Facebook Pulled The Rug From Under The JBlogosphere

Remember when you gave up reading Failed Messiah for Aseret Yemei Teshuva? It’s author, Shmarya Rosenberg, was but one of many town criers exposing the underbelly of the orthodox Jewish world. Rosenberg and naysayers like him have largely gone silent.

Is this because many of the societal issues that took place during the JBlogging heyday of 2000-2010 have been resolved? Has day school tuition dramatically lowered? Has the stigma surrounding mental health gone away? Has sex abuse been eliminated? Have we discovered a compassionate approach towards LGBTQ Jews? Have people stopped committing fraud and other white collar crimes? Have things simply  gotten better over the past several years?

If not, maybe the jaded bloggers who attracted hundreds of followers have all become baalei teshuvas? Maybe they turned over a new leaf and either see things in a different way or now agree with sweeping things under the communal rug? 

Maybe many of them decided to leave the community and its angst behind, going frei, so to speak?

I would argue that the miles of comments containing passionate debates and discussions on the blogs of yore have been replaced by Facebook – but Facebook threads can never hope to replace the raw honesty that happened when people were able to comment anonymously on blog posts. This is because on Facebook you can’t hide.  

Sure, there are folks who try to get away with fake Facebook profiles.  While they might last for awhile, if they get too intense or insulting towards those Orthodox Jews who love debating with frum critics, their profile will get flagged and deleted.  Long term fake profiles only work if the person behind it lays low and mainly observes.

On Facebook, you have to stand behind what you say – with your own name, and with your own face. That can inhibit discussion and critique when you are part of a world with only two or three degrees of separation between you and everyone else. The only town criers left seem to be those who are no longer part of the community, on the edge of it and don’t care who knows it, or the truly courageous among us.

Facebook not only caused the downfall of the JBlogosphere network, but also took away the anonymous platform that critics within the community used to have. These pseudonymed critics often had the valuable vantage point of a current insider’s perspective, rather than the perspective of those outside of the system or those who made their exit many years before. Shmarya Rosenberg wasn’t anonymous, so people knew how to get to him. The buzz online was that he was paid to stop blogging about the ills of Orthodoxy.

Many would say that the abolishment of the “Failed Messiahs” is a good thing. What do you think?


An unspoken dream is like an unopened letter

Many years ago when I was newly married, I woke up from a nightmare. I don’t get nightmares often, but when I do, they stay with me for a time, haunting my waking thoughts as I search to make sense of the frightening visions. I woke that night in a confusion between dream and reality, with tears streaming onto my pillowcase and barely concealed snuffles and sobs, trying not to wake my husband without success.

He asked me what was wrong, and I began to tell him about my dream, thinking that putting it into words outside of my dreamscape would take away the power of the disturbing alternate universe from which I had so recently emerged.

As I began to delve into the details, my husband stopped me.  “No!  Don’t tell me.  An unspoken dream is like an unopened letter.  If you don’t say it out loud, it won’t come true.” Apparently this was an adage that many in the frum community live by, and are deeply superstitious about.  Indeed, he seemed nervous at the prospect that I might say too much, thus bringing ill tidings upon us.  He spent time soothing and reassuring me that it was just a dream and everything was fine, until my little crying hiccups subsided and my eyes no longer ran in salty rivulets down my cheeks.

As I turned over on my damp pillow and heard my husband begin to softly snore, I lay awake and thought again about my nightmare.  I felt unsettled and restless, but I repeated the mantra to myself that it was only a dream.  Eventually I drifted off to sleep.  While the dream continued to haunt me for a few days afterward, not putting it into words eventually helped to eradicate it from my memory, as I have no recollection about the details today.  I have since kept my nightmares to myself, to the same amnesic effect.

It’s interesting to note that the idea of not speaking of dreams, lest they come to pass in real life, is typically only brought up when referring to bad dreams.  Nightmares are the visions that must be kept at bay, by not infusing them with the power of words.

I believe it’s this same theory that prevents us from speaking of real life horrors.  If we don’t name the atrocities, they don’t exist.  Except they do – much in the same way my nightmare affected me in a very real way – even though it remained unrevealed.  Even though I don’t remember the details, I still remember my fear and panic as I woke from that bad dream and struggled to put it into context.  I know the nightmare happened, I remember the trauma, whether I spoke of it or not.

There are some brave people in our world who dare to reveal what we all want to remain hidden.  They refuse to leave the nightmare unspoken, because if these nightmares are allowed to exist in the name of keeping unpleasantries out of the public eye, they grow and flourish like a cancer.  Rabbi Yakov Horowitz is one such champion who refuses to remain silent, if he can save even one child from being harmed by those things that go bump in the night, or even in broad daylight, while the rest of us “keep it sweet” and stay quiet because, “loshon horah,” because, “think of his/her (the abuser’s) family, because, “there are two sides to every story,” because, “it’s embarrassing to talk about such topics,” or because, “it will make a chillul Hashem for the rest of the world to hear of this happening in the Jewish community.”

Yes, especially when it comes to child sexual abuse, there are so many reasons to remain silent, yet that silence is mostly self-serving.  It alleviates us from the responsibility of getting involved.  We tell ourselves the rabbis will handle it, the parents will handle it, maybe even the police (if they are notified) will handle it.  It’s not for us to mish in (butt into someone else’s business).  Yet when all of us have that attitude, it leaves no one to mish in.

Rabbi Horowitz is the perfect example of why a person shouldn’t mish in, after all, look where his mishing in got him? A defamation lawsuit and failed attempt at an order of protection filed against him in the Israeli courts from U.S. convicted Level 3 sex offender, Yona Weinberg!  The lawsuit remains pending.

It all began when Rabbi Horowitz, founder and director of the Center for Jewish Family Life/Project Y.E.S. and founder and dean of Yeshiva Darchei Noam of Monsey, discovered Weinberg had moved to the Har Nof area in Jerusalem, and sent out tweets to warn residents of his presence.  Ever since those fateful tweets, Rabbi Horowitz, a child safety advocate who speaks internationally educating parents and children on protecting themselves against predators, has been the subject of a legal campaign by Weinberg to silence him against warning residents of his Har Nof community about his criminal past.

Ironically, the media attention brought on by Weinberg’s own legal campaign has called more attention to his current whereabouts and criminal past than a few tweets ever could.

Rabbi Horowitz recently spoke in Har Nof about child safety, an event that was almost derailed by Weinberg’s attempt to get an order of protection against Horowitz, unsuccessfully arguing that Horowitz would incite community violence against him and his family. Hours after successfully fighting the petition for a restraining order in Israeli court, Rabbi Horowitz was able to give his seminar to an audience of 200 as planned, despite Weinberg’s legal effort to prevent him from coming to his neighborhood.  His speech from August 2 in Har Nof can be seen here.

Lohud featured a timeline of Yona Weinberg’s crimes and whereabouts, giving more background and justification for why Rabbi Horowitz would want the citizens of Har Nof to be aware of Weinberg’s presence –

June 2008: Brooklyn district attorney indicts Yona Weinberg, a 29-year-old licensed social worker and bar mitzvah tutor, on numerous charges including nine misdemeanor counts of second-degree sexual abuse and six of child endangerment.

June 2009:  Weinberg convicted of nine counts for victimizing two boys — seven counts of second-degree sexual abuse and two of child endangerment.

September 2009: Weinberg sentenced to 13 months in jail. At his sentencing, Judge J. Reichbach criticizes the Orthodox Jewish community for supporting Weinberg, noting 90 letters were sent attesting to his character and innocence — and mentioning nothing about the victims.

2010: Weinberg released from jail after serving roughly a year. He returns to his Brooklyn home, where he lives with his wife and young children. Weinberg is designated a Level 3 sex offender (high risk of repeat offense and threat to public safety).

June 2014: Police investigate a complaint Weinberg allegedly groped an 11-year-old boy after they were watching television in Weinberg’s apartment earlier that year. Prosecutors declined to bring charges, according to the Daily News.

August 2014: Weinberg allegedly elbows and slams the same 11-year-old against a coat rack in synagogue after prayer service, hurting the boy’s back. The boy told police that Weinberg pushed him against a bookshelf, threatening further harm if he continued to talk to authorities, the Daily News reported.

September 2014: Police file report about the alleged physical assault. The next day, police go to Weinberg’s Flatbush home to arrest him, according to the Daily News. His wife told police he was not home and referred them to his attorney. Weinberg moves to Israel. Shortly after, his wife and four children join him in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.

January 2015: News of Weinberg’s presence in Israel appears in the Daily News. After the story, the NYPD notifies the state that Weinberg had moved to Israel. Rabbi Yakov Horowitz of Monsey, child-safety advocate, sends out a tweet to notify Har Nof residents of the presence of a Level 3 sex offender in their community. Tweet says he was as dangerous to children as “a terrorist with a machete.”

June 2015: Horowitz is served papers at his Monsey home, informing him that a summary judgement was issued against him for $55,000 in an Israeli court, stemming from a defamation lawsuit. Horowitz didn’t show up in court, he said, because he didn’t realize he was being sued.

Later that year: Horowitz’s attorney in Israel has judgment set aside. Horowitz is still required to pay some court costs.

July 2016: Weinberg seeks protective order against Horowitz, which would prevent the rabbi from giving a lecture on child safety in his neighborhood, where the rabbi has been lecturing for 13 years. The court denies the request.

November 2016: Trial date scheduled in Israel for defamation charges. Horowitz says he will appear in court to defend himself.”

Horowitz said that he will not be silenced by a bullying sex offender.

“I think this is a test case…,” he told The Journal News/lohud. “I am not giving up.”

Israel does not have a sex offender registry, and as such, some child abuse activists such as Horowitz take it upon themselves to warn residents of predators in their vicinity. “How can you slander a sex offender?” asked Horowitz..”

“Horowitz told The Journal News/lohud that he won’t be intimidated by Weinberg, who used his position as a bar mitzvah tutor to gain access to his victims, who were 12 and 13.

He also sees the fight as part of a larger effort designed to thwart others from exposing sex offenders and warning potential victims of the danger. The Israeli legal maneuverings are key to this tactic, he said…”

“If you care about the personal safety of children, these lawsuits should trouble you deeply. For, make no mistake, if these outrageous lawsuits are permitted to continue, fewer and fewer people will be posting warnings when convicted sex offenders move near you or those you love,” he wrote on his blog, RabbiHorowitz.com.

“Horowitz, who faces thousands of dollars in legal fees, in addition to the threat of a judgement against him, pledged to continue his defense in order to protect families who have a right to know a predator is in their midst….I will fight to the end,” he said.”

I asked Rabbi Horowitz how those of us who also feel this lawsuit is an outrageous and dangerous precedent can financially help him.  He said that the best way to help him is by donating to his efforts to distribute complimentary copies of his Project Y.E.S  Let’s Stay Safe books and give seminars to communities who want to learn how to protect their children from abuse.  The Let’s Stay Safe book has been translated into several languages and been culturally appropriated for various Jewish communities in Israel and the diaspora. Many of these communities are impoverished and so he gives his books away to them for free with no compensation for even basic costs.

Mishing in comes at a price, and it’s a price most of us aren’t willing to pay.  Thank God for those who mish in. Thank God for those who wake and tell what they saw, for those are the ones who will save lives, save worlds.  We can no longer afford to be dreamers, dreaming that if we don’t acknowledge the nightmares, they don’t exist.

Let’s assist Rabbi Horowitz in his important work so that he can continue to share his message to communities around the world.


Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

I saw a Facebook post from a friend of mine who is appalled to find out that one of the main sources of business advertisement in Chicago, called Only Ads, has an official policy to only include photos of men.  I never realized that this was an official policy of the publication, but I do remember wondering why my husband’s relative decided to represent herself in her ads resembling a Minecraft avatar.  Now I know.

The reason why discovering this policy is unsettling is that many of the advertisers in this publication, and certainly, many of those on their mailing list, belong to communities where excluding images of women is frowned upon.  In fact, perhaps as a backlash against the growing trend of “female-free” public images in the more ultra-orthodox communities, some organizations and schools pointedly include positive images of women and girls engaging in communal activities or being honored at banquets.

Adults and children alike are bombarded with negative images of women in the general media.  Both women and young girls are visually sexualized in order to sell clothing, music, food, toys, beauty products, you name it.  The answer isn’t to go the polar opposite and hide half of the population away, the answer is to counter those images with positive role models and positive peer models both for the girls and women in the orthodox community, and also for the boys and men who can see their mothers, wives, sisters, teachers, and neighbors achieving success in business, torah learning, chesed, and any other number of positive activities that are part of the real fabric of daily orthodox life.

It goes without saying that a picture is worth a thousand words.  Whether you are looking for a lawyer, a realtor, a therapist, a dentist, a doctor, a wig stylist, a makeup artist, or any other type of service – seeing the face of the person you might be working with can have an impact on deciding to do business with them.  

A business relationship is similar to a shidduch.  If you are browsing a dating website, how likely would you be to skip over the profiles with no photo, as opposed to the profiles that do have a picture attached?  Likewise, it makes sense to feel that you have more information about the lawyer whose ad features a photo of his face, as opposed to the lawyer whose ad only features her firm’s logo.

This puts 50% of the Only Ads business advertisers at a competitive disadvantage when using the Only Ads platform to reach their desired market, yet I’m willing to bet that female advertisers pay the same rates as their male competitors and counterparts, who are allowed to share more visual information about themselves, thus better engaging the trust of the consumer.

The decision not to include female images for Only Ads is a financial one.  The publication determined that more of its readership doesn’t want images of women, than does want images of women.  I’m not sure how they came by their statistics, but often publications that decide to exclude photos of women from their pages do so for monetary reasons, and not necessarily because they personally hold the conviction that it’s forbidden.  I can’t say whether or not the publishers of Only Ads are personally offended by images of women; the only thing that is certain is that the publication feels it would lose too many eyeballs and advertising dollars if they included female images.

The nice thing about Chicago is that there are other options.  For example, The Chicago Jewish Advertiser (disclaimer – I have no relationship to the publication other than being on their mailing list) provides the same service as Only Ads, and they give fair photo representation to both males and females.

These are a few pages from the Chicago Jewish Advertiser April 2016 issue, as an example –

cja 1




cja 6


cja 8

One of the things that you will notice is that there are still advertisements in the Chicago Jewish Advertiser publicizing women owned businesses that don’t show photos of the business owner herself, nor female models who might logically be photographed showcasing jewelry, clothing, or makeup services.  Again, the decision to include photos or not, even for the advertiser, is a financial one.

On the one hand, a simple black and white, or two color text ad, is cheaper to create and run in print than a multicolored ad with photos.  This is true regardless of the publication you choose to advertise in.  Running an advertisement without a photo could simply be a cost effective way of publicizing your business.

On the other hand, if you are a small business, and you want to use the same ad in all of the local advertising venues, you most likely don’t have the budget to hire an artist to create different ad designs for the same campaign.  You will likely pay to create one advertising layout to run in each publication, and that means creating one ad that conforms to the Only Ads restriction of not showing female images, even if you would otherwise have included photos.  Thus, even in publications that don’t have such restrictions, Chicago area business women are still penalized and limited by the Only Ads “no female photo” requirement if they only have the budget to create one ad.

I think the sense of outrage that some folks expressed on Facebook is a reaction to the growing “scope creep” of ultra-orthodox standards being foisted upon the modern orthodox community.  The only answer for objectors is to patronize businesses and services that have more egalitarian policies, or create new venues where men and women alike can promote their services to the fullest extent.

Is the Orthodox community suffering from compassion fatigue?

compassionThis is something I’ve been wondering about for a while. The first time I heard about an incidence of child abuse in my community was over twenty years ago. Being an idealistic newbie to the Orthodox neighborhood, I was absolutely shocked to hear allegations (for abuse committed many years back) against a seemingly gentle old man. Apparently, this man (now deceased) had caused untold harm to young children back in his younger days, but was never held accountable for his actions.

Moving forward, the internet provided an underground grapevine of whisperings that before passed between families through word of mouth, but now passes through online bulletin boards, blogs, Facebook, and phone apps. Social media gives people the opportunity to openly share accusations to the world either under their own name or a pseudonym.

Even if the accused is never charged with a crime (often they are not), exposing the alleged perpetrator is one way for victims or their supporters to get some form of justice and also put out a warning to others who might encounter the individual in question. The global nature of the internet also means that someone who commits a crime in one part of the world, and tries to flee to another part of the world, can’t escape their notoriety by changing locations.

As online participation grew in the Orthodox community, so did websites and online publications devoted to unearthing maggots who committed heinous crimes under the guise of piety and under the protection of powerful leaders who felt that protecting the community’s reputation trumped getting justice for those irreversibly injured by human fly larvae sporting kippahs or wigs.

In the beginning, when online allegations would be published, there were mixed reactions. Some people were outraged that good people, who had never been charged with a crime, were being slandered. Other people were outraged that the accused escaped justice and the victim left to rot in the depths of the trauma they endured. Cases that were reported to police and received wider news coverage divided the camps within the community even more. Offline rallies were organized in some instances; those in Camp A railing against abuse being covered up and allowed to continue, those in Camp B defiantly defending the accused, speaking out against the victim, and organizing fundraisers to pay the accused’s legal expenses.

The comments on abuse articles on some popular Jewish blogs sometimes outnumbered the comment sections of major newspapers. Vicious fights took place between opposing sides, and sometimes even more poignant insights to the frum world could be found in the comment sections than in the original post.

The complex reactions that people have to finding out that they have been betrayed by someone inside their “circle of trust” is mind boggling. For some the revelation is met by determined denial and defense of the construct they’ve always believed in. For others, the news is met by distrust and rejection of the entire system. Still others will take a more pragmatic view of individual situations, and blame the perpetrator, but not necessarily the leadership that allowed the person to continue living among the community, perhaps under supervision. Pragmatists will allow that there is room to acknowledge that the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders wasn’t fully understood by those of us without a background in criminal psychology, and that the leadership did their best with the information they had.

Today, 10-15 years out from the early days of social media sharing, the lurid stories sometimes pour out at a dizzying pace. Additionally, in a positive move forward, abuse survivors are stepping forward and speaking directly to the public in their own voice, defying those who would dare tell them to hide in the shadows and deny their own truth. Conferences with panels of abuse experts and testimonials from survivors attract generous audiences, and are usually captured on video for wider viewing. There is now an open public dialog in the Orthodox community about child sexual abuse and sexual abuse in general. The next phase, which is happening in some progressive Jewish day schools, is classroom education geared for children to speak to them about abuse in language they can understand.

This new openness is a good thing, as victims now have a better chance to be seen as the wronged party and treated accordingly. The shame factor for survivors has diminished significantly with public discourse, although, I will say that many of the victim testimonies I have listened to online are from those who are safely married and no longer in danger of not finding a marriage partner due to their activism. It still takes an extra dose of courage to come forward as a single person and share a sexual abuse story with the world.

However, I have to wonder, as with any tragedy reported in the news that at first is shocking, but becomes just another headline to skip over after the thousandth report on the topic, are we suffering from compassion fatigue? Compassion fatigue is lessening of compassion over time due to constant exposure to traumatic situations. Health care professionals, first responders, family members caring for seriously ill loved ones, and others, report feelings of hopelessness, anxiety, fatigue, and other negative symptoms due to burn out. There are those who have suggested that our constant exposure to shocking news items has dulled the emotions and expected compassionate response of readers. It’s all too much.

These musings came shortly before the announcement that Shmarya Rosenberg is leaving his Failed Messiah blog after 12 years. Failed Messiah was a blog of guilty interest that probably prompted more Rosh Hashanah resolutions before Yom Kippur (in the coming new year, I will give up….reading Failed Messiah) for Jews, than the number of Catholics who give up candy for Lent before Easter.

Love it or hate it, Failed Messiah was one of the first blogs to openly publicize accusations of child abuse, the whereabouts of accused molesters who had evaded justice, and the identities of those who assisted such perpetrators. Whether he left his blog to pursue other interests, for financial gain, or simply because of burnout is something only he knows. However, there is still work to be done. Protecting our children from predators and spreading awareness only works as a relay race. Child abuse activists often burn bright and burn fast, so being able to pass the baton to others is imperative. It will be interesting to see if new faces will step up to fill the void.

Preaching to the choir

choirWhen I started this blog, I started it for an audience of one. I wanted to reign in the tangled yarn of my thoughts into one solid skein that I could hold, turn over, or unravel and rewind if I had to. Along the way, I’ve encountered those who vehemently disagree with my opinions and those who validate my viewpoints and make me feel like maybe I’m not as crazy as I think I am. Sometimes these assenting or dissenting voices come from the same person depending on the topic.

I’ve made some mistakes along the way. Sometimes I overstated my case, or was too quick to judge. Sometimes I felt that an injustice or some form of discrimination needed to be called out, and since no one else was speaking up, I would be the one to do it. Giving voice to the voiceless, and all that jazz.

I still don’t know which has more merit – being the one to bring attention to disturbing circumstances, or being the one who recognizes injustice, but sits back and waits for someone else to speak up. It’s much easier to merely click a like button than actually be held accountable for bringing the situation to light.

I do believe in the concept of what goes around comes around, because I’ve seen it and experienced it. You can call it karma, divine retribution, or less ominously, the world mirroring back to you what you have shown to others for the benefit of self-reflection. Recently I was shown that mirror through the trials and tribulations of social media, and I’ve taken heed.

For the most part, I’ve been preaching to the choir. While I’m very grateful that there is a like-minded choir to preach to, what I have realized, is that people only change if they want to change. Anyone who is opposed to my opinions will remain opposed, no matter how eloquently I attempt to make my case. People turn a deaf ear to viewpoints they consider treif. When an argument is dismissed as being born from secular culture, it is invalid, and therefore, no consideration for change is merited.

Additionally, many of us won’t practice what we preach when it comes to compassion toward hot button social issues such as child abuse, people going off the derech, homosexuality, the shidduch minefield, drug and alcohol abuse, inclusion of people with mental or physical health issues, women’s rights, etc. Words cost nothing, but actions can cost a great deal.

As fast as many of us are to step up on our social media soapbox and condemn discrimination and injustice in our society, many of us would be equally fast, for example, to squash a shidduch suggestion for our child with someone who has experienced sexual abuse, a chronic health issue, or a sibling who is gay. Sometimes an issue we can be tolerant about from afar, is an issue we can’t abide by close to home.

Conversely, continuing the shidduch example, there are sometimes valid considerations for not wanting a child to marry someone who, for example, has an extensive history of drug addiction and relapse, or a history of medical non-compliance for severe mental health issues. Not wanting a child to be subjected to that kind of uncertainty and tumult isn’t being discriminatory, it’s simply being a concerned parent. The devil is in the details, although such considerations might also be labelled intolerant by the social media peanut gallery.

It makes me wonder about our current culture of online lynching. Social media is the new Wild West, and frontier justice is alive and well. So many viral condemnations are started by the dissemination of partial truths and half told stories. There’s no doubt it’s entertaining to watch the sparks fly and the responses flood in at a dizzying pace in the name of public outrage. However, once the storm subsides and interest wanes, was anything actually accomplished? When the old outrages are buried under the weight of the new ones in our Facebook feeds, can we justify the harsh words read and written by claiming they promoted change? Most of the time, the only thing accomplished was machlokes and gossip.

Again, those who were already sensitive to the general issues being publicized will continue to be sensitive to those wrongs brought to light. Those who were unaware, and willfully so, will continue their backlash against those who try to shine a light on perceived injustices. Change has to be initiated by the individual’s own desire to change. Those who aren’t open to it won’t do an about face because of online shaming – especially if they feel that their position is God’s position. Adding religious righteousness into the mix only intensifies someone’s unwillingness to see another side, particularly if they feel that the other side is unquestionably against halacha or mesorah, which are one and the same in many Orthodox minds.

Since starting this blog and monitoring the Jewish news and social media, I have seen the same issues come up repeatedly over the past few years. Often, the same controversial spiritual and community leaders are called to task over their latest rantings or proclamations. Nothing really changes though – despite their detractors there are always more followers continuing to support even the most provocative of spiritual gurus. On an individual level, I’m sure some people have shifted in their thinking. I know I have. However, on a communal level, I haven’t seen a universal shift.

I know that change happens slowly. For example, there is a growing call to report sexual abuse cases to the police in Orthodox communities, even in communities where such reporting was practically unheard of only a few years ago. Rabbinic leaders are changing their minds on how to handle abuse cases in light of new information on how sex offenders often re-offend and how permanently scarring such abuse is to victims.

Another example of change is how women are slowly, albeit controversially in some cases, taking up leadership roles in Orthodox religious life. It is getting to the point where any Orthodox religious body that speaks out against advancements for women or scorns the idea of women in positions of spiritual leadership will be swiftly condemned, and so the language and tone coming from Orthodox clergy is getting tamer – even if the basic message of resistance is essentially the same.

Nothing happens overnight, yet that is exactly what social media users demand – instant satisfaction. I readily admit to subconsciously hoping for immediate resolution to the social ills I’ve dwelt upon. It’s not possible. Many of the problems that plague our communities took decades to develop. They won’t instantly disappear with the rantings of one angry person, or even several angry people, no matter how quickly a viral post spreads.

So this leaves me back to where I started – back to an audience of one – which is the only audience that really matters anyway. It’s appropriate that I should be examining my own heart, writing to detangle my thoughts, and thinking about where I stand on societal and spiritual issues. However, writing or ranting about my views online has a limited long term impact. It’s actions and not words that matter most. As 2016 approaches, I hope that I can have a greater impact by doing rather than saying. The audience might be smaller, but the results of offline actions have a better chance of yielding long term results. Words are important and have their place, but sometimes words come too easy. As they say, nothing worth having ever comes easy.