Conservatives oppose government-sponsored health care. They don't want the government intruding into their personal medical decisions or the operation of the free market. They have been raising holy hell all summer long over the specter of a government takeover of the medical industry. It's safe to say that in general, conservatives oppose socialized health care. They want to keep health care in private hands.
Yet, at the same time, most conservatives fanatically support government-sponsored marriage. They want the government intruding into personal domestic and reproductive decisions (well, at least other people's personal decisions). They enthusiastically support socialized marriage.
I've noticed quite a few references lately to the idea of "privatizing" marriage, and thought it seems the idea has been around a long time I think it's brilliant. As a less that patient or tolerant person, I tend to speak of "abolishing" or "eradicating" civil marriage, but that tends to be more off-putting than not. "Privatizing" marriage, though, takes conservative vocabulary and uses it to explode the hypocrisy and contradictions inherent in what passes for an ideology among the American right.
Many conservatives disapprove of government-funded social welfare programs -- "entitlements" as they call them -- and are in favor of either eliminating government spending in these areas or redirecting them into private hands (faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, etc.). The argument is that the individual knows best what he wants or needs and and do it more efficiently for himself without government intrusion. Why do these same people not apparently think that the individuals is also capable of making his own personal domestic, romantic, and reproductive choices without government intrusion? You can't have it both way.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
World Series
So the New York Yankees have won their 27th World Series. A lot of people in New York have been elated since last night, celebrating the victory of their team. I just don't get it.
Other than the fact that they play in a stadium located within New York City, what connection does this team of grown men who are paid absurd sums of money to chase a ball around have to the city and people of New York?
It's not like they're a community team, amateurs who could be your neighbors and coworkers or friends. When I compare American sports teams to something like the Irish hurling and Gaelic football teams, I just can't grasp why the former commands such fanatical loyalty. In the Irish GAA league, the players on the county teams have day jobs in the community. They are members of the community, residents of the county, your neighbors. When one cheers for one's county team, the men on the field actually do represent the county whose colors they wear. Sometimes sports are talked about in military terms. Amateur sports like the GAA in Ireland are like the drafted soldiers of a democratic nation. They are drawn from a cross-section of the population and are citizens with a vote and stake in the welfare of the nation for which they fight. American professional sports teams, in contrast, are like the mercenaries hired by the feudal lord who just happens to own the land you live on. Yes, both groups are the armies of the territory in question, but the relationship and connection between the military and the population is just a wee bit different.
It's not like the Yankees are are college or high school baseball team, either. If you root for your alma mater's team, you at least know that the players are students of the same educational institution you yourself attended. Just like with the amateur community teams, there's a real human connection, a bond of shared experience between the players and the fans. Now, there are large number of people who religiously follow the exploits of the athletes of colleges they did not attend but which are located for example in their home towns. For example, many people in Syracuse follow the Syracuse University Orangemen even if they attended other colleges or none. Those athletes, though, for at least four years are residents of the town and can be just as much representatives of their fellow inhabitants as members of amateur community teams. In some cases, there are even more tenuous cultural connections: I've known several Irish-Americans who are die-hard Notre Dame fans even though they have never been anywhere near South Bend, Indiana. That at least implies a slightly more tenuous human connection, an expression of a shared culture of Catholicism and ethnic identity.
What connection is there between the Yankees and the average New York to inspire such devotion? What common experience is their between me and a bunch of millionaires paid to play a game that I should care whether they win or lose?
I just don't get it.
Other than the fact that they play in a stadium located within New York City, what connection does this team of grown men who are paid absurd sums of money to chase a ball around have to the city and people of New York?
It's not like they're a community team, amateurs who could be your neighbors and coworkers or friends. When I compare American sports teams to something like the Irish hurling and Gaelic football teams, I just can't grasp why the former commands such fanatical loyalty. In the Irish GAA league, the players on the county teams have day jobs in the community. They are members of the community, residents of the county, your neighbors. When one cheers for one's county team, the men on the field actually do represent the county whose colors they wear. Sometimes sports are talked about in military terms. Amateur sports like the GAA in Ireland are like the drafted soldiers of a democratic nation. They are drawn from a cross-section of the population and are citizens with a vote and stake in the welfare of the nation for which they fight. American professional sports teams, in contrast, are like the mercenaries hired by the feudal lord who just happens to own the land you live on. Yes, both groups are the armies of the territory in question, but the relationship and connection between the military and the population is just a wee bit different.
It's not like the Yankees are are college or high school baseball team, either. If you root for your alma mater's team, you at least know that the players are students of the same educational institution you yourself attended. Just like with the amateur community teams, there's a real human connection, a bond of shared experience between the players and the fans. Now, there are large number of people who religiously follow the exploits of the athletes of colleges they did not attend but which are located for example in their home towns. For example, many people in Syracuse follow the Syracuse University Orangemen even if they attended other colleges or none. Those athletes, though, for at least four years are residents of the town and can be just as much representatives of their fellow inhabitants as members of amateur community teams. In some cases, there are even more tenuous cultural connections: I've known several Irish-Americans who are die-hard Notre Dame fans even though they have never been anywhere near South Bend, Indiana. That at least implies a slightly more tenuous human connection, an expression of a shared culture of Catholicism and ethnic identity.
What connection is there between the Yankees and the average New York to inspire such devotion? What common experience is their between me and a bunch of millionaires paid to play a game that I should care whether they win or lose?
I just don't get it.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Referenda
The people of Maine voted on the question of whether gay and lesbian people are human beings with the full array of rights and dignities enjoyed by all other citizens. About 53% of the voters decided that, no, we're not.
I am not personally in favor of marriage as an institution, and I think we would all, gay and straight, be better off if civil marriage were abolished altogether. It is an unnecessary and unjustified interference of the government into what should be the private lives of citizens. Unfortunately, government is entangled in private life and does regulate the private lives of individuals by deeming some unions more worthy of respect and protection than others. That is a historical and material reality and wishing it away won't do any good. The majority of the American people are too backward, too irrational, and too steeped in prejudice and bigotry and religious superstition to accept the abolition of civil marriage, so the next best and most utilitarian option is to extend marriage's benefits and protections to committed gay and lesbian couples. The material benefits, though, are not enough: their unions should also be entitled to the respect that the word "marriage" imbues those of their heterosexual counterparts. To deny full equality is to declare that gay and lesbian couples are inferior to straight couples, that gay and lesbian people are inferior to straight people.
The people of Maine, however, are apparently not capable of making even that timid step toward the fuller emancipation of humanity. This highlights the absurdity of putting decisions that affect the rights and dignity of individuals to the popular vote in referenda. The very reason we have a republic and not a democracy, the very reason we have a constitution, is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Rights should not be dependent on the magnanimity of greater than 50% of the voters. Perhaps some day, when the masses have been liberated from their mental slavery and freed from the ideology fed to them by religious and media demagogues, we may arrive at the point when the people will have attained the necessary enlightenment to properly work collectively for the common good. That at least is my hope, but have not reached that point. Yesterday's vote in Maine and the disaster of California's Proposition 8 show just how far we need to go.
My disgust with these popular initiatives has given me plenty of food for thought with regard to the mayoral election in New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg overrode not one but two referenda to impose term limits on public officials and the City Council cravenly capitulated, their greedy eyes focused on the benefits indefinite reelection may offer them as well. Bloomberg's argument was that removing term limits gave voters greater choice (specifically, the choice to vote for him again); opponents of the measure cite the very real concern that a public office should not become the personal property of its incumbents -- especially if that incumbent is a billionaire with the personal ability to outspend practically any opponent. That Bloomberg has been generally a decent mayor (I cannot forgive him for the 2004 Republican convention, however) is beside the point. It's a matter of principles, not personalities.
Is it not hypocritical to disdain popular initiatives like Maine's vote yesterday while opposing the revocation of the New York City term limit referenda? No. This is not a question of holding issues I support to a different standard from those I oppose: the two initiatives are qualitatively different. The voters in Maine were asked to make a choice that crucially (and cruelly) affected the rights and dignity of a minority of the population. This was a non-zero-sum situation: the legality of gay marriage did not harm the heterosexual majority in any conceivable way. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry in no way devalues straight marriages, granting the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in no way prevents the state from promoting stable heterosexual unions for the raising of children, and children themselves are not harmed by learning that different kinds of families exist in the world. Revoking the gay marriage statute -- approved by Maine's Legislature and not its "activist judges" -- has caused excessive, undue, and unjustified harm to the state's gay and lesbian minority and does not in any way benefit the heterosexual majority or the state as a whole. The majority, in this vote and in Prop 8, were allowed to use the machinery of government to interfere in the private lives of a minority, deny them the freedoms they themselves enjoy, and pass moral judgment on their dignity as persons.
The New York City referenda on term limits were different in that the collective of the people of New York City were asked to decide a significant question of how their city is to be governed. The decision would affect every New Yorker equally. Moreover, the incumbent politicians had a very real personal stake in one outcome over the other and thus could not be relied upon as unbiased decision-makers in this issue -- at the Mayor's and City Council's actions demonstrated. Maine's vote asked the public to pass judgment on private issues that do not affect the majority; the New York votes asked the public to decide a public question that affects everybody. The two propositions are fundamentally different, and I would suggest that such structural or constitutional issues as the distribution of political power and public funds should be the only category of issues that should be submitted to popular vote.
As disappointing as the vote in Maine is, we can at least put it into perspective. It is a testament to the remarkable progress that has already been made when the worst we have to be disappointed about is the denial of an elective positive benefit. Sodomy laws have been struck down and hate crimes and non-discrimination laws are common-place and becoming more so. Many states now either allow marriage outright or a next-best-thing deal that grants most if not all the attendant privileges and benefits. AIDS research, prevention, and treatment is well-supported and well-funded. Social mores are gradually changing and LGBT are increasingly seen and accepted as equal citizens with equal rights. Yesterday's vote in Maine is still a gross denial of the that equality and therefore an evil, but compared to 20 years ago -- when all the above were merely dreams and aspirations -- its not as great an evil as it could have been.
I am not personally in favor of marriage as an institution, and I think we would all, gay and straight, be better off if civil marriage were abolished altogether. It is an unnecessary and unjustified interference of the government into what should be the private lives of citizens. Unfortunately, government is entangled in private life and does regulate the private lives of individuals by deeming some unions more worthy of respect and protection than others. That is a historical and material reality and wishing it away won't do any good. The majority of the American people are too backward, too irrational, and too steeped in prejudice and bigotry and religious superstition to accept the abolition of civil marriage, so the next best and most utilitarian option is to extend marriage's benefits and protections to committed gay and lesbian couples. The material benefits, though, are not enough: their unions should also be entitled to the respect that the word "marriage" imbues those of their heterosexual counterparts. To deny full equality is to declare that gay and lesbian couples are inferior to straight couples, that gay and lesbian people are inferior to straight people.
The people of Maine, however, are apparently not capable of making even that timid step toward the fuller emancipation of humanity. This highlights the absurdity of putting decisions that affect the rights and dignity of individuals to the popular vote in referenda. The very reason we have a republic and not a democracy, the very reason we have a constitution, is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Rights should not be dependent on the magnanimity of greater than 50% of the voters. Perhaps some day, when the masses have been liberated from their mental slavery and freed from the ideology fed to them by religious and media demagogues, we may arrive at the point when the people will have attained the necessary enlightenment to properly work collectively for the common good. That at least is my hope, but have not reached that point. Yesterday's vote in Maine and the disaster of California's Proposition 8 show just how far we need to go.
My disgust with these popular initiatives has given me plenty of food for thought with regard to the mayoral election in New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg overrode not one but two referenda to impose term limits on public officials and the City Council cravenly capitulated, their greedy eyes focused on the benefits indefinite reelection may offer them as well. Bloomberg's argument was that removing term limits gave voters greater choice (specifically, the choice to vote for him again); opponents of the measure cite the very real concern that a public office should not become the personal property of its incumbents -- especially if that incumbent is a billionaire with the personal ability to outspend practically any opponent. That Bloomberg has been generally a decent mayor (I cannot forgive him for the 2004 Republican convention, however) is beside the point. It's a matter of principles, not personalities.
Is it not hypocritical to disdain popular initiatives like Maine's vote yesterday while opposing the revocation of the New York City term limit referenda? No. This is not a question of holding issues I support to a different standard from those I oppose: the two initiatives are qualitatively different. The voters in Maine were asked to make a choice that crucially (and cruelly) affected the rights and dignity of a minority of the population. This was a non-zero-sum situation: the legality of gay marriage did not harm the heterosexual majority in any conceivable way. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry in no way devalues straight marriages, granting the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in no way prevents the state from promoting stable heterosexual unions for the raising of children, and children themselves are not harmed by learning that different kinds of families exist in the world. Revoking the gay marriage statute -- approved by Maine's Legislature and not its "activist judges" -- has caused excessive, undue, and unjustified harm to the state's gay and lesbian minority and does not in any way benefit the heterosexual majority or the state as a whole. The majority, in this vote and in Prop 8, were allowed to use the machinery of government to interfere in the private lives of a minority, deny them the freedoms they themselves enjoy, and pass moral judgment on their dignity as persons.
The New York City referenda on term limits were different in that the collective of the people of New York City were asked to decide a significant question of how their city is to be governed. The decision would affect every New Yorker equally. Moreover, the incumbent politicians had a very real personal stake in one outcome over the other and thus could not be relied upon as unbiased decision-makers in this issue -- at the Mayor's and City Council's actions demonstrated. Maine's vote asked the public to pass judgment on private issues that do not affect the majority; the New York votes asked the public to decide a public question that affects everybody. The two propositions are fundamentally different, and I would suggest that such structural or constitutional issues as the distribution of political power and public funds should be the only category of issues that should be submitted to popular vote.
As disappointing as the vote in Maine is, we can at least put it into perspective. It is a testament to the remarkable progress that has already been made when the worst we have to be disappointed about is the denial of an elective positive benefit. Sodomy laws have been struck down and hate crimes and non-discrimination laws are common-place and becoming more so. Many states now either allow marriage outright or a next-best-thing deal that grants most if not all the attendant privileges and benefits. AIDS research, prevention, and treatment is well-supported and well-funded. Social mores are gradually changing and LGBT are increasingly seen and accepted as equal citizens with equal rights. Yesterday's vote in Maine is still a gross denial of the that equality and therefore an evil, but compared to 20 years ago -- when all the above were merely dreams and aspirations -- its not as great an evil as it could have been.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hit and Run
On Wednesday night, after a particularly harsh session with my therapist, I missed my bus stop and had an extra four blocks added on to my walk home.
I reached the corner of the southbound Whitestone Expressway service road and 14th Avenue and waited for the light to change. When the white "Walk" sign appeared, I took a brief glance at the traffic before proceeding across the street. To my great surprise, a dark-colored four-door sedan made a sudden right turn onto the service road -- and slammed into my right leg.
I recall seeing the car coming but not really believing that it would hit me. I felt the impact -- it wasn't enough to knock me over, but I couldn't process the reality that I had just been struck. When I recovered a second later, I looked at the shaven-headed Dominican in the driver's seat and gestured at the still-glowing "Walk" sign. He flipped me off then zoomed away. When I turned to try to catch his license plate number, my leg choose that moment to say "Hi, there! Remember me? I just got hit by a car. I'm going to fall down now." And so I did, sprawling face forward onto the sidewalk.
I was very touched that three young women stopped to see if I was OK and called 911. I knew that in situations like this one should do one's best not to move, and that's what I did -- and I was a bit alarmed by the shots of pain that ran through my leg with the usual involuntary muscle twitches. In a minute or two a fire truck and ambulance arrived and soon a half-dozen HOT Irish and Italian firemen were all over me. They were so caring, so concerned, so gentle, so masculine; it was clearly the best part of the night when they turned me over and lifted me up onto a stretcher. Besides the pain, of course, the other main drawback was that they needed cut open my pantleg to get a look at the injury site. Fortunately, nothing looked deformed, but still: these were a good pair of pants and I'll miss them.
The EMTs loaded me into the waiting ambulance, took my vitals, and started asking me questions to fill out an intake form. The police arrived and questioned me as well, and told me what I already knew: without the license plate number there really wasn't anything they could do. I thanked them for their time and then the ambulance took me off to the Flushing Hospital Medical Center.
There, I was wheeled into the emergency room and I saw first-hand how awful the American health care system really is. There were about 20 berths in the ER, and all of them were full; they left my gurney up against the wall near the entrance. A computer display hung on the far wall with each patient's name and the length of time since they were admitted as well as other information. If a patient had been waiting 1 to 3 hours, the time was highlighted in green; 2 to 5 hours, in yellow; and 5 hours or more, red. 70% of the times were red and one person had been there over 10 hours!
Everywhere people looked busy and overworked, and it was quite some time before anyone came to attend to me. I had called S from the ambulance and he arrived a few minutes after I did. Fortunately, being a busybody asshole is one of his skills and he used that to great affect: by making a nuisance of himself on my behalf, by being a squeaky wheel, I think he forced the staff to attend to me more quickly than they otherwise would have in order to get rid of me - and him. X-rays were taken and analyzed and I'm happy to report that nothing was broken; my calf and shin, though, suffered contusions. They gave me some medicine for pain (alas, Motrin, not Vicodin) and sent me home around midnight.
This was a very bizarre experience. I can't say it was traumatic because at no time was I in fear for my life. I can't say I was "lucky" because it's hardly considered good luck to get hit by a car; still, I was vastly much less unlucky than I could have been. The asshole who hit me and ran off had started from a stop around the corner and couldn't have been going very fast since he didn't knock me over; any faster and he probably could have done real damage. I certainly didn't mind the attention from the extremely sexy first-responders, but even as I lay on the sidewalk I figured this was not really very serious and it seemed very strange to send a firetruck, an ambulance, and a police car just for me.
I'm disappointed that the asshole who hit and run will not be brought to justice, but surprisingly I do not feel consumed with rage and a desire for vengeance. When a psychotic juvenile offender took out his frustrations on me in art class in 11th grade and hit me over the head with a stool for accidentally touching him, I was screaming for his head as they pressed my own head down on the table to staunch the bleeding. Perhaps I've matured or even mellowed; I have to trust that a person who can hit another human being with a 2-ton piece of machinery then run away without even checking to see if he's OK is probably sewing a good deal of karmic retribution for himself. While things never do get fully evened out and squared away, people who go about treating other people in that way eventually face some form of consequences. In the bigger picture, the three young women who stopped to help me and the firemen, EMTs, doctors, and nurses who were just doing their job, more than make up for the harm done by my hit-and-run assailant on the balance sheet of goodness in the world.
My leg still hurts. I spent all day sleeping, watching TV, and surfing the Internet, trying to keep any weight off it. I can get around easily enough although with a limp and the occasional twinge of pain if my leg gets twisted in the wrong way. It was nice to have a day off, but I'm actually looking forward to going to work tomorrow just to get out of the house (and milk the sympathy of my coworkers!)
I reached the corner of the southbound Whitestone Expressway service road and 14th Avenue and waited for the light to change. When the white "Walk" sign appeared, I took a brief glance at the traffic before proceeding across the street. To my great surprise, a dark-colored four-door sedan made a sudden right turn onto the service road -- and slammed into my right leg.
I recall seeing the car coming but not really believing that it would hit me. I felt the impact -- it wasn't enough to knock me over, but I couldn't process the reality that I had just been struck. When I recovered a second later, I looked at the shaven-headed Dominican in the driver's seat and gestured at the still-glowing "Walk" sign. He flipped me off then zoomed away. When I turned to try to catch his license plate number, my leg choose that moment to say "Hi, there! Remember me? I just got hit by a car. I'm going to fall down now." And so I did, sprawling face forward onto the sidewalk.
I was very touched that three young women stopped to see if I was OK and called 911. I knew that in situations like this one should do one's best not to move, and that's what I did -- and I was a bit alarmed by the shots of pain that ran through my leg with the usual involuntary muscle twitches. In a minute or two a fire truck and ambulance arrived and soon a half-dozen HOT Irish and Italian firemen were all over me. They were so caring, so concerned, so gentle, so masculine; it was clearly the best part of the night when they turned me over and lifted me up onto a stretcher. Besides the pain, of course, the other main drawback was that they needed cut open my pantleg to get a look at the injury site. Fortunately, nothing looked deformed, but still: these were a good pair of pants and I'll miss them.
The EMTs loaded me into the waiting ambulance, took my vitals, and started asking me questions to fill out an intake form. The police arrived and questioned me as well, and told me what I already knew: without the license plate number there really wasn't anything they could do. I thanked them for their time and then the ambulance took me off to the Flushing Hospital Medical Center.
There, I was wheeled into the emergency room and I saw first-hand how awful the American health care system really is. There were about 20 berths in the ER, and all of them were full; they left my gurney up against the wall near the entrance. A computer display hung on the far wall with each patient's name and the length of time since they were admitted as well as other information. If a patient had been waiting 1 to 3 hours, the time was highlighted in green; 2 to 5 hours, in yellow; and 5 hours or more, red. 70% of the times were red and one person had been there over 10 hours!
Everywhere people looked busy and overworked, and it was quite some time before anyone came to attend to me. I had called S from the ambulance and he arrived a few minutes after I did. Fortunately, being a busybody asshole is one of his skills and he used that to great affect: by making a nuisance of himself on my behalf, by being a squeaky wheel, I think he forced the staff to attend to me more quickly than they otherwise would have in order to get rid of me - and him. X-rays were taken and analyzed and I'm happy to report that nothing was broken; my calf and shin, though, suffered contusions. They gave me some medicine for pain (alas, Motrin, not Vicodin) and sent me home around midnight.
This was a very bizarre experience. I can't say it was traumatic because at no time was I in fear for my life. I can't say I was "lucky" because it's hardly considered good luck to get hit by a car; still, I was vastly much less unlucky than I could have been. The asshole who hit me and ran off had started from a stop around the corner and couldn't have been going very fast since he didn't knock me over; any faster and he probably could have done real damage. I certainly didn't mind the attention from the extremely sexy first-responders, but even as I lay on the sidewalk I figured this was not really very serious and it seemed very strange to send a firetruck, an ambulance, and a police car just for me.
I'm disappointed that the asshole who hit and run will not be brought to justice, but surprisingly I do not feel consumed with rage and a desire for vengeance. When a psychotic juvenile offender took out his frustrations on me in art class in 11th grade and hit me over the head with a stool for accidentally touching him, I was screaming for his head as they pressed my own head down on the table to staunch the bleeding. Perhaps I've matured or even mellowed; I have to trust that a person who can hit another human being with a 2-ton piece of machinery then run away without even checking to see if he's OK is probably sewing a good deal of karmic retribution for himself. While things never do get fully evened out and squared away, people who go about treating other people in that way eventually face some form of consequences. In the bigger picture, the three young women who stopped to help me and the firemen, EMTs, doctors, and nurses who were just doing their job, more than make up for the harm done by my hit-and-run assailant on the balance sheet of goodness in the world.
My leg still hurts. I spent all day sleeping, watching TV, and surfing the Internet, trying to keep any weight off it. I can get around easily enough although with a limp and the occasional twinge of pain if my leg gets twisted in the wrong way. It was nice to have a day off, but I'm actually looking forward to going to work tomorrow just to get out of the house (and milk the sympathy of my coworkers!)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Lieberman and the Filibuster
No one should really be surprised that Sen. Joe Lieberman has once again displayed his Democratic credentials by vowing to support a Republican filibuster of the health care reform legislation if it contains a public option. Even by Senatorial standards the man is a political whore, and it's clear that he cares more about the insurance companies that have either their headquarters or a major presence in Hartford than the average people of his state who need health care but can't afford it or insurance to cover it. His concern for the "taxpayers" who would have to foot the bill for a government-run insurance program I'm sure is sincere, except that he's probably referring to that subset of "taxpayers" who are either corporations or individuals wealthy enough that they will never have to worry about health care costs for themselves.
His reasoning, as explained to FOX News, is laughable. He's worried about the cost of a government-run health insurance option, insightfully noting that "It's not free" and "Someone's going to have to pay for it and you bet it's going to be the taxpayer."
Deep, really deep. Of course a public option won't be "free" -- you can't make something out of nothing and it will have to be paid for somehow. It has apparently escaped his notice that "the taxpayer" pays for everything - including his salary and benefits package -- because that is where the government's money comes from: taxes. Joe apparently is just fine with "the taxpayers" paying for his health insurance (despite the fact he is more than able to pay for it himself) but doesn't think they should have to pay for health insurance for people who really need it. Maybe he missed that day in Hebrew school when they learned about tzedakah and it must be that something comes up so he can't make it to shul on the Shabbat when Parashat Re'eh is read. In Lieberman's world, asking citizens to pay for desperately-needed health care reform is bad but making them pay 100 times more for an unjust and unnecessary war and the reconstruction of a foreign country is just fine and dandy.
Lieberman, sleazy though he may be, is just one man, one cog in the machine. His treachery is just latest development to highlight the absurdity of the filibuster.
As a legislative tactic, the indefinite prolonging of "debate" is a very low, pathetic, and immature blow. It's essentially the equivalent of a little boy threatening to hold his breath until his parents give in, except it's a little bit more effective if only as a deterrent. Under the looming specter of a filibuster, legislation needs a minimum of 60 votes instead of the 51 mandated by the Constitution. Trying to marshal 60 senators together to vote for a single bill is worse than herding than cats since cats, at least, have sense. The exceedingly frustrating result is that crucial legislation -- like health care reform -- becomes impossible to pass in any meaningful form.
On reflection, though, I wonder if that is necessarily a bad thing. I am reminded of Aesop's fable about the frogs asking for a king. Zeus answered their request by dropping a log into their pond to be their king. After the initial splash which scared them, they quickly noticed that their new ruler did not move and grew dissatisfied with its inaction. They petitioned Zeus for a new king and, in his divine annoyance, send them a heron who was as active and energetic and the log was inert -- and ate up all the frogs.
While the practical necessity of getting 60 votes makes it difficult for liberal policies like health care to be passed, it also guarantees that conservative initiatives like amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage likewise will be stymied. The polarization of the country, reflected in the polarization of its representatives, means that filibuster-proof super-majorities in the Senate are essentially impossible. The legislation that does make it out of that chamber will therefore necessarily be watered down and as inoffensive (and as unsatisfying to its supporters) as possible, when it succeeds in passing at all. Given it's serious systemic flaws, the government that governs least -- if even through incompetence -- governs best.
His reasoning, as explained to FOX News, is laughable. He's worried about the cost of a government-run health insurance option, insightfully noting that "It's not free" and "Someone's going to have to pay for it and you bet it's going to be the taxpayer."
Deep, really deep. Of course a public option won't be "free" -- you can't make something out of nothing and it will have to be paid for somehow. It has apparently escaped his notice that "the taxpayer" pays for everything - including his salary and benefits package -- because that is where the government's money comes from: taxes. Joe apparently is just fine with "the taxpayers" paying for his health insurance (despite the fact he is more than able to pay for it himself) but doesn't think they should have to pay for health insurance for people who really need it. Maybe he missed that day in Hebrew school when they learned about tzedakah and it must be that something comes up so he can't make it to shul on the Shabbat when Parashat Re'eh is read. In Lieberman's world, asking citizens to pay for desperately-needed health care reform is bad but making them pay 100 times more for an unjust and unnecessary war and the reconstruction of a foreign country is just fine and dandy.
Lieberman, sleazy though he may be, is just one man, one cog in the machine. His treachery is just latest development to highlight the absurdity of the filibuster.
As a legislative tactic, the indefinite prolonging of "debate" is a very low, pathetic, and immature blow. It's essentially the equivalent of a little boy threatening to hold his breath until his parents give in, except it's a little bit more effective if only as a deterrent. Under the looming specter of a filibuster, legislation needs a minimum of 60 votes instead of the 51 mandated by the Constitution. Trying to marshal 60 senators together to vote for a single bill is worse than herding than cats since cats, at least, have sense. The exceedingly frustrating result is that crucial legislation -- like health care reform -- becomes impossible to pass in any meaningful form.
On reflection, though, I wonder if that is necessarily a bad thing. I am reminded of Aesop's fable about the frogs asking for a king. Zeus answered their request by dropping a log into their pond to be their king. After the initial splash which scared them, they quickly noticed that their new ruler did not move and grew dissatisfied with its inaction. They petitioned Zeus for a new king and, in his divine annoyance, send them a heron who was as active and energetic and the log was inert -- and ate up all the frogs.
While the practical necessity of getting 60 votes makes it difficult for liberal policies like health care to be passed, it also guarantees that conservative initiatives like amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage likewise will be stymied. The polarization of the country, reflected in the polarization of its representatives, means that filibuster-proof super-majorities in the Senate are essentially impossible. The legislation that does make it out of that chamber will therefore necessarily be watered down and as inoffensive (and as unsatisfying to its supporters) as possible, when it succeeds in passing at all. Given it's serious systemic flaws, the government that governs least -- if even through incompetence -- governs best.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Halloween 2001
My first Halloween in New York, I wanted to be in the Greenwich Village Halloween Parade. I needed therefore to have a fabulous costume, something original and a little bit risque. 2001, you'll remember, saw The Producers sweep the Tonys. It also featured the briefly hyped release of a disappointing psychobiography called The Hidden Hitler that attempted to prove that the Fuhrer was a feygele. After a shopping expedition to a vintage clothing boutique and an Army-Navy store, I came up with this:
I was a hit. Spectators on the sidewalk either were laughing their assess off or were horrified, and while waiting for my friend to meet up with me after the parade, a gaggle of drag queens complemented me on my outfit and makeup.
I've never been able to come up with anything to top this, so that was my first and last outing in drag and in the Halloween parade.
I was a hit. Spectators on the sidewalk either were laughing their assess off or were horrified, and while waiting for my friend to meet up with me after the parade, a gaggle of drag queens complemented me on my outfit and makeup.
I've never been able to come up with anything to top this, so that was my first and last outing in drag and in the Halloween parade.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Socially Undead
I made another valiant attempt to move beyond my social comfort zone on Friday night by deciding to join some of my peers for dinner after the Friday evening service. It ended in failure, of course.
I really don't understand what my problem is. In some settings, I feel perfectly at ease and can be an active and popular member of the group; in other settings I feel like a complete social moron. The latter situation always seems to obtain whenever I'm interacting with my peers. I am just not comfortable when socializing with anyone close to my own age with whom I don't automatically have something significant in common. This is a different sort of discomfort than I felt at the bris, where the issue was interaction with my superiors. That, I'm pretty sure was rooted in good old-fashion fear of embarrassing myself in front of those who could potentially do me harm. The problem with socializing with my peers is largely the fear that my social ineptitude proves that they are not my peers at all but my superiors as well. At the bris, I already felt in a position of subordination and inferiority; at CBST on Friday night I was afraid of being demoted into such a position.
The evening did not begin auspiciously. There were two young cute guys who caught my eye and whom I very much wanted to talk to, but somehow I found myself on the periphery of their orbit and nothing I could say or do could move me further in. It became clear that neither of them had the slightest bit of interest in me. On the one hand, I can understand that and respect it: I've been in the position myself of talking to someone I'm really into and trying to fend off the interference of less interesting parties. It's a fact of life, but it hurts. I had been in a very good mood, both due to the party I'd attended after work earlier in the day and the spiritual uplift of the service, but this rebuff soured me pretty quickly. I found myself talking to my friend DF, which at least gave me the opportunity to vent my spleen but even that relief of pressure didn't improve matters much.
Things seemed to get worse as the dinner group assembled. I had prearranged to go out with BL and his friend JT, and then DF invited himself along as is his wont. That seemed fine, but then we got sucked into the gravitational pull of the couple who for some reason at the center of the under-40 social set in my synagogue. I was not exactly pleased when they took over and led the way out to dinner, making the decision for us all where we would eat. I don't really know these guys. Of course, I know who they are, but they don't really know me largely because of my lack of social success but also because I have never managed to make it to any of the 20's/30's group's event despite my best efforts. All that mattered is that they are popular, and that alone for most of my life has been grounds enough for implacable hatred.
Things got even worse once we arrived at our destination, the High Line Cafe on 9th Avenue. I was actually pleased with the selection, as the restaurant was cute with a cozy ambiance and the food, while pricey, was not outrageously expensive. However, the seating arrangements did not fall out the way I had hoped. I ended up at one corner of the table next to DF and across from the socialite couple; BL and one of the cute boys I had wanted to speak to earlier were down at the other end which would made conversation with them extremely difficult if not impossible. I was so disappointed, but there was nothing I could do.
A glass of Cabernet, though, loosened me up and I actually managed to have a good time as the conversation waxed and waned. The socialites actually were pleasant and fun to talk to (which probably explains why they hold the social position that they do) and DF was a reliable conversation partner as usual. The table was small enough that I was even able to have a minimum of communication with the boys at the other end, so while I didn't get everything I wanted I at least wasn't unhappy. I was having a good enough time that I didn't mind that it took about an hour for us to get our food despite being the only customers in the restaurant.
I had ordered the Vegetarian Panini, which was described as a medley of seasonal vegetables with mozzarella. What I received, however, was a culinary abortion that was primarily comprised of Portobello mushrooms. I loathe mushrooms. I despise them. I would not knowingly have ordered anything that contains them, which is why I did not order the Portobello Panini. I also do not consider mushrooms to be part of a medley of seasonal vegetables. They're not vegetables but fungi. Anyway, I probably would have sucked it up and eaten it but my dinner mates could tell I was upset and encouraged me to send it back, which I did. I ordered a new sandwich and everything seemed fine -- although I was embarrassed that I had to be the one singled out in this way.
The rest of the evening progressed well enough, until we got the bill. Both the mushroom sandwich and its replacement were on it, charged at full price. We all assumed this had to be an error, but the snotty and condescending manager said no. They were charging me for both sandwiches. It was at this point that I noticed they had oh-so-helpfully wrapped up the objectionable fungus-laden panini for me to take home. (if I didn't want to eat the damn thing at the restaurant, why would I want to take it home?). I protested that I should not have to pay for the first order, since it was plainly not what I wanted or what I expected. The manager's response was the mushrooms and eggplants are their seasonal vegetables and it's my own fault for not being aware of that. I argued the point with him, but he took a very snotty tone, saying "So we should take the sandwich off the menu because one person didn't understand it?" My dining companions stuck up for me though and presented a united front so that he took the wrapped-up sandwich and removed the charge from the bill.
I was mortified, however. The manager's attitude transformed the restaurant's atmosphere from a welcoming place to a hostile environment that I no longer felt comfortable in. Yes, the uneaten sandwich represented a loss to the restaurant, but a minor one compared to the loss forever of a potential repeat customer. I will never eat there again. Anger and embarrassment both demanded I get the hell out of there as soon as possible, so I tossed my share of the bill on the table, gathered my things and left. Why did this have to happen to me? When I was trying so desperately to have a nice, normal, and horizon-expanding social experience why did I then get hit with this kind of treatment that singled me out in such a non-flattering way?
Stuff like this always seems to happen to me. I must be cursed to never have a normal social life. I'm socially undead.
I really don't understand what my problem is. In some settings, I feel perfectly at ease and can be an active and popular member of the group; in other settings I feel like a complete social moron. The latter situation always seems to obtain whenever I'm interacting with my peers. I am just not comfortable when socializing with anyone close to my own age with whom I don't automatically have something significant in common. This is a different sort of discomfort than I felt at the bris, where the issue was interaction with my superiors. That, I'm pretty sure was rooted in good old-fashion fear of embarrassing myself in front of those who could potentially do me harm. The problem with socializing with my peers is largely the fear that my social ineptitude proves that they are not my peers at all but my superiors as well. At the bris, I already felt in a position of subordination and inferiority; at CBST on Friday night I was afraid of being demoted into such a position.
The evening did not begin auspiciously. There were two young cute guys who caught my eye and whom I very much wanted to talk to, but somehow I found myself on the periphery of their orbit and nothing I could say or do could move me further in. It became clear that neither of them had the slightest bit of interest in me. On the one hand, I can understand that and respect it: I've been in the position myself of talking to someone I'm really into and trying to fend off the interference of less interesting parties. It's a fact of life, but it hurts. I had been in a very good mood, both due to the party I'd attended after work earlier in the day and the spiritual uplift of the service, but this rebuff soured me pretty quickly. I found myself talking to my friend DF, which at least gave me the opportunity to vent my spleen but even that relief of pressure didn't improve matters much.
Things seemed to get worse as the dinner group assembled. I had prearranged to go out with BL and his friend JT, and then DF invited himself along as is his wont. That seemed fine, but then we got sucked into the gravitational pull of the couple who for some reason at the center of the under-40 social set in my synagogue. I was not exactly pleased when they took over and led the way out to dinner, making the decision for us all where we would eat. I don't really know these guys. Of course, I know who they are, but they don't really know me largely because of my lack of social success but also because I have never managed to make it to any of the 20's/30's group's event despite my best efforts. All that mattered is that they are popular, and that alone for most of my life has been grounds enough for implacable hatred.
Things got even worse once we arrived at our destination, the High Line Cafe on 9th Avenue. I was actually pleased with the selection, as the restaurant was cute with a cozy ambiance and the food, while pricey, was not outrageously expensive. However, the seating arrangements did not fall out the way I had hoped. I ended up at one corner of the table next to DF and across from the socialite couple; BL and one of the cute boys I had wanted to speak to earlier were down at the other end which would made conversation with them extremely difficult if not impossible. I was so disappointed, but there was nothing I could do.
A glass of Cabernet, though, loosened me up and I actually managed to have a good time as the conversation waxed and waned. The socialites actually were pleasant and fun to talk to (which probably explains why they hold the social position that they do) and DF was a reliable conversation partner as usual. The table was small enough that I was even able to have a minimum of communication with the boys at the other end, so while I didn't get everything I wanted I at least wasn't unhappy. I was having a good enough time that I didn't mind that it took about an hour for us to get our food despite being the only customers in the restaurant.
I had ordered the Vegetarian Panini, which was described as a medley of seasonal vegetables with mozzarella. What I received, however, was a culinary abortion that was primarily comprised of Portobello mushrooms. I loathe mushrooms. I despise them. I would not knowingly have ordered anything that contains them, which is why I did not order the Portobello Panini. I also do not consider mushrooms to be part of a medley of seasonal vegetables. They're not vegetables but fungi. Anyway, I probably would have sucked it up and eaten it but my dinner mates could tell I was upset and encouraged me to send it back, which I did. I ordered a new sandwich and everything seemed fine -- although I was embarrassed that I had to be the one singled out in this way.
The rest of the evening progressed well enough, until we got the bill. Both the mushroom sandwich and its replacement were on it, charged at full price. We all assumed this had to be an error, but the snotty and condescending manager said no. They were charging me for both sandwiches. It was at this point that I noticed they had oh-so-helpfully wrapped up the objectionable fungus-laden panini for me to take home. (if I didn't want to eat the damn thing at the restaurant, why would I want to take it home?). I protested that I should not have to pay for the first order, since it was plainly not what I wanted or what I expected. The manager's response was the mushrooms and eggplants are their seasonal vegetables and it's my own fault for not being aware of that. I argued the point with him, but he took a very snotty tone, saying "So we should take the sandwich off the menu because one person didn't understand it?" My dining companions stuck up for me though and presented a united front so that he took the wrapped-up sandwich and removed the charge from the bill.
I was mortified, however. The manager's attitude transformed the restaurant's atmosphere from a welcoming place to a hostile environment that I no longer felt comfortable in. Yes, the uneaten sandwich represented a loss to the restaurant, but a minor one compared to the loss forever of a potential repeat customer. I will never eat there again. Anger and embarrassment both demanded I get the hell out of there as soon as possible, so I tossed my share of the bill on the table, gathered my things and left. Why did this have to happen to me? When I was trying so desperately to have a nice, normal, and horizon-expanding social experience why did I then get hit with this kind of treatment that singled me out in such a non-flattering way?
Stuff like this always seems to happen to me. I must be cursed to never have a normal social life. I'm socially undead.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Jesus at IKEA
Jesus sure manages to appear in the strangest places:
'Jesus's face' spotted on the toilet door in Ikea Glasgow
Given that no one actually knows what Jesus looked like and that this apparition was manifested in a Swedish furniture store, wouldn't a more likely candidate be Odin or (since one can't tell if he is missing an eye) Thor?
'Jesus's face' spotted on the toilet door in Ikea Glasgow
Given that no one actually knows what Jesus looked like and that this apparition was manifested in a Swedish furniture store, wouldn't a more likely candidate be Odin or (since one can't tell if he is missing an eye) Thor?
Mind your own business 2
Another example of a total lack of boundaries. Before we learned the full details of the Skip Gates incident, I condemned the mentality that would lead someone to assume that people were up to no good and call the police without bothering to find out for sure just what is going on.
This incident from Springfield, Virgina, however, is even more egregious. Eric Williamson, 29, is facing a charge of "indecent exposure" for making coffee naked. In his own home. In the dark. At 5:30 AM.
Williamson, who was apparently sleeping nude, got out of bed and went into his kitchen to put on a pot of coffee - completely normal and natural behavior that should be totally unremarkable. He wasn't counting on an "unidentified woman" peering in his window with a 7-year-old boy. This pearl-clutching busybody was apparently offended by his nudity and concerned "for the children," so naturally she decided to call the police.
Something about this smells fishy. Based on the footage available in the video linked above, I cannot see any way that Williamson's offensive nakedness could be visible to a passerby unless the passerby were going out of her way to see it. The scant details provided about the complainant are likewise suspicious: just what exactly was she doing out with a 7-year-old boy at 5:30 in the morning besides trespassing on Williamson's property? Why isn't that raising any flags for the ever-vigilant officers of the law who somehow came to "believe" that Williamson "wanted to be seen by the public?" Moreover, how does that make any sense to anyone? If I were an exhibitionist and I wanted the public to see me naked, I can think of a few more plausible ways to make that happen than by making coffee in my own kitchen in the pre-dawn hours.
Apparently, a man's home is no longer his castle and private property -- supposedly the most sacrosanct right in our bourgeois capitalist society -- doesn't mean anything any more, at least not when the sexual reality of the human body is at issue or "thinking of the children."
This has nothing to do with the children. There are far worse things for a child to see than a naked man, but that's not even the issue here: Williamson wasn't parading down the street, he wasn't watering his lawn, he wasn't sitting on his porch in the nude but was indoors, in his kitchen, in his own home. As I expressed before, I believe that we all have a right to privacy is a two-way street. Just as I do not want anyone else poking their nose into my personal business, I do not have the right to shove my personal business in anyone's nose. In many cases, where the recipient has the option to turn off the TV or close the book or navigate away from the website, its his decision whether or not to be exposed to another person's personal life. In public, however, unwilling recipients of TMI do not have that freedom and so for that reason we should also take pains to keep our private lives private. It's common decency and part of the social contract. However, it is generally agreed upon that one's own home at the very least does not qualify as the public sphere. In public, the assumption should be that anything done is done for public consumption; in one's own home, the assumption should be that everything is private unless the individual gives express invitation to outsiders to participate. Williamson didn't stand at the door, his genitals swaying in the breeze, and beckon to the mystery woman and her prepubescent companion to come in and gaze upon his nakedness; if they saw him at all it can only really be that they willingly chose to look at him. This woman should be ashamed of herself. She's the one at fault in this sorry episode, not Williamson.
Some blame also needs to be borne by the police who acted on the prying prude's call. At least in the Wilson case, the bare facts of the situation justified sending a cop to investigate: even though I still think it was wrong to call the police in the first place, once they received a report of what could sound like a possible break-in they had a duty to respond. What exactly did the mystery woman say? How could any permutation of "I saw walking around inside a house and he was naked!!!" qualify as an emergency worthy of sending officers to investigate -- much less arrest -- a man in his own home?
There really is no excuse for this to have occurred. However, it shouldn't be surprising given the total disintegration of boundaries and common sense in our society. I sincerely hope justice will be done and the case against Williamson is dismissed, not in the least because this could just as easily happen to anyone, even me. People really do need to learn to mind their own damn business.
This incident from Springfield, Virgina, however, is even more egregious. Eric Williamson, 29, is facing a charge of "indecent exposure" for making coffee naked. In his own home. In the dark. At 5:30 AM.
Williamson, who was apparently sleeping nude, got out of bed and went into his kitchen to put on a pot of coffee - completely normal and natural behavior that should be totally unremarkable. He wasn't counting on an "unidentified woman" peering in his window with a 7-year-old boy. This pearl-clutching busybody was apparently offended by his nudity and concerned "for the children," so naturally she decided to call the police.
Something about this smells fishy. Based on the footage available in the video linked above, I cannot see any way that Williamson's offensive nakedness could be visible to a passerby unless the passerby were going out of her way to see it. The scant details provided about the complainant are likewise suspicious: just what exactly was she doing out with a 7-year-old boy at 5:30 in the morning besides trespassing on Williamson's property? Why isn't that raising any flags for the ever-vigilant officers of the law who somehow came to "believe" that Williamson "wanted to be seen by the public?" Moreover, how does that make any sense to anyone? If I were an exhibitionist and I wanted the public to see me naked, I can think of a few more plausible ways to make that happen than by making coffee in my own kitchen in the pre-dawn hours.
Apparently, a man's home is no longer his castle and private property -- supposedly the most sacrosanct right in our bourgeois capitalist society -- doesn't mean anything any more, at least not when the sexual reality of the human body is at issue or "thinking of the children."
This has nothing to do with the children. There are far worse things for a child to see than a naked man, but that's not even the issue here: Williamson wasn't parading down the street, he wasn't watering his lawn, he wasn't sitting on his porch in the nude but was indoors, in his kitchen, in his own home. As I expressed before, I believe that we all have a right to privacy is a two-way street. Just as I do not want anyone else poking their nose into my personal business, I do not have the right to shove my personal business in anyone's nose. In many cases, where the recipient has the option to turn off the TV or close the book or navigate away from the website, its his decision whether or not to be exposed to another person's personal life. In public, however, unwilling recipients of TMI do not have that freedom and so for that reason we should also take pains to keep our private lives private. It's common decency and part of the social contract. However, it is generally agreed upon that one's own home at the very least does not qualify as the public sphere. In public, the assumption should be that anything done is done for public consumption; in one's own home, the assumption should be that everything is private unless the individual gives express invitation to outsiders to participate. Williamson didn't stand at the door, his genitals swaying in the breeze, and beckon to the mystery woman and her prepubescent companion to come in and gaze upon his nakedness; if they saw him at all it can only really be that they willingly chose to look at him. This woman should be ashamed of herself. She's the one at fault in this sorry episode, not Williamson.
Some blame also needs to be borne by the police who acted on the prying prude's call. At least in the Wilson case, the bare facts of the situation justified sending a cop to investigate: even though I still think it was wrong to call the police in the first place, once they received a report of what could sound like a possible break-in they had a duty to respond. What exactly did the mystery woman say? How could any permutation of "I saw walking around inside a house and he was naked!!!" qualify as an emergency worthy of sending officers to investigate -- much less arrest -- a man in his own home?
There really is no excuse for this to have occurred. However, it shouldn't be surprising given the total disintegration of boundaries and common sense in our society. I sincerely hope justice will be done and the case against Williamson is dismissed, not in the least because this could just as easily happen to anyone, even me. People really do need to learn to mind their own damn business.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Songs on my iPod
Flogging Molly, "Drunken Lullabies"
I really like this song, the title track from Flogging Molly's second album. The hard edge and the driving beat and tempo are perfectly matched to my musical tastes, and the Irish flavor is an added bonus. As is typical, though, with a lot of songs of this genre the lyrics when analyzed do not make a heck of a lot of linear sense. However, the references to gelignite, crucifixion, Roisin Dubh, and snipers create a create a word-picture out of the noise that appears to reference the highs and lows, in retrospect, of the Irish nationalist struggle (one of my many historical interests). If you like angry quasi-political musical rants (as I do), then I recommend it.
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again?
Five hundred years like Gelignite
Have blown us all to hell.
What savior rests while on his cross we die?
Forgotten freedom burns.
Has the Shepherd led his lambs astray
to the bigot and the gun?
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again?
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess,
Singin' drunken lullabies.
I watch and stare as Rosin`s eyes
Turn a darker shade of red
And the bullet with this sniper lie
In their bloody gutless cell.
Must we starve on crumbs from long ago
Through these bars of men made steel?
Is it a great or little thing we fought,
Knelt the conscience blessed to kill?
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again?
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess,
Singin' drunken lullabies.
Ah, but maybe it`s the way you were taught
Or maybe it`s the way we fought
But a smile never grins without tears to begin
For each kiss is a cry we all lost.
Though there is nothing left to gain
But for the banshee that stole the grave
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess
Singin' drunken lullabies.
I sit in and dwell on faces past
Like memories seem to fade,
No colour left but black and white
And soon will all turn grey.
But may these shadows rise to walk again
With lessons truly learnt
When the blossom flowers in each our hearts
Shall beat a new found flame.
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess
Singin' drunken lullabies
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess
Singin' drunken lullabies
Singin' drunken lullabies
I really like this song, the title track from Flogging Molly's second album. The hard edge and the driving beat and tempo are perfectly matched to my musical tastes, and the Irish flavor is an added bonus. As is typical, though, with a lot of songs of this genre the lyrics when analyzed do not make a heck of a lot of linear sense. However, the references to gelignite, crucifixion, Roisin Dubh, and snipers create a create a word-picture out of the noise that appears to reference the highs and lows, in retrospect, of the Irish nationalist struggle (one of my many historical interests). If you like angry quasi-political musical rants (as I do), then I recommend it.
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again?
Five hundred years like Gelignite
Have blown us all to hell.
What savior rests while on his cross we die?
Forgotten freedom burns.
Has the Shepherd led his lambs astray
to the bigot and the gun?
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again?
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess,
Singin' drunken lullabies.
I watch and stare as Rosin`s eyes
Turn a darker shade of red
And the bullet with this sniper lie
In their bloody gutless cell.
Must we starve on crumbs from long ago
Through these bars of men made steel?
Is it a great or little thing we fought,
Knelt the conscience blessed to kill?
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again?
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess,
Singin' drunken lullabies.
Ah, but maybe it`s the way you were taught
Or maybe it`s the way we fought
But a smile never grins without tears to begin
For each kiss is a cry we all lost.
Though there is nothing left to gain
But for the banshee that stole the grave
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess
Singin' drunken lullabies.
I sit in and dwell on faces past
Like memories seem to fade,
No colour left but black and white
And soon will all turn grey.
But may these shadows rise to walk again
With lessons truly learnt
When the blossom flowers in each our hearts
Shall beat a new found flame.
Must it take a life for hateful eyes
To glisten once again
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess
Singin' drunken lullabies
Cause we find ourselves in the same old mess
Singin' drunken lullabies
Singin' drunken lullabies
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Dilemma Resolved
Having thought it over, I decided that I should go to the bris tomorrow. I don't really want to, not in the least because it requires me to get to the Upper East Side at 8:00 AM. However, I received reassurance from a traditionally observant (but not "Orthodox") friend that the seating for the bris should not be segregated so as long as I get there after Shacharit is over I should not have to participate in or be present for any of the misogynistic religious folderol and that mollified my ethical concerns to a degree. My boss's reasoning was likewise convincing: while it wouldn't hurt me if I didn't go, attending would probably earn me points with Sauron's daughter.
Now I just need to overcome my class resentment. I was sitting at home last night with a sweater and heavy robe on because I can't afford to turn on the heat unless it's absolutely necessary, while this child who is only a week old was lying in luxury in his parents' posh apartment overlooking Central Park. This child will never have to fret about finding a job, will never have to worry about making ends meet or paying bills on time, will never have to worry about whether he can afford rent this month -- and all just because he had the good fortune to be born to the right parents.
I can muster a teensy bit of respect of his father and grandfather who at least had to do some work to earn their fortunes. Granted, all they did was move money around in the great shell game we call the investment industry. They didn't create any wealth themselves; they merely moved the capital created by the labor of millions of disenfranchised workers from company to company and from fund to fund, buying low and selling high. The great industrial magnates like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were brutal exploiters of the working class, but at the very least while they amassed their vast heaps of filthy lucre they also left behind railroads and skyscrapers and other tangible items of value. The plutocrats of the financial industry can't claim as much.
Sauron and his son-in-law, then, at least did something to acquire their wealth. They did so as parasites skimming the cream off society's wealth but at least they did something. The child being circumcised tomorrow hasn't done a single thing to earn or justify the wealth he will enjoy. It sickens me that hereditary wealth and privilege still exist.
I suppose I have two facts to give me some measure of solace. The present capitalist world system quickly approaching a point of terminal instability. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will collapse one way or another and those who currently ride high on the wheel will find themselves ground beneath it (whether the working class can seize power and restructure society on a new foundation or whether we sink into a new Dark Age in the common ruin of the contending classes is yet to be seen). Moreover, just as their class is temporary, so too are they as individuals. The rich will end up just as dead as the poor. Dust we are and to dust we will inevitably return and all the money in the world can't change that. The same fate awaits both rich and poor; the rich just get to have a better time getting there.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to be optimistic. Maybe, as the prayer says, the child really will enter into Torah and gemilut chasadim and use his undeserved wealth for the betterment of his fellow human beings. I'm not going to hold my breath, but stranger things have happened.
Now I just need to overcome my class resentment. I was sitting at home last night with a sweater and heavy robe on because I can't afford to turn on the heat unless it's absolutely necessary, while this child who is only a week old was lying in luxury in his parents' posh apartment overlooking Central Park. This child will never have to fret about finding a job, will never have to worry about making ends meet or paying bills on time, will never have to worry about whether he can afford rent this month -- and all just because he had the good fortune to be born to the right parents.
I can muster a teensy bit of respect of his father and grandfather who at least had to do some work to earn their fortunes. Granted, all they did was move money around in the great shell game we call the investment industry. They didn't create any wealth themselves; they merely moved the capital created by the labor of millions of disenfranchised workers from company to company and from fund to fund, buying low and selling high. The great industrial magnates like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were brutal exploiters of the working class, but at the very least while they amassed their vast heaps of filthy lucre they also left behind railroads and skyscrapers and other tangible items of value. The plutocrats of the financial industry can't claim as much.
Sauron and his son-in-law, then, at least did something to acquire their wealth. They did so as parasites skimming the cream off society's wealth but at least they did something. The child being circumcised tomorrow hasn't done a single thing to earn or justify the wealth he will enjoy. It sickens me that hereditary wealth and privilege still exist.
I suppose I have two facts to give me some measure of solace. The present capitalist world system quickly approaching a point of terminal instability. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it will collapse one way or another and those who currently ride high on the wheel will find themselves ground beneath it (whether the working class can seize power and restructure society on a new foundation or whether we sink into a new Dark Age in the common ruin of the contending classes is yet to be seen). Moreover, just as their class is temporary, so too are they as individuals. The rich will end up just as dead as the poor. Dust we are and to dust we will inevitably return and all the money in the world can't change that. The same fate awaits both rich and poor; the rich just get to have a better time getting there.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to be optimistic. Maybe, as the prayer says, the child really will enter into Torah and gemilut chasadim and use his undeserved wealth for the betterment of his fellow human beings. I'm not going to hold my breath, but stranger things have happened.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Dilemma
Over the past two to three years, we have been working very closely with Sauron's daughter, and my boss expects and hopes that someday she will take over as president of our foundation.
She is a very smart, driven, energetic and immensely capable woman who somehow manages to juggle her philanthropic activities with raising her brood of six children. She is also a very down-to-earth, fair, and open-minded woman with whom I've had a very good working relationship; my boss has confided in me several times that she really likes me and is impressed with the service I give the foundation.
She gave birth to her sixth child, a boy, last week and the bris is scheduled for Friday morning.
The only problem is that it will be taking place in an Orthodox synagogue on the Upper East Side.
The geography is obnoxious, but doable: I was able to make it to 51st St. and 3rd Ave. by 8:00 AM for Hoshana Rabba and my father's yortzeit without too much difficulty. The real question is ethical.
I do not support Orthodox Judaism for a host of reasons, not least being the patriarchal phallocentrism that relegates women to second-class status, segregating them behind a mechitza during services and denying them equal participation in the religious life of the community. For this reason, I make it a rule never to set foot in any synagogue that has a mechitza. I refuse to be a party to such blatant misogyny and I would personally consider attending a religious service in such a synagogue a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God's Name.
That being said, Sauron's daughter would probably really appreciate my attendance at this family simcha. Although her husband is nominally Orthodox, she is not nor does she subscribe to the Orthodox ideology. While my absence would probably not be noted and I would probably not stand to lose anything by not attending, it would probably enhance my standing in her eyes if I did make that gesture.
I don't have to attend the morning service, and in fact Shacharit should be over by the time I get there. I don't know if the sexes are segregated during a brit milah; I wouldn't think so but I don't know. I suppose I'm worried about mar'at ayin, that my presence in an Orthodox shul would indicate my tolerance, respect, and support for Orthodoxy and all it stands for. Granted, there will be many people present who are not Orthodox, some not even religious at all, and I would be there for the sake of Sauron's daughter, not for the religion that operates the building. On the other hand, I don't want to feel like a hypocrite. From a social and career perspective it would be good for me to go, but would I be able to respect myself for pushing aside my ideals for self-advancement?
I don't have any Orthodox friends or family, but one of my closest friends is a member of Shearith Yisrael, the Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue, which is Sephardic and therefore Orthodox with segregated seating and an exclusively male rabbinate. Both of his parents have passed on, however, and even if he were to get married or have a child it's unlikely the attendant services would be performed there. Still, I would be obligated to attend out of my friendship and love for him. I like and respect Sauron's daughter despite our class differences, but the relationship is not the same.
One person suggested that perhaps I could just decide to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs and accept that there is diversity in Jewish life. Unfortunately, I do not believe in tolerance for intolerance, bigotry, or supremacist ideologies like fundamentalist religion and misogyny (which always seem to go hand-in-hand). Some people's religious beliefs mandate that women be flogged for wearing pants and be executed for adultery; I feel no compulsion to be tolerant of that and the mechitza represents the same dynamic, differing only in degrees. I don't want to associate myself with that in any way. On the other hand, all I would be doing is attending a bris; it's not like I'm being asked to join a whites-only country club or attend a fundraiser for the Ku Klux Klan.
I don't know what to do.
She is a very smart, driven, energetic and immensely capable woman who somehow manages to juggle her philanthropic activities with raising her brood of six children. She is also a very down-to-earth, fair, and open-minded woman with whom I've had a very good working relationship; my boss has confided in me several times that she really likes me and is impressed with the service I give the foundation.
She gave birth to her sixth child, a boy, last week and the bris is scheduled for Friday morning.
The only problem is that it will be taking place in an Orthodox synagogue on the Upper East Side.
The geography is obnoxious, but doable: I was able to make it to 51st St. and 3rd Ave. by 8:00 AM for Hoshana Rabba and my father's yortzeit without too much difficulty. The real question is ethical.
I do not support Orthodox Judaism for a host of reasons, not least being the patriarchal phallocentrism that relegates women to second-class status, segregating them behind a mechitza during services and denying them equal participation in the religious life of the community. For this reason, I make it a rule never to set foot in any synagogue that has a mechitza. I refuse to be a party to such blatant misogyny and I would personally consider attending a religious service in such a synagogue a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God's Name.
That being said, Sauron's daughter would probably really appreciate my attendance at this family simcha. Although her husband is nominally Orthodox, she is not nor does she subscribe to the Orthodox ideology. While my absence would probably not be noted and I would probably not stand to lose anything by not attending, it would probably enhance my standing in her eyes if I did make that gesture.
I don't have to attend the morning service, and in fact Shacharit should be over by the time I get there. I don't know if the sexes are segregated during a brit milah; I wouldn't think so but I don't know. I suppose I'm worried about mar'at ayin, that my presence in an Orthodox shul would indicate my tolerance, respect, and support for Orthodoxy and all it stands for. Granted, there will be many people present who are not Orthodox, some not even religious at all, and I would be there for the sake of Sauron's daughter, not for the religion that operates the building. On the other hand, I don't want to feel like a hypocrite. From a social and career perspective it would be good for me to go, but would I be able to respect myself for pushing aside my ideals for self-advancement?
I don't have any Orthodox friends or family, but one of my closest friends is a member of Shearith Yisrael, the Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue, which is Sephardic and therefore Orthodox with segregated seating and an exclusively male rabbinate. Both of his parents have passed on, however, and even if he were to get married or have a child it's unlikely the attendant services would be performed there. Still, I would be obligated to attend out of my friendship and love for him. I like and respect Sauron's daughter despite our class differences, but the relationship is not the same.
One person suggested that perhaps I could just decide to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs and accept that there is diversity in Jewish life. Unfortunately, I do not believe in tolerance for intolerance, bigotry, or supremacist ideologies like fundamentalist religion and misogyny (which always seem to go hand-in-hand). Some people's religious beliefs mandate that women be flogged for wearing pants and be executed for adultery; I feel no compulsion to be tolerant of that and the mechitza represents the same dynamic, differing only in degrees. I don't want to associate myself with that in any way. On the other hand, all I would be doing is attending a bris; it's not like I'm being asked to join a whites-only country club or attend a fundraiser for the Ku Klux Klan.
I don't know what to do.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Hate Crimes
On Friday morning, a gay man in College Point, Queens -- not too far from my house -- was the victim of a hate crime. Jack Price, 49, was savagely beaten by Daniel Aleman, 26, and another man who assaulted him shouting anti-gay remarks. Price is in stable condition in the hospital and Aleman has been arrested and charged with assault and aggravated assault, which the promise that this will be treated as a hate crime.
The day before, Congress voted to expand federal hate-crime legislation to cover attacks against persons because of their sexual orientation, as well as gender and disability.
Republicans, of course, opposed the legislation. House Republican leader John Boehner specifically objected to the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category.
This clever spin reveals that Boehner -- like most other conservatives -- is either incapable of understanding or unwilling to admit the reality of what hate crimes actually are and why they are different from ordinary crimes. Let me put in terms they might be able to grasp: hate crimes are terrorism.
9/11 was not just a mass murder. If a disgruntled employee had snapped and somehow managed to blow up an office building and kill 3,000 people, it would not have been the same. If a serial killer had methodically butchered his way through 3,000 victims before being apprehended, it would not have been the same. 9/11 was categorically different because it was more than the sum of the victims killed: it was a political statement, an act intended to destabilize the United States by spreading fear through its people. It was terrorism.
When a synagogue is targeted with vandalism or a Jew is attacked and beaten up for being a Jew, it is not just a building or an individual that suffers; when a person is attacked for being a Jew he is attacked a member of the Jewish people and all Jews are the victims. When a black man is beaten or murdered for looking at a white woman or trespassing into a white neighborhood, it is not just an individual who is harmed; when a person is attacked for his race he is attacked as a representative of his race and the entire black population suffers.
It's the same when a gay men or lesbians are targeted with hate crimes. Jack Price was not beaten up for being Jack Price; he was beaten up for being gay. If Price had not been available, any other gay man would do. It was Price who was physically attacked, but every other gay man was targeted too by extension.
It's not that hate crimes laws value some lives higher than others; on the contrary, hate crimes laws are necessary because those who commit such attacks value some lives less than others. Aggravated assault as a hate crime is worse than ordinary aggravated assault for the same reason that a Palestinian suicide bomber killing Israelis in a shopping mall is worse than the same number of random murders: they are terrorist acts and are both intended to and actually have effects that reach far beyond their individual victims. When Price was attacked on Friday, so too was I.
Boehner is apparently OK with hate crime laws so long as they cover "immutable characteristics" like race, gender, and religion. I'm uncertain how religion is immutable but sexual orientation is not, but that's beside the point: Boehner -- speaking for the House Republicans whom he leads -- apparently thinks that if you can theoretically change the characteristic that makes you the target of a hate crime, it's your own fault if you fail to do so. That's a prime example of right-wing logic, right there. I guess that since American citizenship is not immutable -- we can renounce it and move to another country -- 9/11 wasn't terrorism.
The day before, Congress voted to expand federal hate-crime legislation to cover attacks against persons because of their sexual orientation, as well as gender and disability.
Republicans, of course, opposed the legislation. House Republican leader John Boehner specifically objected to the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected category.
All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance.
This clever spin reveals that Boehner -- like most other conservatives -- is either incapable of understanding or unwilling to admit the reality of what hate crimes actually are and why they are different from ordinary crimes. Let me put in terms they might be able to grasp: hate crimes are terrorism.
9/11 was not just a mass murder. If a disgruntled employee had snapped and somehow managed to blow up an office building and kill 3,000 people, it would not have been the same. If a serial killer had methodically butchered his way through 3,000 victims before being apprehended, it would not have been the same. 9/11 was categorically different because it was more than the sum of the victims killed: it was a political statement, an act intended to destabilize the United States by spreading fear through its people. It was terrorism.
When a synagogue is targeted with vandalism or a Jew is attacked and beaten up for being a Jew, it is not just a building or an individual that suffers; when a person is attacked for being a Jew he is attacked a member of the Jewish people and all Jews are the victims. When a black man is beaten or murdered for looking at a white woman or trespassing into a white neighborhood, it is not just an individual who is harmed; when a person is attacked for his race he is attacked as a representative of his race and the entire black population suffers.
It's the same when a gay men or lesbians are targeted with hate crimes. Jack Price was not beaten up for being Jack Price; he was beaten up for being gay. If Price had not been available, any other gay man would do. It was Price who was physically attacked, but every other gay man was targeted too by extension.
It's not that hate crimes laws value some lives higher than others; on the contrary, hate crimes laws are necessary because those who commit such attacks value some lives less than others. Aggravated assault as a hate crime is worse than ordinary aggravated assault for the same reason that a Palestinian suicide bomber killing Israelis in a shopping mall is worse than the same number of random murders: they are terrorist acts and are both intended to and actually have effects that reach far beyond their individual victims. When Price was attacked on Friday, so too was I.
Boehner is apparently OK with hate crime laws so long as they cover "immutable characteristics" like race, gender, and religion. I'm uncertain how religion is immutable but sexual orientation is not, but that's beside the point: Boehner -- speaking for the House Republicans whom he leads -- apparently thinks that if you can theoretically change the characteristic that makes you the target of a hate crime, it's your own fault if you fail to do so. That's a prime example of right-wing logic, right there. I guess that since American citizenship is not immutable -- we can renounce it and move to another country -- 9/11 wasn't terrorism.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Future of Jewish America
The Forward has once again seen fit to masochistically publish yet another prediction of doom for liberal Judaism in America. Uri Silber describes his visit to two different playgrounds in New York City:
Later, a visit to a playground in Boro Park revealed the following:
Silber trots out the usual explanations for the results of his admittedly unscientific survey, focusing ultimately on the crude arithmetic of reproduction. Liberal Jews are more prone to intermarriage and -- following the trend of more affluent, better educated, liberal families -- have fewer children than their endogamous and prolific Orthodox counterparts. He cites doomsayer Steven M. Cohen who states that 192 Orthodox children are born for every 100 Orthodox parents while a mere 55 liberal children are reared for every 100 non-Orthodox parents. He also brings the anecdotal evidence of his own family, which in three generations has spawned 110 children and may hit 1,000 in the fourth.
The inevitable results, according to Silber, are the ascendancy of the Orthodox as the typical American Jew of the 22nd century, a withered and shrunken remnant of "more moderately devout Jews" somehow managing to endure, and "a legacy of thousands of gentile Goldsteins, Bernsteins and Kaplans."
Before we start saying Kaddish for liberal Jewry, it would be worthwhile to point out some of the faulty assumptions and problematic reasoning that take some of the wind out of Silber's sails.
First, there is no such thing as a "half-Jewish" child. To be Jewish is to belong to a people, a covenantal community; it's not like a breed of dog that can be mixed and matched in various combinations. One is either Jewish or not, and there is only one standard to determine who does or does not belong to the covenantal community: the community itself. Some communities make this decision based on traditional conservative halakhah as formulated by Orthodox rabbis; others have different standards. Silber doesn't specify the parental combination of these "half-Jewish" children, but even by conservative standards the children of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father are completely Jewish; Reform and Reconstructionist communities likewise accept the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. Without knowing the specifics, all 18 of these kids -- not to mention the "thousands of gentile Goldsteins, Bernsteins, and Kaplans" -- could be just as Jewish in the eyes of their communities as the frum children are in theirs.
Second, culture is not biologically determined. Just as one cannot be "half-Jewish" just because only half of one's chromosomes came from a Jew, a child is not guaranteed to immutably inherit and retain the religious identity and affiliation of his parents. While the Orthodox, like all fundamentalist religions, are very good at what one could charitably call "retention" or less charitably deem "mind control," not all of those 192 Orthodox children are guaranteed to remain Orthodox, just as not all of those "half-Jewish" children are guaranteed to follow their gentile parents into assimilation.
Third, intermarriage is constantly presented as as bogeyman imperiling the Jewish future, working toward Hitler's posthumous victory. There was a time when sociological factors in both the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds made intermarriage essentially an irrevocable rejection of Jewish identity, but that is no longer the case. The non-Jewish world is no longer so antisemitic or so ridden with xenophobia that cultural differences must be smoothed over into WASPish confomrity, and the increasing reality of intermarriage has made many Jewish communities more tolerant and accepting of intermarried couples bediavad even if they don't exactly jump for joy over the prospect lehatchilah. In a country and in an era where antisemitism is at an all-time low and where the autonomy of the individual to make his or her own lifestyle choices is generally espoused as a universal right, Jews are no longer forced to choose between commitment to their faith and culture and the promptings of their hearts. While it remains true that endogamy provides the best support for imparting a strong Jewish identity in the next generation, that does not mean it is impossible for intermarried families to do the same.
A further and more fundamental error is the assumption that past trends dictate future behavior. Population growth is dependent on a host of economic, sociological, and political variables that are constantly in flux and there is no way to predict with any detailed accuracy how they will change over time only that they will. The conditions that have fostered this growth in Orthodoxy and have precipitated a decline in liberal Jewish movements are historical forces that are guaranteed to change. The dire predictions of the future collapse of Social Security are predicated on the premise not only that the current beneficiaries and retirees will never die but that no new generation will enter the workforce and begin paying into the system; prophecies of doom about the collapse of the Jewish population are likewise plagued by such ahistorical assumptions.
Finally, and most important of all, Silber's prognostication and other similar projections about the future of the American Jewish community all assume that there exists a single unitary Jewish community that encompasses both Orthodox and non-Orthodox under a single tent. That is no longer true in any meaningful way. The Orthodox, insulated by their fundamentalist sense of superiority, are a world unto themselves. They have their own neighborhoods, their own schools, their own synagogues, their own organizations and institutions. Both halakhah and the prejudice behind it prevent them from interacting with non-Orthodox movements in any but the most limited way. They refuse to recognize liberal Jewish movements as valid in their own right, refuse to grant liberal rabbis the respect due their titles, and refuse to accept liberal converts as authentic Jews by choice. Many refuse even to set foot in liberal synagogues. Only Chabad and other "outreach" or kiruv organizations extend any welcome or concern to those who believe and practice differently -- and even they only do so out of pity and condescension in hope of encouraging them to draw closer to their own mode of observance. Controversial megaphilanthropist Michael Steinhardt was once condemned for charging that Orthodox Jews seem to live on a different planet from everyone else, but he is essentially correct.
If Orthodox and liberal Jews form essentially two separate and independent communities, then the demographics of one have no impact whatsoever on the demographic of the other. If we are two separate communities, two separate religions, two separate peoples, then the rise and fall of one is irrelevant to the rise and fall of the other. If there is no unified Jewish community to which we both belong, then there are no common resources to compete for, nothing for one to gain or the other to lose. Therefore, liberal Jews should tend to their own gardens and not waste their time caring about what the Orthodox are up to. So what if they're wining the baby race? Jewishness is created by each individual and each community; there's more than enough to go around.
I am not worried about the future of liberal Judaism. While the caveat above about trends tracking the past and not the future still applies, things appear to be moving in a positive direction. It is not inconceivable that soon the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements will coalesce into a single united movement for post-denominational liberal Judaism, pooling the minds and resources of all three for the benefit of all. One thing that is guaranteed is that there will always be diversity of thought and opinion, and there will always be men and women of conscience who believe in equality and reason over patriarchal authoritarianism and superstition, and so long as that is true there will always be a future for liberal Judaism. As Jonathan Sarna pointed out, Orthodox Judaism managed to defy the predictions of its own imminent extinction and the reports of the impending death of liberal Judaism are just as exaggerated.
It was a sunny Sunday morning in our Lower East Side community playground, animated by a frenetic blur of whooping kids, my own included.
Alone on a bench, I’d neglected to bring a book from home and wasn’t in the mood to socialize with the parents nearby. I opted instead to subject the ad-hoc collection of children to an informal Jewish identity census.
Before disclosing the outcome of this thoroughly unscientific survey, it’s important to recall that this neighborhood was once the beating heart of Jewish life in America and the historic core of what still remains the world’s largest Jewish city.
Here then are the survey results: Of the 23 children in the playground, three were fully Jewish, and two were gentiles. A whopping 18 kids were half-Jewish.
Later, a visit to a playground in Boro Park revealed the following:
The fenced-in grounds were a stormy sea of black and white: yarmulke-d, tzitzis-ed and peyes-ed boys scooted and climbed, while their sisters, concealed modestly from head to toe, biked and seesawed. Young mothers sporting mournful black kerchiefs pushed carriages as their husbands, uniformly clad in black pants and white shirts, yapped into cell phones in Yinglish.
Make no mistake, the Boro Park playground represents the Jewish future in America.
Silber trots out the usual explanations for the results of his admittedly unscientific survey, focusing ultimately on the crude arithmetic of reproduction. Liberal Jews are more prone to intermarriage and -- following the trend of more affluent, better educated, liberal families -- have fewer children than their endogamous and prolific Orthodox counterparts. He cites doomsayer Steven M. Cohen who states that 192 Orthodox children are born for every 100 Orthodox parents while a mere 55 liberal children are reared for every 100 non-Orthodox parents. He also brings the anecdotal evidence of his own family, which in three generations has spawned 110 children and may hit 1,000 in the fourth.
The inevitable results, according to Silber, are the ascendancy of the Orthodox as the typical American Jew of the 22nd century, a withered and shrunken remnant of "more moderately devout Jews" somehow managing to endure, and "a legacy of thousands of gentile Goldsteins, Bernsteins and Kaplans."
Before we start saying Kaddish for liberal Jewry, it would be worthwhile to point out some of the faulty assumptions and problematic reasoning that take some of the wind out of Silber's sails.
First, there is no such thing as a "half-Jewish" child. To be Jewish is to belong to a people, a covenantal community; it's not like a breed of dog that can be mixed and matched in various combinations. One is either Jewish or not, and there is only one standard to determine who does or does not belong to the covenantal community: the community itself. Some communities make this decision based on traditional conservative halakhah as formulated by Orthodox rabbis; others have different standards. Silber doesn't specify the parental combination of these "half-Jewish" children, but even by conservative standards the children of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father are completely Jewish; Reform and Reconstructionist communities likewise accept the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. Without knowing the specifics, all 18 of these kids -- not to mention the "thousands of gentile Goldsteins, Bernsteins, and Kaplans" -- could be just as Jewish in the eyes of their communities as the frum children are in theirs.
Second, culture is not biologically determined. Just as one cannot be "half-Jewish" just because only half of one's chromosomes came from a Jew, a child is not guaranteed to immutably inherit and retain the religious identity and affiliation of his parents. While the Orthodox, like all fundamentalist religions, are very good at what one could charitably call "retention" or less charitably deem "mind control," not all of those 192 Orthodox children are guaranteed to remain Orthodox, just as not all of those "half-Jewish" children are guaranteed to follow their gentile parents into assimilation.
Third, intermarriage is constantly presented as as bogeyman imperiling the Jewish future, working toward Hitler's posthumous victory. There was a time when sociological factors in both the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds made intermarriage essentially an irrevocable rejection of Jewish identity, but that is no longer the case. The non-Jewish world is no longer so antisemitic or so ridden with xenophobia that cultural differences must be smoothed over into WASPish confomrity, and the increasing reality of intermarriage has made many Jewish communities more tolerant and accepting of intermarried couples bediavad even if they don't exactly jump for joy over the prospect lehatchilah. In a country and in an era where antisemitism is at an all-time low and where the autonomy of the individual to make his or her own lifestyle choices is generally espoused as a universal right, Jews are no longer forced to choose between commitment to their faith and culture and the promptings of their hearts. While it remains true that endogamy provides the best support for imparting a strong Jewish identity in the next generation, that does not mean it is impossible for intermarried families to do the same.
A further and more fundamental error is the assumption that past trends dictate future behavior. Population growth is dependent on a host of economic, sociological, and political variables that are constantly in flux and there is no way to predict with any detailed accuracy how they will change over time only that they will. The conditions that have fostered this growth in Orthodoxy and have precipitated a decline in liberal Jewish movements are historical forces that are guaranteed to change. The dire predictions of the future collapse of Social Security are predicated on the premise not only that the current beneficiaries and retirees will never die but that no new generation will enter the workforce and begin paying into the system; prophecies of doom about the collapse of the Jewish population are likewise plagued by such ahistorical assumptions.
Finally, and most important of all, Silber's prognostication and other similar projections about the future of the American Jewish community all assume that there exists a single unitary Jewish community that encompasses both Orthodox and non-Orthodox under a single tent. That is no longer true in any meaningful way. The Orthodox, insulated by their fundamentalist sense of superiority, are a world unto themselves. They have their own neighborhoods, their own schools, their own synagogues, their own organizations and institutions. Both halakhah and the prejudice behind it prevent them from interacting with non-Orthodox movements in any but the most limited way. They refuse to recognize liberal Jewish movements as valid in their own right, refuse to grant liberal rabbis the respect due their titles, and refuse to accept liberal converts as authentic Jews by choice. Many refuse even to set foot in liberal synagogues. Only Chabad and other "outreach" or kiruv organizations extend any welcome or concern to those who believe and practice differently -- and even they only do so out of pity and condescension in hope of encouraging them to draw closer to their own mode of observance. Controversial megaphilanthropist Michael Steinhardt was once condemned for charging that Orthodox Jews seem to live on a different planet from everyone else, but he is essentially correct.
If Orthodox and liberal Jews form essentially two separate and independent communities, then the demographics of one have no impact whatsoever on the demographic of the other. If we are two separate communities, two separate religions, two separate peoples, then the rise and fall of one is irrelevant to the rise and fall of the other. If there is no unified Jewish community to which we both belong, then there are no common resources to compete for, nothing for one to gain or the other to lose. Therefore, liberal Jews should tend to their own gardens and not waste their time caring about what the Orthodox are up to. So what if they're wining the baby race? Jewishness is created by each individual and each community; there's more than enough to go around.
I am not worried about the future of liberal Judaism. While the caveat above about trends tracking the past and not the future still applies, things appear to be moving in a positive direction. It is not inconceivable that soon the Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist movements will coalesce into a single united movement for post-denominational liberal Judaism, pooling the minds and resources of all three for the benefit of all. One thing that is guaranteed is that there will always be diversity of thought and opinion, and there will always be men and women of conscience who believe in equality and reason over patriarchal authoritarianism and superstition, and so long as that is true there will always be a future for liberal Judaism. As Jonathan Sarna pointed out, Orthodox Judaism managed to defy the predictions of its own imminent extinction and the reports of the impending death of liberal Judaism are just as exaggerated.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Obama, Nobel Laureate
I was shocked this morning to learn that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This is a very, very weird development.
On the one hand, he hasn't really done anything to deserve it. On the other hand, I guess the Nobel Prizes are like the Oscars: they have to be graded on the curve of what is available each year. One year's Best Picture can very easily be a piece of crap compared to another's. But then again, there are mysteries even in the Academy Awards: Slumdog Millionaire was nowhere near as good as Milk nor was Crash as good as Brokeback Mountain. Sometimes, politics -- or at least professional politicking -- determines the recipient.
That's what I think is going on here.
Obama is not being given the Nobel Peace Prize for his own sake. Yes, he has tremendously advanced the cause of world peace simply by not being George W. Bush. However, I think this is about Iran.
During the UN General Assembly, Obama led an international effort to confront Iran on its nuclear program; together with Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy he condemned the newly-revealed research facility in very strong, uncertain terms. Unlike George "Your either with us or against us" Bush, who pursued his own unilateral agenda with total disregard and disdain for world opinion, Obama since even before his election has striven to repair the damages to our alliances and foreign reputation from the damage his predecessor had wrought. This award, I think, is the Nobel committees -- on behalf of Europe -- sending a message to Obama and to Iran that they support him and will stand with him.
I've not been thrilled with much of Obama's performance in office so far, but the difference in the international climate between now and 2003 is astonishing. That alone is worth something.
On the one hand, he hasn't really done anything to deserve it. On the other hand, I guess the Nobel Prizes are like the Oscars: they have to be graded on the curve of what is available each year. One year's Best Picture can very easily be a piece of crap compared to another's. But then again, there are mysteries even in the Academy Awards: Slumdog Millionaire was nowhere near as good as Milk nor was Crash as good as Brokeback Mountain. Sometimes, politics -- or at least professional politicking -- determines the recipient.
That's what I think is going on here.
Obama is not being given the Nobel Peace Prize for his own sake. Yes, he has tremendously advanced the cause of world peace simply by not being George W. Bush. However, I think this is about Iran.
During the UN General Assembly, Obama led an international effort to confront Iran on its nuclear program; together with Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy he condemned the newly-revealed research facility in very strong, uncertain terms. Unlike George "Your either with us or against us" Bush, who pursued his own unilateral agenda with total disregard and disdain for world opinion, Obama since even before his election has striven to repair the damages to our alliances and foreign reputation from the damage his predecessor had wrought. This award, I think, is the Nobel committees -- on behalf of Europe -- sending a message to Obama and to Iran that they support him and will stand with him.
I've not been thrilled with much of Obama's performance in office so far, but the difference in the international climate between now and 2003 is astonishing. That alone is worth something.
Yortzeit
Today is Hoshana Rabba and also my father's third yortzeit.
Each year, I like to make it to a synagogue at least once to say kaddish, but that is often complicated. Neither of the two synagogues in my neighborhood had services last night or this morning, and there are only two options reasonably convenient to my office, neither of them pleasant: the Millinery Center synagogue whose rabbi ranted and raved about overthrowing the government of Israel and exterminating the Arabs on the day of the withdrawal from Gaza, or Chabad.
I figured there had to be some other possibilities, so I searched the congregations listing on the USCJ's website and was thrilled to find that the Sutton Place Synagogue is right on my bus route at 3rd Avenue and E. 51st Street. I was able to zip up there on the subway after work for Ma'ariv last night and then walk half a block to wait for my express bus back home to Queens. I had to get up extra early this morning, but they had Shacharit at 8:00 AM which let me get into work at 9:30 even with the hoshanot.
I've missed having the opportunity for tefillah betzibbur but I refuse to set foot in a synagogue with a mechitza. I think I could make Mincha/Ma'ariv a regular part of my afternoon routine. It's neat how things work out sometimes.
Each year, I like to make it to a synagogue at least once to say kaddish, but that is often complicated. Neither of the two synagogues in my neighborhood had services last night or this morning, and there are only two options reasonably convenient to my office, neither of them pleasant: the Millinery Center synagogue whose rabbi ranted and raved about overthrowing the government of Israel and exterminating the Arabs on the day of the withdrawal from Gaza, or Chabad.
I figured there had to be some other possibilities, so I searched the congregations listing on the USCJ's website and was thrilled to find that the Sutton Place Synagogue is right on my bus route at 3rd Avenue and E. 51st Street. I was able to zip up there on the subway after work for Ma'ariv last night and then walk half a block to wait for my express bus back home to Queens. I had to get up extra early this morning, but they had Shacharit at 8:00 AM which let me get into work at 9:30 even with the hoshanot.
I've missed having the opportunity for tefillah betzibbur but I refuse to set foot in a synagogue with a mechitza. I think I could make Mincha/Ma'ariv a regular part of my afternoon routine. It's neat how things work out sometimes.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Capitalism: A Love Story
Mark and I went to see Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story last Sunday at the Angelika and in general I thought it was very good. The film employed Moore's trademark humor and whimsical way of presenting facts that elicits laughs when the reality they describe should rather elicit tears or cries of rage. He presented a rather stinging indictment of the finance industry and its incestuous relationship with the government, as well as showing the real human cost paid by the working-class Americans it preys upon.
Capitalism: A Love Story does have at least two substantive defects, however.
First, he's preaching to the choir. The consciousness-creating industries and their political and corporate masters have done a thorough job in polarizing the populace into two irreconcilable camps. Only those predisposed to agree with Moore -- or at least to not disagree with him -- would be likely to see his film, and so its value as propaganda is limited.
Secondly, and most importantly, Moore's analysis is unfortunately rather superficial and shortsighted. His intent is a criticism of capitalism, but he does not really dig very far beneath the surface of the headline-grabbing excesses of the banking and housing industries to reveal the fundamental systemic flaws and injustices at the very heart of the complex of relations known as "capitalism."
Moore waxes nostalgically about his own childhood in Flint, MI, where his father worked in an automobile factory whose autoworkers' union was strong enough to guarantee not only health care and paid vacation but wages high enough to buy a house and keep Moore's family in moderate middle-class comfort. On the national level, Moore depicts the 1950's and 1960's as a time of great prosperity for the average American and credits the vast social programs funded by tax rates as high as 90% on the wealthiest Americans. As Moore tells the story, however, this all came to an end on January 20, 1981 with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, whom he depicts as little more than a corporate puppet. He accuses the Reagan administration of initiating the effective take-over of the machinery of government by big business. This then opened the floodgates for the dismantling of the domestic industrial infrastructure and its export overseas, the crippling of the unions, and emasculation of government regulations.
It is true that the "Reagan Revolution" inaugurated an era of unbridled greed we are still suffering from, but all was not sunshine and rainbows and warm fuzzy kittens even during the halcyon days of Moore's youth. Even then the richest nation on earth was blighted with poverty, the working class was subjected to the anarchic tyranny of the market, and the few grew rich off the labor of the many. Reagan did not change capitalism; he only allowed it more freedom to operate according to its own internal dynamic.
That is the cruel joke hidden in the phrase "free enterprise." Yes, every person is free to go into business for himself, to make deals and exchanges and enter into contracts with whomever he wishes. However, one's freedom is directly proportionate to one's wealth: you cannot buy if you don't have anything to sell. Capitalism is a pay-to-play system and the "haves" have an all-out advantage over the "have-nots."
This is nowhere more true than in employment. A necessary precondition for capitalism to even exist is a sizable segment of the population that has nothing to sell but their labor, no means to support themselves but to work for others in exchange for pay. "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails presents itself as 'an immense accumulation of commodities.'" When human labor becomes itself a commodity to be bought and sold, subjected to the whim of the Invisible Hand, human beings are reduced from being values in themselves to sources of value, their worth directly proportionate to the demand for their skills and experience on the open market. If demand decreases, so too does the worker's worth and the security of his livelihood; the easiest way for a company to shore up its bottom line in a downturn is to jettison unnecessary "human resources." These people are then thrown out into the job market to compete with their peers for the precious few jobs that remain.
Such is the plight of the proletariat, the working class and vastly much more can be (and has been) written on the subject. Even those who take the risk to be their own bosses and go into business for themselves find themselves chewed up and spat out by the ruthless machinery of capitalism. I'm talking here about the "competition" that is touted so often as a positive social good and one of the virtues of our "free market economy." Moore's film references two stores which are in competition to satisfy the consumers' demand for ice cream. One store makes ice cream that is preferred by a larger number of people; more people are "voting with their dollars" for the way it makes ice cream. That store succeeds while its competitor, who does not serve the consumers' demand as well as the other, fails and "fades away." The acolytes of the Invisible Hand proclaim that competition ensures the best quality of ice cream for the consumers and conditions successful companies to constantly improve their products to maintain their edge in competition, again benefitting the consumer.
What this ignores is that the owner of the ice creams shop that fails is also a consumer, and so too are any employees he might have. The failure of his business means the end of his livelihood, a disaster compounded if others depended on him for their own income. This is natural selection after a fashion, but unlike in nature where "survival of the fittest" leads to harmony and equilibrium in the ecosystem, the predatory nature of capitalist competition leads to the growth of the few at the expenses of the many, expropriating the many to enrich the few. The failure of the many -- like the unemployment of workers -- reduces their spending and consumption which in turn decreases the profits of the few who succeed leading inevitably to periodic crises. The closest parallel in nature is that of a parasite that sucks more and more blood out of the host until both the host and the parasite die. The only difference is that in the capitalist system, the parasite doesn't die; it just moves on to another host having sucked out more than enough blood to keep it fat and happy.
Moore also doesn’t clearly articulate any solutions to this problem. However, he does give some attention to the contradiction between our democratic political system and our autocratic economic system. Each American citizen is theoretically an equal participant in the democratic process with an equal vote; at work, however, we are effectively slaves to our bosses and must obey them without question if we want to stay employed. This contributes to the alienation that characterizes and plagues capitalist civilization. As an antidote, Moore does focus on two companies – one a high-tech software firm and the other a bakery – that are employee owned and operated. Each employee has an equal share in the company’s stock and an equal vote in policy decisions. This type of structure allows each employee to redirect his productive and creative energies back to his own needs and benefit, thus counteracting the divisive and soul-rending forces of alienation. The film notes that there are over 600 such businesses in the country and that can be taken as a glimmer of hope. New economic formations always arise within and in reaction to the systems they replace. Moore doesn’t give us any explicit ideas of how that should be achieved, but he does show us how working class Americans can unite and fight for their interests (such as the liberation of foreclosed houses and the occupation of the Republic Glass Factory). There is a definite but subtle message of “Workers of all countries, unite!” and the film cleverly ends with a light jazzy version of “The Internationale” over the closing credits.
As a revolutionary manifesto, then, Capitalism: A Love Story is not terribly effective. One can’t fight a war if one doesn’t identify exactly who the enemy is (see the “War on Terror” for evidence), and Moore seems to bounce back and forth between condemning the capitalist mode of production itself and just the perceived abuses of the system by greedy individuals. It’s not clear whether he espouses reform or revolution (and Rosa Luxembourg conclusively demonstrated that the latter is the only real effective solution to the ills of the modern world). As a consciousness-raising documentary, however, he movingly displays some of the worst but sadly characteristic excesses of the capitalist system and that itself is of value. The first step to solving a problem – and of building revolutionary class consciousness – is to acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
