Sunday, July 27, 2008

Off to a Good Start

The first Council meeting seemed to have gone well.

Quick Status report....

1- All of the police promotions were done at the meeting
2-One upset DPW employee for Council's failure to recognize their efforts with the pool closing
3-Board appointments all went uncontested with the exception of Honis voting against Gussen on the Planning Board.

One person that did not make the cut was a very experienced Ned Goldman. Was that the price he paid for trying to win against Toffler?

63 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who is on the Planning Board?

Anonymous said...

Did Honis want to be on the Planning Board or is she still sore that Gussen held her accountable for her thoughtless comments?

Anonymous said...

Goldman had ten years on the planning board and was well experienced. He is seasoned in his career and in life, holds a degree in banking and finance, was the vice pres. of the Teaneck BOE and is in the commercial real estate business. Not appointing him was an act of stupidity and denonstrates a complete lack of knowing & understanding the needs of Teaneck. Jerks. Idiots.

2008anony said...

I am sure that Ned Goldman would make a fine member of the Planning Board. I do not know who made it onto the Board to determine if the failure to appoint him was wise.

What troubles me is the So and so had XX years of service on Committee X which merits his/her reappointment argument. Tenure is bad enough in the school system, but we have seen this argument applied increasingly over the last couple of years with respect to other town positions.

Unless a town committee would be left with no veteran members who can provide continutiy, length of service should dictate the size of our appreciation for service to the community, rather than being a significant basis for reappointment. This town has a lot of real issues which these "veterans" had a chance to tackle over the years in ways big and small. Sometimes its just time to add fresh perspectives assuming they are otherwise qualified. A similar sentiment seems to be a guiding force behind a certain presidential campaign I've heard of that does not seem to be doing so bad.

Anonymous said...

Hey 2008anony, good points.

In addition to experience you have to look at voting records, alternate candidates, and the strategic direction of the board.

Anonymous said...

Teaneck Truth
One person that did not make the cut was a very experienced Ned Goldman. Was that the price he paid for trying to win against Toffler?

Once again the rumor monger and all around low life who writes this blog tries to start a rumor.

Anonymous said...

Too old Goldman.
Keep the younger people involved.

Teaneck said...

One person that did not make the cut was a very experienced Ned Goldman. Was that the price he paid for trying to win against Toffler?

Bullseye!

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have a list of who is on the planning board? I have such a hard time negotiating the Teaneck web site...

Anonymous said...

Teaneck said...
Bullseye!

Bullshit!

Anonymous said...

Hey esther-

Read this:


Why is Obama not improving in the polls?
By Adam Nagourney

Monday, July 28, 2008
WASHINGTON: It is a question that has hovered over Senator Barack Obama even as he has passed milestone after milestone in his race for the White House: Why is he not doing better?

It shadowed him as he struggled against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in many states through the primaries - results that sometimes stood at odds with the huge, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see him. It was there in the exit polls that suggested that many Democrats were uncomfortable with Obama, putting an asterisk next to some of his biggest primary victories.

And it is back again as he returns from an overseas trip that even Republicans have described as politically triumphant. In this case, the question is why, given how sour Americans feel about President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, about the Iraq war and the ailing economy that Bush will leave to his successor and about the perception that Obama is running such a better campaign than Senator John McCain, the senator from Illinois is not doing even better in national opinion polls

Most polls show Obama with a lead of 6 or 7 points over McCain nationally, and he rarely breaks the 50 percent mark. Those are statistics that have given Republicans, who are not exactly feeling joyful these days, a line to grab onto and has fed some underlying anxiety among some Democrats.

"They've known John McCain for years," said Bill McInturff, a pollster for McCain. "But people say in focus groups, 'Who the heck is Barack Obama? Had you heard of him before six months ago?'

"And he's 46 years old. He's somebody nobody knows about."

McCain is "running ahead of where he should be based on the environment," McInturff said.

Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster, said the statistics should serve as a reminder of the particular obstacles that Obama faces.

"Here's a 46-year-old African-American with a narrative that is very unusual and that few other Americans can relate to," he said. "Add to the fact that he has had four years in the United States Senate and very little international experience. That's a large leap for the American public to make."

Beyond that, Obama faces an opponent in McCain with a history of appealing to independent voters and defying his party on occasion. McCain's advocates argued during the primaries that he was the strongest candidate the party had in a general election contest for just these reasons.

"I believe had Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney been our nominee, they'd be 10 or 12 points behind right now, they'd be much closer to the generic vote," McInturff said.

Yet for all that, is Obama really struggling? Are these summer polls truly evidence of underperforming or fundamental weaknesses in his campaign?

The truth of the matter is, given the history in open presidential elections over the past 50-years - not to mention the recent polarization that has marked politics in the United States - a seven-point victory by Obama, or by McCain, in November would have to be considered substantial in a contest where there is no incumbent on the ballot.

"If you look at this historically, presidential elections are close," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

In the elections of 2000, 1968 and 1960, with no incumbent president on the ballot, the two candidates were separated by less than a percentage point. George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in 1988 by seven points, and suffice it to say that Obama is no Dukakis. Bill Clinton defeated Bush four years later by six points, and that was in a three-way election with H. Ross Perot.

Some analysts said that Obama could be like Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan was up against an unpopular incumbent, President Jimmy Carter, who for all his weaknesses was a known quantity. Only after Reagan convinced voters that he was credible as a president did the polls break in his direction.

Even Obama's advisers say they are uneasy at his difficulty at breaking the 50 percent barrier, a reminder - in poll after poll - that there are a lot of Americans who are not ready to cast their lot with him and may never be.

Yet in a multi-candidate race, as this one is - though Bob Barr and Ralph Nader so far are having minimal effect - victory can be claimed with less than 50 percent of the vote. Other than Bush in 1988 and Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, presidents have been routinely strolling into the Oval Office without a majority of the vote - or barely: Reagan drew just under 51 percent in his three-way race with Carter.

And finally, this is July. There are two conventions and three debates to go; many Americans will not even begin really paying attention to this election until early September.

Voters may be holding back because they have all kinds of apprehensions about Obama. Or they might just not be ready to make a decision quite this early.

Swiggle said...

@2008anony,

I agree with your assesment. People are too apt to claim that experience is all you need, as if more of the same is as good as it can get.

Remember, that x years ago, Ned was a fresh face on the planning board. Give someone a chance and they might just rise to the occasion. If not, they don't get reappointed.

Anonymous said...

July 28, 2008
Gallup/USA Today Poll: McCain +4
Posted by TOM BEVAN | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
This one should set the tongues wagging:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight.

Anonymous said...

There were two full member seats and one alternate seat to fill on the planning board. There was room for someone new and someone with extensive experience.

NY Team said...

to the question about polls (though it has nothing to do with the topic on this thread, but as long as it was brought up):
1. polls are fickle, and often deceptive.
2. the poll that cites McCain as being ahead is 1 out of how many polls? probably statisticly suspect.
3. it is in the media's interest in keeping this race lookinng tight. since the story has been consistently that Obama is ahead in the polls, the story has to shift to "why isn't he further ahead?". As long as he's ahead i'll take it.

Anonymous said...

McCain signs are starting to appear in Teaneck.

Swiggle said...

@NY team

It's important to remember that polls (when done correctly) represent a snapshot in time, not a predictive tool. Elections are a mechanism of persuasion Dow which polls are merely a metric to measure success.

It's foolish to believe that they mean anything for the future.

Anonymous said...

Amazing how the Obama enthusiasts simply deny the reality of his inability to gain traction beyond his original base.

Now that he has just about ruled Hillary out in what seems a quixotic pursuit of Virginia and/or other red states, how will he get additional votes?

Many of us are inclined to skip the Presidential line or even vote for McCain while choosing Lautenberg and Rothman in November.

You ignore this in your adulation for Obama at your own risk.

The original Obama signs in teaneck have not been added to over the months since the February primary.

NY Team said...

swiggle. i agree. polls are nothing to get too excited about.
but if someone brings polls up...anonymous, i don't understand what sort of traction you'd be looking for? Obama has been consistently ahead of McCain 6-9 points. How many points should he be ahead? 15? 20? what are the expectations and are they realistic? who's denying reality really here?
Here we have a Presidential candidate who is consistently winning according to polls isn't winning by ENOUGH. It's like Obama has the burden of being a better candidate and so his expectations are so much higher. There's still a partisan divide in this country that suggests nobody on the left or right will go below 40%. So chastising Obama for keeping McCain to 41 or 42 is really silly.
As far as the signs in Teaneck go, it's early. I'm a big Obama supporter, and I don't have a sign. We do still have 4 months to go.

Anonymous said...

Open space "one-cent" tax up for a vote
Thursday, July 24, 2008
BY JOSEPH AX
STAFF WRITER

TEANECK — Voters will decide this November whether to continue a one-cent tax for four years to fund open space acquisition, historic preservation sites and recreation improvements.

The Municipal Open Space Trust, or MOST, fund would bring in approximately $600,000 a year, based on one penny for every $100 of assessed value. The average homeowner – with a house assessed at $464,800, according to the town – would pay $46.48 per year.

The Township Council approved the tax four years ago with a sunset provision that called for it to end this year, unless voters choose to extend it.

The referendum would limit the amount that can be spent for recreation projects to 50 percent of the total revenues collected, unless a “supermajority” of five members of the seven-member council vote to spend more on a particular project.

The effort to delineate specifically how the money will be spent was the result of several meetings at the urging of then-Mayor Elie Katz between members of various commissions, including the Environmental Commission; the Historic Preservation Commission; the Council; the Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation Advisory Board; and the MOST Advisory Board.

Much of the tax money from the last four years was spent on various recreation items, leaving some open space advocates, historic preservationists and even parks enthusiasts – who would have preferred to see larger capital projects funded – disappointed in the way the council chose to use the funds.

“As you can imagine, there are some competing interests here,” said Councilman Adam Gussen. “The final answer isn’t something that everyone is 100 percent happy with, but it’s something that everyone can support.”

“We wanted to make sure this passes, regardless of what group was lobbying for what,” Katz said.

Advocates on different sides of the issue voiced their support for the final referendum question.

“Some of us felt there was some ambiguity in the way that the MOST referendum was written the last time,” said Eric Brower, a member of the Environmental Commission. “This new referendum is good for the town in all respects – recreation, open space, conservation, historic preservation.”

George Reskakis of the parks, playgrounds and recreation board said he thought the final resolution was a good compromise.

“This was a democratic process,” he said. “This allows us to do things we never could have done.”

E-mail: ax@northjersey.com

TEANECK — Voters will decide this November whether to continue a one-cent tax for four years to fund open space acquisition, historic preservation sites and recreation improvements.

The Municipal Open Space Trust, or MOST, fund would bring in approximately $600,000 a year, based on one penny for every $100 of assessed value. The average homeowner – with a house assessed at $464,800, according to the town – would pay $46.48 per year.

The Township Council approved the tax four years ago with a sunset provision that called for it to end this year, unless voters choose to extend it.

The referendum would limit the amount that can be spent for recreation projects to 50 percent of the total revenues collected, unless a “supermajority” of five members of the seven-member council vote to spend more on a particular project.

The effort to delineate specifically how the money will be spent was the result of several meetings at the urging of then-Mayor Elie Katz between members of various commissions, including the Environmental Commission; the Historic Preservation Commission; the Council; the Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation Advisory Board; and the MOST Advisory Board.

Much of the tax money from the last four years was spent on various recreation items, leaving some open space advocates, historic preservationists and even parks enthusiasts – who would have preferred to see larger capital projects funded – disappointed in the way the council chose to use the funds.

“As you can imagine, there are some competing interests here,” said Councilman Adam Gussen. “The final answer isn’t something that everyone is 100 percent happy with, but it’s something that everyone can support.”

“We wanted to make sure this passes, regardless of what group was lobbying for what,” Katz said.

Advocates on different sides of the issue voiced their support for the final referendum question.

“Some of us felt there was some ambiguity in the way that the MOST referendum was written the last time,” said Eric Brower, a member of the Environmental Commission. “This new referendum is good for the town in all respects – recreation, open space, conservation, historic preservation.”

George Reskakis of the parks, playgrounds and recreation board said he thought the final resolution was a good compromise.

“This was a democratic process,” he said. “This allows us to do things we never could have done.”

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know who's on the Planning Board? It doesn't seem like it.

Anonymous said...

Joey Bodner, Steven Kaye, Howard Rose, Mark Schwartz, Kimberly Jones, Adeena Pultman, James Kinlock, Adam gussen, Kevie Feit,Helene Fall, Eric Brauer

Anonymous said...

James Kinloch (not Kinlock)

Anonymous said...

Who are the alternates on the Planning Board? Jones, Pultman, Kaye or Kinloch?

Tom Abbott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Abbott said...

Kimberly Jones is alternate no. 1 and James Kinloch alternate no 2.

Steven Kaye who had been alternate one was appointed to a full four year term replacing Ned Goldman. Adeena Pultman was appointed to a two year term left vacant by the resignation of Renee Karibi-Whyte. Kimberly Jones was appointed to a full two year term as an alternate replacing Steven Kaye. James Kinloch was appointed to complete the remaining one year term left vacant by Mohammed Hameeduddin's election to the council.

Anonymous said...

What troubles me is the So and so had XX years of service on Committee X which merits his/her reappointment argument. Tenure is bad enough in the school system, but we have seen this argument applied increasingly over the last couple of years with respect to other town positions.

A reasonable point on your part, anony, although I don't think anyone is suggesting that veteran appointees should have "tenure" irrespective of their performance. What's curious is that the application of the argument you decry has, in recent years, been most vigorously applied in cases such as Dr. Toffler's own "dis-appointment" from the Planning Board, which sparked a hue and cry in which Toffler herself was one of the primary actors.

My sources have it that in the case of Mr. Goldman's "dis-appointment," it was none other than Toffler who most wanted the change. And while I don't know Mr. Kinlock and can't speak to his qualifications (apparently he was a regular Planning Board watcher over the past year), I understand he was quite involved in the Toffler campaign. Removing Goldman and moving up an alternate to replace him created a spot to make Kinlock an alternate. So perhaps next year, or whenever Howard Rose's term is up, they can "dis-appoint" him make Kinlock a full member.

To me, it looks a bit hypocritical on Toffler's part. Which doesn't really surprise me.

Jeff O said...

Oops. I did not mean for that last post to be anonymous. Sorry.

2008anony said...

Jeff

I actually had Toffler and the woman who was not appointed to the New Bridge Landing Histortical society and the accompanying letters to the Suburbanite when I made my original posting.

However, I did not name names since that would be unethical. :-)

Anonymous said...

Jeff-o I wouldn't be surprised if you are exactly right. If so, that's not nice of BLT.

Anonymous said...

"Not nice of BLT"

Are you kidding?

She is the unethical ethicist. What niceness could anyone expect of her?

I would guess based on her record that she takes cash for her support.

Tom Abbott said...

Jeff O:

It's hard to judge the nature of your information when the source is unknown? Perhaps an unbiased council member hoping for the Goldman camps support in the next election? My understanding is that it takes four council members to make an appointment. Frankly, I can't imagine Mr. Goldman had any support on the council after the election. Did anyone fight hard for Mr. Goldman? I suspect not. As someone who was “quite involved” in the Goldman campaign, I can understand that you feel his appointment should have been a "no brainer". There are many who do not share your view.

Mr. Kinloch was “quite involved” in the Toffler campaign. However, your logic concerning his appointment borders on the absurd. If Mr. Goldman stayed on the board, Mr. Kinloch could still have been appointed as one of the alternates. If this was about putting Mr. Kinloch on the Planning Board, he could have had the vacant seat rather the alternate no. 2 position. Even alternate no. 1 would put him in a better position to fill the next vacancy. I do know Mr. Kinloch and believe he is well qualified. On the other hand, one could easily question my qualifications to make such a judgment.

It is interesting to note that if Mr. Goldman had been reappointed and the first alternate Mr. Kaye had moved up, the board would have consisted of eight white men and the town manager, Helene Fall.

Anonymous said...

So everything is now on a quota basis?

Anonymous said...

Apparently if Mr. Goldman had been a woman he would have been more seriously considered for reappointment.

jeff said...

Tom,

Granted I'm not a newspaper man who gets stories published on the basis of unnamed sources, but I am confident of their reliability.

While you were posting your information that had Mr. Kinlock as 2nd alternate and Ms. Jones as 1st alternate, I was writing my post and relying on the Suburbanite for this particular detail, which has those 1st and 2nd designations reversed. My guess is that you're the more reliable source here, but I hope you'll double-check it.

You are correct that it takes a council majority to make these decisions, and I didn't say that Dr. Toffler was the only one who came down on the side of removing Ned. I'll stand by what I did say about Toffler's position, and while I noted that Mr. Kinlock was quite involved in the Toffler campaign (as I was quite involved in the Goldman campaign), my main purpose was to point out the irony of the situation in light of recent brou-ha-has over the prior council's "dis-appointments," including Toffler's. (And by the way, I publicly spoke against the handling of the Loft dis-appointment.)

As for the diversity issue, there may have been other ways to fill the vacancy created by Ms. Karibi-White's resignation. I do suspect that without Mr. Goldman, the board will have somewhat less "diversity of thought."

Anonymous said...

No shock that all the Toffler/Cramer chaff at the old Council meetings was dishonest bull____.

Those crooks went after the best public servant we had with disingenuous lies that better represented their approach to things than Rudy's.

Tom Abbott said...

I am inclined to believe the Suburbanite has the order of the alternates correct. I was not sure at the meeting. The person I asked to confirm it may well have had the order wrong.

Anonymous said...

Esther is really being gratuitously obnoxious over on her blog.

esther said...

I fail to see how my last post is "gratuitously obnoxious."

Anonymous said...

If you choose as a Jew to eat pork and aren't ashamed, at least don't mock other Jews by calling it "Traife Alert."

It is a free country, yes, but that doesn't preclude showing common decency.

There is an applicable Yiddish expression, "Chazer Feess" to indicate how the pig extends its cloven hooves to pretend it is kosher despite its failure to chew its cud and is consequently in the traife category.

It seems you are extending your Chazer Feess.

Karin said...

So Traife is Non-Kosher? what is the big deal in using that word to describe this new restaurant ?

2008anony said...

Anonymous

Exactly how did Esther mock any Jew by clearly indicating in the header that she was about to review a non-Kosher restaurant.

Does she not have the right to post a review of a non-Kosher restaurant? Did she mock anyone who could not eat there?

There are people with a sense of humor, people with a thin skin and people looking to pick a fight and you strike me as a strong candidate for category #3.

As to your "chazer"comment - I would comment if I could understand your point since Esther clearly was not pretending to be something she is not.

Moreover, let's assume that your concern were valid. As a result of your posting, do you believe that Esther or any other Jewish blogger who does not keep Kosher will feel more or less sympathetic to traditional Judaism. Other than hearing yourself type, what do you think you are accomplishing?

Anonymous said...

There was obviously no call for using the Hebrew-Yiddish term treife. A review without that term would have accomplished what Esther's defender thinks she was doing.

There is a term Hamaven Yavin -- the one who understands understands.

It would be hard to believe Esther was not tweaking anyone with her heading to her review.

Anonymous said...

@everyone

I didn't think it was necessary to preface the post with that title, but I think that complaining about it does nothing but draw attention to something most people wouldn't understand and barely anyone would car about.

In an ideal world (blog) I'd like people to share all of my sensitivities (including the irrational ones), but everyone has different limits.

I would suggest that if you take umbrage with something Esther writes, you write her an email.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps he's upset because Esther confused the terms traife and non-kosher. They are not synonomous (traife cannot be eaten, but not all non-kosher is traife).

scotty h said...

did all the years of great Jewish comedians bring us to this?
The Jewish sense of humor used to be a greatvsource of pride to me
Now these comments, and such delicate sensitivities are proving otherwise

esther said...

When I said "I'm there." on Teaneck progress, the truth is that I was being a bit sarcastic. The idea of eating fried pig flesh doesn't appeal to me.

And am I the only one who thinks that it is amusing that in a place like Teaneck that is renowned for the quality and diversity of it's kosher restaurants, someone would open a restaurant so unabashedly unkosher (and unhealthy to boot) that it specializes in fried pork rinds.

The person who was offended by the title of the thread probably takes umbrage at lots of things. We all know people who thrive on manufactured outrage. There's certainly no shortage of people like that at town council meetings.

Karin said...

"And am I the only one who thinks that it is amusing that in a place like Teaneck that is renowned for the quality and diversity of it's kosher restaurants, someone would open a restaurant so unabashedly unkosher (and unhealthy to boot) that it specializes in fried pork rinds."

You are joking right?
Isnt Teaneck all about DIVERSITY?

Anonymous said...

Actually, Esther, I think the real problem is that you wrote "treife" instead of "treyf." :)

Anonymous said...

Esther,

I find it amusing that you seem to bring most of your threads to some sort of Jewish/Non-Jewish debate.

Teaneck, is roughly about 40% Jewish. That means that there are (believe it or not)60% of the town that is NOT JEWISH. I'm not sure why you would be so surprised that some segment of this non-jewish population would be interested in having restaurants.

We have a plethora of non-kosher restaurants of all types in teaneck. There is of course our famouse KFC. We also have an IHOP. There is Louie's Charcoal Pit, which according to my brother is quite a fine establishment. My personal take is that Victor's pizza on cedar lane may be the best pizza in town. If you like a bit more style, there is Vitale's. I'm sure they serve a great Chicken Parm., which is pretty much the epitome of non-kosher food.

For dessert, you can always head to Bischoff's, which has some of the best Ice Cream in the area.

My apologies to the rest of the restaurants I left off. According to my quick search thru the on-line yellow pages, there are 103 restaurants in Teaneck. Roughly speaking this means there are 75 that are non-kosher.

So, it would seem that only you are surprised that an ethnic non-Kosher restaurant would want to open up in an upper-middle class town like Teaneck.

Which agains makes me wonder, why you like to turn every topic into Jewish vs. Non-Jewish.

esther said...

Anonymous - I tried to come up with a funny title to the thread and you took umbrage. You're the one who's playing the Jew-card. Not me. Don't try to paint me as a divisive figure in Teaneck because I'm not.

Anonymous said...

Esther,

I didn't take any umbrage with your title. I saw it the first time and chuckled. By itself, it is still funny.

What I then noticed with your 2nd post is your 'surprise' that such a restaurant would open here in teaneck, and began to realize a pattern in so many of your threads.

You quickly inject something that turns it into a Jewish/Non-Jewish thing.

and yes...you are divisive figure. Denying it doesn't make it so.

Anonymous said...

esther said.
We all know people who thrive on manufactured outrage. There's certainly no shortage of people like that at town council meetings.

Ignorant, judgmental and divisive.

What Lola Wants said...

Anonymous 5:32 pm etc. Aug 1
OH GROW UP!!!

In life I have found that people who scream the loudest regarding what others say are themselves the most INSECURE in their own beliefs! YOU are a STAR at this!

Esther is not being obnoxious! It is HER BLOG! She can post what she wants to post! I thought it was pretty funny and was sorry that I could not sample the resturaunt because it was not kosher. Just because you and (I think all the rude and obnoxious critical posts) Rudy don't have a life except for blogs and you think that everyone thinks the way you do is insane!

YOu must be one of these guys who sits in a back room, is not exposed to the public because of your self righteous views or inability to interact with others. YOu may do a good job, but can't be exposed to anyone. YOu prove that daily on the blogs. Its your kind of BS postings on the blogs that makes me embarrassed to be an observant Jew. LIGHTEN UP and develop a sense of humor!

SHeeesssshhhhhh!

What Lola Wants said...

Anonymous 6:31 pm

LIGHTEN UP! NO one cares! YOu want to preach, preach to those who want to listen. Esther was being CUTE! SHe has a sense of humor!!

YOu are such a turn off!

Esther 1:14 -
DITTO DITTO DITTO!!

Start another thread and lets move on...

Anonymous said...

"And am I the only one who thinks that it is amusing that in a place like Teaneck that is renowned for the quality and diversity of it's kosher restaurants, someone would open a restaurant so unabashedly unkosher (and unhealthy to boot) that it specializes in fried pork rinds."

Did I miss something? Is Teaneck all Kosher now? I guess the rest of the residents don't need other restaurant choices.

Anonymous said...

My opinion on Esther's post is a big 'who cares', but I'm stopping short at saying that it wasn't divisive. We all look at the world through our collective experiences. While I'm certain that a non-Jew may walk by this restaurant and think nothing of it, there is a certain uneasiness that Jews tend to have when approaching either pork or milk and meat together.

Speaking as someone that has been on both sides of the kosher aisle, I can tell you that there are plently of Jewish people that have no problem eating a non-kosher burger, but wouldn't think of going near a cheeseburger, it's just not done (culturally, at least).

I beleive (and I can very well be wrong) that it was that set of experiences that made Esther see a Pork Restaurant as somehting different than any other 'non-kosher' establishment.

To her (and me as well), it's not the same (even though it is) as any other restaurant open to the general public.

So I do not think there was any intentional splitting of Jew vs. non going on in her post. Nevertheless, considering that there are plenty of people that do not see that distiction in town (and on this site), I can understand the sentiment that there is an opinion that somehting that has absoluteley nothing to do with Jewish vs. non suddenly took on a different spin.

All in all, if I'm correct - it leads me back to my original conclusion: 'who cares'?

What Lola Wants said...

Anonymous 3:12 pm

I really didn't think that this was worth that much thought! Your original "who cares?" was sufficient.

Anonymous said...

Pizza Crave started out as a franchisee of Pizza Cave, a small chain.

There was some legal hocus pocus to get out of paying franchise fees to Pizza Cave and the letter R was inserted in the name.

Anonymous said...

Where is Pizza Crave?

Karin said...

anonymous said...
Where is Pizza Crave?
-------

It is on Cedar Lane near the fish store/Delta gas station and wig store...in that little strip of shops

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Karin

Anonymous said...

http://www.cafepress.com/Obamaton

Check out link to cool Obama t-shirts