acted upon by the agent:

A hole in one was made by Tiger Woods.

Most experts agree that active voice is preferable over passive voice wherever possible, and most writers know this. However, did you know that there’s another form of passive voice? This one is called divine passive voice. In a sentence using divine passive voice, no agent of action is ever identified:

A hole in one was made.

Since there’s no agent, the action in the sentence is considered an act of God—thus, divine passive voice. Granted, this is a tongue-in-cheek assessment because it’s pretty unlikely that the hole in one happened all by itself even though Tiger Woods is sometimes attributed with divinely inspired talent.

Divine passive voice is most useful for obscuring information. Perhaps Tiger didn’t want to buy the customary round of drinks in the clubhouse to celebrate his hole in one, so he insisted that club officials keep his identity secret.

Politicians and other bureaucrats are fond of divine passive voice. It appears to give complete information, and it sounds official, thereby duping readers:

Mistakes were made. (Who, exactly, made the mistakes?)

Gas prices were raised. (By whom?)

Unless you’re deliberately trying to avoid assigning blame or you’re intentionally trying to be vague, steer clear of divine passive voice.

From Daily Writing Tips, here.

Owning Currency Is Proof of SERVING Our Fellow Man

Morality of Free Markets

 

Dr. Richard Ebeling, professor of economics at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, and my longtime friend and colleague, has written an important article, “Business Ethics and Morality of the Marketplace,” appearing in the American Institute for Economic Research. Its importance and timeliness is enhanced by so many of America’s youth, led by academic hacks, having fallen prey to the siren song of socialism.

In a key section of his article, Ebeling lays out what he calls the ethical principles of free markets. He says: “The hallmark of a truly free market is that all associations and relationships are based on voluntary agreement and mutual consent. Another way of saying this is that in the free market society, people are morally and legally viewed as sovereign individuals possessing rights to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property, who may not be coerced into any transaction that they do not consider being to their personal betterment and advantage.”

Ebeling says that the rules of a free market are simple and easy to understand: “You don’t kill, you don’t steal, and you don’t cheat through fraud or misrepresentation. You can only improve your own position by improving the circumstances of others. Your talents, abilities, and efforts must all be focused on one thing: what will others take in trade from you for the revenues you want to earn as the source of your own income and profits?”

For many people, profit has become a dirty word and as such has generated slogans such as “people before profits.” Many believe the pursuit of profits is the source of mankind’s troubles. However, it’s often the absence of profit motivation that’s the true villain. For example, contrast the number of complaints heard about profit-oriented establishments such as computer stores, supermarkets and clothing stores to the complaints that one hears about nonprofit establishments such as the U.S. Post Office, the public education system and departments of motor vehicles. Computer stores, supermarkets and clothing stores face competition and must satisfy customers to earn profits and stay in business. Postal workers, public teachers and department of motor vehicles employees depend on politicians and coercion to get their pay. They stay in business whether customers are satisfied with their services or not.

In a free market society, income is neither taken nor distributed. Income is earned by serving one’s fellow man. Say I mow your lawn. When I’m finished, you pay me $50. Then, I go to my grocer and demand, “Give me two pounds of sirloin and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced.” In effect, the grocer asks: “Williams, what did you do to deserve a claim on what your fellow man produced?” I say, “I served him.” The grocer says, “Prove it.” That’s when I pull out the $50. We might think of dollars as “certificates of performance,” proof of serving our fellow man.

Free markets are morally superior to other economic systems. To have a claim on what my fellow man produces, I’m forced to serve him. Contrast that requirement to government handouts, where a politician says to me: “You don’t have to get out in that hot sun to mow your fellow man’s lawn. Vote for me and I’ll take what your fellow man produces and give it to you.”

Ebeling says that those deserving condemnation are those who use government coercion to gain at the expense of others. There are thousands of such examples: government subsidies at taxpayers’ expense, paying farmers not to grow crops or guaranteeing them a minimum price paid for through tax dollars and higher prices for consumers, regulations that limit entry into various professions and occupations, regulations that limit consumer choice, and corporate handouts and bailouts.

In a word or so, our protest should not be against capitalism. People should protest crony capitalism, where people use the political arena to buy government favors. If millennials and others want to wage war against government favors and crony capitalism, I’m with them 100%. But I’m all too afraid that anti-capitalists just want their share of the government loot.

From LRC, here.

D.J. Trump Is NOT ‘the Hill to Die On…’

NOT AT OUR TABLE

Trump has managed to dictate the conversation for the rest of the world

Rabbi YY Jacobson’s candid, reflective piece on his public role at the fundraiser hosted by the Orthodox community for the current president highlighted the deep divisions that exist within our own community. The letters it generated quivered with similar passion. There is no middle-ground, it seems, on this topic, no one indifferent to Mr. Trump and what he means — or doesn’t mean — to the Orthodox world.

I’m not one to propose a solution to this problem, or any problem that doesn’t involve the question of who finished the can of Pringles meant for the kids’ snack. Early on in my marriage, when my wife started asking me hilchos Shabbos questions, I mastered the art of the thoughtful “you have to know,” respectful of the question and questioner without committing to an answer.

So I cannot tell you if Trump is the Great Defender or the epitome of immorality. But I can share a story.

A few weeks ago, a kiruv-minded friend in Montreal asked if we could host secular college students for a Shabbos seudah. We never had the opportunity before, and my family greeted it with enthusiasm.

I made sure to arrive home right after shul, skipping the usual schmooze after davening. My daughters didn’t engage in intense negotiations over whose turn it was to set the table, and my sons were kind enough to not fall asleep on the couch. (I also upped my game, but that’s not for me to share. Let one of my kids write a column if they want to share my secrets.)

It was a beautiful seudah, with my family enjoying the articulate, sincere young men around their table.

Motzaei Shabbos, my wife got a text message from one of the women involved in working with these students. “Thanks for having the boys, the food was delicious,” she wrote.

The unspoken message was clear. The food was delicious, but we’d done something wrong. We’d blown it some other way.

My wife asked where we’d erred, and the devoted woman assured her that it was fine. Okay, maybe there was one little thing, just a tiny detail, really.

“Your husband spoke nicely about Trump,” she said, “and that’s very offensive to liberal-minded college students. Don’t worry, we were able to calm them down.”

That was the story, and it left me very sad.

It was sad because aside from discussing Trump, other things happened at that seudah.

We made Kiddush. We sang zemiros. We said divrei Torah.

But these students searching for truth heard only about Trump. They missed the power of Kiddush, missed noticing the way a frum couple speaks to each other, didn’t perceive the unique dynamic of children who sit around a table and connect as a family, week after week.

I had blown it by bringing Trump to the Shabbos table.

I feel like many of us have fallen into the same Trump trap as the rest of America, forced to take one side or another. Gifted diplomats and seasoned politicians who’ve spent decades playing both sides and managing to make every audience believe they were with them have now been branded: with or against.

But we’re not politicians, so why go there at all? We all believe the same things, more or less. We all believe HaKadosh Baruch Hu put the man in power. We also believe that the president’s ethics, conduct, and speech are problematic.

Continue reading…

From Mishpacha, here.

Rabbi Herschel Schachter: Many Dayanim and Toanim Are Completely Corrupt!

New York – In Exclusive Ami Magzine Interview Noted Rabbi Schachter Slams Set Up Of Rabbinical Court System

New York – In an exclusive interview conducted by Ami Magazine for their Succot edition, Rabbi Hershel Schachter speaks out forcefully on the issue of the set up of ‘Battei Din’, saying “There is worse than a crisis in the present Bais Din system.”

Read below the full interview:

Q: Unfortunately many kehillos in the charedi community are taking their disputes not to bais din, but to court. That seems to say that there is a problem with the way people perceive batei din, a crisis. You have been outspoken about the bais din system. What is your assessment?

A: The present system is terrible. There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, “K’sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b’einecha k’resha’im. K’she’yaamdu m’lifanecha yihiyub’einecha k’tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin.” [“When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment.”] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks…whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth. Any judicial panel must get to the underlying facts and the truth in order to render a proper decision. Unfortunately that is not always the case in the present-day bais din system.

Q: Did you come to this conclusion from personal experience?

A: I was once asked to sit in on a din Torah to see that there wouldn’t be any shenanigans. I believe that it was a yeshiva against an administrator. The administrator just sat there while the toain [lawyer in bais din] presented the whole case. You have to hear from the administrator himself! How can the toain present the case? The toain can say all sorts of shekarim [lies], because he just says whatever the baal din told him. If the baal din himself says it, he’d be scared; he’d be shaking. You can tell if he’s telling the truth; nikarim divrei emes, nikarim divrei sheker. I thought it was terrible. What kind of a din Torah was that?

Q: Is that experience indicative of dinei Torah today?

A: Certainly. I remember another case where a widow had died and she had no children. The question had become who would get the yerusha [estate]. One of her relatives probably thought that, just as in the case of a geir shemais v’ain lo yorshim [a convert who dies without inheritors], the nichasim [property] become hefker (the property becomes ownerless), so too in the case of this almanah everything would become hefker [which is not true]. This relative, I believe it was a great-nephew, pocketed all the money. The other members of the family wanted a din Torah. Someone asked me to watch. The head of the bais din asked the great nephew, “How many bankbooks were there when your great-aunt asked you to take care of her finances?”He answered, “Four.”The dayan asked, “How much money was there in each account?”Suddenly the toain screamed out, “Don’t answer! You’re not mechuyav [obligated] to answer!”That was the end of the case. Had this been a secular court, they would have thrown him out the window. What do you mean, you don’t have to answer? A chutzpah! The dayanim want to find out the facts. But that was the end; there was nowhere to go after that.

Q: Are you saying that this is nowadays the general trend to obfuscate the facts?

A: There are countless similar instances when the toain instructs his client not to respond to a question. It also became the style now that when a couple is getting divorced, the toanim tell the husband to say that he wants shalom bayis, so that the bais din assumes that she is a moredes (rebellious wife), and she doesn’t get the kesuba. Ridiculous. One of the latest pieces of shtick was where a wife had apartment buildings, and the husband wanted a heter meah rabbanim so that he could have peiros nichsei milug [proceeds from a wife’s property], even after he was living with the second wife. This was written up in the New York Times and the non-Jewish lawyers were laughing at us. Such a chillul Hashem! This is what our religion stands for? Now they tell the husband to take peiros nichsei milug, even though he never took peiros during the marriage. He doesn’t know about it, so why tell him? Even if he knows that there are nichsei milug, but he doesn’t know that the husband gets peiros nichsei milug, Rav Moshe Feinstein says in his teshuvos that they are considered nichasim she’sinam yiduim [unpublicized property] and the Gemara in Kesubos says that the husband doesn’t get peiros from that property. So why are the toanim telling the husband that he is entitled? Just to make more agmas nefesh (aggravation)?

Q: Would you call then the problem in the bais din system a crisis?

A: It’s worse than a crisis. They tell me that there is a prominent talmid chacham in Flatbush who tells his baalei battim to go to a secular court because they stand a better chance of yoshor [justice] in a goyishe [non-Jewish] court than in a din Torah. If you ask him, he’ll deny it, but that’s what he tells people. Unfortunately, I think that the comment about yoshor is true.

Q: Is the problem because of the toanim?

A: They drei a kup and obstruct the proceedings. They keep repeating the same things over and over. Rabbi Belsky says that they get paid by the hour, so….I asked Rabbi Belsky, “How do you allow toanim in your bais din?” He said that if he didn’t allow toanim, no one will go to him. They will go to a weaker batei din than his. Here in our yeshiva, when a baal habos wants to have a din Torah, we never allow toanim. One time a person did want to have a toain. We told him, “Stay in the other room. We’ll know what the din is; just tell us what the facts are.”

Q: But isn’t that a problem? Once there is a toain system, people feel that they have a better chance with a toain, so, like Rabbi Belsky said, if you have a bais din without toanim, everyone will go to other batei din?

A: Yes. It’s terrible.

Q: How old is this toain system?

A: Very recent. In the Shulchan Aruch it says that you’re not allowed to have a toain.

Continue reading…

From Vos Iz Neias, here.