this may (not?) be interesting:

Apologies from a Lapsed Pluralist

2004-12-07T21:57:00.000-06:00

This weekend, I really surprised myself, and not in a good way. In a moment of personal anxiety, I took my hurt out on another person rather than dealing with it on my own, and in the process also violated one of my own core beliefs on religious ethics.

While I was in Utah, I had the opportunity to have a discussion with a Mormon couple that both had Jewish backgrounds, but had been baptized LDS. Ostensibly i was talking to them because I wanted to undertand their religious journeys a little bit better, but very quickly the conversation went downhill and became painfully uncomfortable.

For some reason, I had early on directed the conversation to Deuteronomy 13, which discusses false prophets and how to recognize them. namely that even if a prophet should work miracles, or his predicitons should come to pass, if he leads you to worship foreign gods he is a false prophet, additionally, this is immeidately preceded by the injunction to neither add nor subtract from the commandments given to Moses.

Normally I don't bring this up in conversations with Christians. I reserve it for when missionaries won't take no for an answer and I've had enough and just want to end the conversation. Telling other people that their religion isn't legit isn't my style. To the contrary, I've maintained the following for a long time: People are different. They have different needs, abilities to encounter G-d and expectations from G-d. The route that a person takes to strengthen that relationship is between that person and G-d. I barely understand what it is G-d wants from me, and for me to presuppose that I know what is right for someone else is pretty arrogant. And to try to Bully someone into either abandoning their own faith, or adopting another is the best way set yourself up for failure.

What I think happened, was the following. I've been working really hard to find my way back to Judaism. Between trying to establish that my own heritage *is* Jewish and also preparing for Conversion, in the chance that my heritage isn't enough, I've really been faced with a lot of challenges. I've also had people on both sides really question my commitment, my motives and my sanity. And while it's certainly been worht it, it has been far from easy.

So when I met someone that had made the opposite decision. In fact had decided that he didn't want the priviledge that I am working so hard to achieve, I took it as a personal insult. I let my own doubts get the best of me and started acting as if his decisions delegitimized my own. So, rather than confronting my own anxiety, I acted like a child. I tried to delegitimize his beliefs as if that could somehow justify my own, and I went right for the jugular.

Interestingly, at this point he got very quiet, and his wife and I started getting more antagonistic with eachother. I think he realized that I was coming from an injured place and was hoping to let the topic shift, but I had struck a nerve for his wife and we ended up in a battle over who could make the other recant first. It wasn't pretty.

In any case, I'm sorry. I acted badly. Hopefully I won't react so badly next time I feel threatened.

Inside-Out

2004-12-05T23:36:00.000-06:00

Being in Utah, specifically here in Provo has once again put me in a situation where I feel like I am almost a part of the group, but am nonetheless only made that much more aware of how much I don't fit in. It's a situation I find myself in not infrequently, in fact almost constantly, but here it has been something of a surprise not by feeling off-put that I don't belong but rather by how close I sometimes feel *to* belonging. It's a somewhat unsettling feeling.

Despite this being my first time really spedning any amount of time with a large group of Mormons, I feel strangely connected to the group. Part of it I'm sure is that the people I am around are all incredibly warm and welcoming people. However, that hardly accounts for all of it.

I'm not entirely surprised, now in hindsight. When i met Ashley, several years ago, she and I read the Book Of Mormon together. Over the past two years I have spent a lot of time asking her about her faith and undertanding Mormon beliefs and developing a Mormon vocabulary. I also spent about 3 months at Institute (LDS scripture study) in Chicago which has given me a decent familiarity withthe Book of Mormon and also LDS readings of Christian literature I was already familiar with from my Catholic upbringing. I've also read the two other uniquely LDS texts, teh Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines & Covenants. So for a gentile (ie non-mormon, not non-Jew) I'm pretty well-versed.

Additionally, I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I am familiar with a lot of concepts like personal revelation, salvation etc. And while these aren't all a part of my curren tbelief system, it allows me to talk about my current faith in a way that is very immediately accessible to Mormons.

One of the more interesting moments was Saturday afternoon. I was in Ashley's apartment and seh, her brother, Eric, her roomie, Sarah, and I decided to do some scripture study together. I had shared with them my earlier article on love, and Eric had suggested that we do some reading on how Love is treated in the Book of Mormon. It was a really neat afternoon. We spent about 3 hours reading through Mosiah 4:1-14 (If I remember the citation correctly).

Living in the new Zion

2004-12-05T01:53:00.000-06:00

For those of you that don't know, I am spending the weekend visiting a friend of mine out in Provo Utah. She and I had met several years ago doing a summer program in Brandeis, and had not seen each other since as she was sent to Milan on mission...

In any case, I am now here in Provo, UT on the Brigham Young University. I'm having a wonderful time, but there are moments when I feel like I'm in Oz. For starters, I've never been in a place where there was so much active control over students lives. For example, students are required to live in BYU-approved housing. Housing is all segregated by sex, fine no biggie. Guys are not allowed in Girls' bedrooms and vice versa, fine. But guys aren't allowed to use girls' bathrooms?? I'm having a hard time figuring that one out. I mean, how often do you actually find yourself sharing a single bathroom? The best explanation I can come up with is that by preventing the use of eachother's bathrooms it discourages boys and girls from spending so much time in each other's apartments that use of a bathroom would be necessitated.

Maintain Racism for the Sake of Lower Taxes? I Call Shenanigans.

2004-11-29T21:47:00.000-06:00

An article recently appeared on the local6.com website entitled: "Alabama Voters Refuse to Remove Racist Language From Law". The following is an excerpt which summarizes the pro and con positions regarding the proposed ammendment:

Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools. Proponents said it would erase segregationist language many consider embarrassing.

Sometimes I wonder who on earth these people even are. I'm having a hard time understanding how it is that removing segregationist language could possibly lead to higher taxes in a bad way. That is to say: if schools are in fact being underfunded and the only reason this isn't being addressed is a result of these underfunded schools serving a primarily black student body, then there *is* a problem that needs to be addressed! Furthermore, what with my background and upbringing which so highly esteems equitable educational opportunities I don't even know how to begin to respond to the suggestion that it should not be considered a fundamental right for everyone to have access to reasonably funded schooling. Whimper.

Ezra D. Feldman Chimes in Re: "Compulsive Love"

2004-11-29T20:25:00.000-06:00

(The following was excerpted from an email sent to me in response to my post "Compulsive Love")

...the whole problem of these statements being COMMANDMENTS is a bit
of a straw man. If you look at the Ten Commandments, you will indeed find
that most of them (though significantly NOT the first) are actually in the
imperative mood. But both of the "commandments" you discuss are in a
different mood.

To elaborate: The v'ahavta of Deuteronomy 6:5 is either predictive or
conditional. I think it's conditional, just one part of a whole
conditional paragraph. If you DO these things, then, when God brings you
into the land that he promised you, he'll take care of you. In Deuteronomy
6 there is a clear warning not to forget God, but not a clear enumeration
of the consequences of forgetting him. If, however, you look at the Shema'
as it appear in the liturgy, then the paragraph of v'ahavta is followed by
a very clear description of the other side of the coin.

The v'ahavta of Leviticus 19:18 is pretty clearly in the future tense, and
I think in the context of the verse (Remember that v'ahavta is just the
second part of the first half of a verse!) it describes the consequence of
refraining from certain harmful actions. (In this, my interpretation is
well aligned with your idea that behaviors can encourage emotions.) The
King James Version renders the whole verse as follows: "Thou shalt not
avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." This translation does
not take into account the grammatical difference in mood between the verbs
"tikom" and "titor" and "v'ahavta."

I would translate the whole verse as follows: "Do not avenge and do not
reserve anger against your people, and you will love your neighbor as
yourself; I am the Lord." In other words, IF you do not avenge and do not
bear grudges, THEN peace will reign; God guarantees it.

posted by Ezra

Compulsive Love

2004-11-29T01:24:00.000-06:00

ואהבת את ה' אלקיך בכל לבבך בכל נפשך ובכל מאדיך
דברים ו, ה

"you shall love the l-rd, your g-d, with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might"
-Deuteronomy 6:5

ואהבת לרעך כמוך
ויקרא יט, יח
"love your neighbor as yourself."
-Leviticus 19:18

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love [agapeo] the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love [agapeo] your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

-Matthew 22:36-40

Is it possible to command someone to like something? That is to say, while of course I can make a syntactically coherent statement: “You must like cheese.” Is it within the realm of possibility for someone to begin to like something on command, in the same way that that person can begin eating the cheese upon command?

I do believe that it is possible to develop a taste for something. I’ve done it. I used to hate mushrooms, zucchini and eggplants. About a year ago I decided that it was ridiculous that I didn’t like mushrooms and Zucchinis. Given how much I love cooking and also eating different types of foods, not liking these foods was something of a liability. I decided to make a concerted effort to, if nothing else, learn to eat dishes containing these foods without cringing. At first, it was a personal challenge. When a friend cooked one of these foods, I would dutifully take a serving and then make it a point to eat them all. Bite after bite, I tested my will and fortified my resolve. Furthermore, when I was done with the vile fungus or wretched impersonators of the delightful cucumber, I would take a special pleasure. I was tougher than those silly vegetables.

Within a few months however, I began to notice a change in my attitude towards mushrooms and zucchini (eggplant remains beyond the pale as of this writing, after all why push things?). When reading a recipe book I would take special notice of a recipe that featured mushrooms. When at the supermarket I would find myself examining the Zucchini in the produce section and considering buying one or two to try making at home. One day in Jerusalem, I was by a friend for Shabbat dinner, and one of the sides was mushrooms bourguignon. Not only did I scarcely notice that I was eating them by the fork-full, I went up for *seconds*! Granted, these mushrooms were exceptional, and this is not a performance I have since repeated, however, I have found myself developing a special affection for the previously detested foods. Sometimes I am eating a vegetable lasagna, and I notice that there is a layer of sliced Zucchini, a layer I previously would have eschewed, unceremoniously sliding the offending intruder to a far corner of the dish. Now, I eat them with a special pride. “Oh! Hello there!” I think to myself, and take a moment to delight in the now familiar flavor of my allies in self-improvement. We have a history together now. Yes, it is a rocky past, and it hasn’t been easy, but we made it through and I know I can rise to the occasion of a surprise mushrooming, if not with aplomb, certainly with a solid dignity.

I believe a similar evolution can occur in human relationships. There is certainly a certain warmth which can in someway be nurtured via a willful effort to develop familiarity and comfort. Don’t we all have friends that began as lukewarm at best, but for whatever reason we decided to stick it out with the person? Perhaps it was an initially dull coworker, that while we might never have pursued a relationship with them on our own time, we put up with their boring jokes or slightly off-putting mannerisms because some company is certainly better than none. As time passes, it may become the case (and not infrequently) that they start to grow on us, as it were. Eventually you may even find yourself looking forward to the moments you both share at work, and when one of you leaves to pursue another job in a new place you are both slightly saddened: you have a shared history together now. Who else will you be able to joke with about your bosses obsession with rubber duckies? Who will you blame when the stapler goes missing? Somehow, where there was no initial attraction a friendship of sorts has developed.

Of course, this liking via comfort and familiarity only goes so far. After all, while I sometimes will even go so far as to buy mushrooms to include in the salad for dinner, I don’t anticipate requesting grilled Zucchini as my birthday dinner any time in the near future. Similarly, while I do find myself thinking about former co-workers from time to time, with few exceptions, I rarely feel the need to invite them over for dinner, or to get a drink. The ones I have kept in touch with have not been the ones that I developed a taste for out of necessity; they are the ones I might have become friends with no matter where we met. That we found each other at work was a happy coincidence.

So where does this leave us then? While we can develop an appreciation and perhaps even an affection for something via conscious will, it does seem that this is only one small step in the process. This certainly doesn’t take us to love, by any stretch. Now one question we might ask ourselves is: What does the statement “You must love” actually mean? Perhaps, it is actually an injunction to behave lovingly, even when one does not feel love. This has a certain appeal. After all, arguably we have at best a limited control over what we think and feel. However, we have much more control over how we act out those feelings and beliefs. After all, what is the harm in our wicked thoughts, so long as we don’t act upon them? An how much less relevant are they if we continue to do good deeds despite them? After all, this does wrap things up rather nicely: we should treat others how we want to be treated and put our more hurtful impulses aside, and let what happens in our heads stay in our heads.

For now however, I want to suggest that this is not good enough. We may have to come back to this if no better solution can be found, but there are problems with this interpretation when inserted into certain contexts. For example, the same Jesus of Nazareth that states that we must love our neighbors, also tells us that whosoever looks at a woman with lust in his eyes, it is as though he has committed adultery. Thought in this case is more powerful than deed. Even one who has never physically strayed, it is as if he had by allowing his thoughts to wander. Similarly, there are two lines of Christian scripture that often get exchanged between various sects of Christianity. While evangelicals frequently recall the words that faith and faith alone brings salvation, without faith even all the good deeds are worthless, many Catholics rejoin the words of Saul of Tarsus that “Faith without works is dead.” While faith is not the same as love, the idea is once again stressed that behaviour and deeds must be somehow consistent. The one without the other is not enough.

Fine. Now what? It seems that we have an impssible situation. There is an imperative to feel love for G-d, as well as for other human beings. Furthermore, it might be the case that we can force ourselves to behave lovingly, and even to develop a certain degree of affection, it remains unclear how we are supposed to fulfill this demand. I don’t believe that it can be made a moral imperative for us to do that which is impossible. For example, as much as it may desireable, it is not a moral failing to be unable to breathe underwater without equipment. To ask that of anyone is absurd at best, and to hold someone accoutnabel for failing is merely insanity. What could have been done differently? In that case, are these commandments merely ideals? Unnattainable but that which we should strive for? This is hardly satisfying though. If that were the case, why would primary sources within both Judaism *and* Christianity, claim that these were not merely commandments, but rather the most important of all. Why would there be this emphasis if the stated goal could be no more than a nice sentiment? Furthermore, while there is something to be said for treating other people well, even if you don’t actually love them; what can possibly be achieved by merely acting as though we love G-d? There must be more to this than merely sentimentality.

One route for understanding that we have not yet fully explored is the possibility that there are very distinct, albeit related, ideas of what it is to love. In his lecture/book, The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis addresses this ambiguity of the English language. In classical Greek (Incidentally in Hindi as well), there are 4 words that can each correspond to various modes of loving, all encompassed by the same English word, love. For example, Storgi is frequently translated as “affection” and corresponds to my feelings for Zucchini and Mushrooms. It is the love that develops out of nothing more than familiarity and comfort. Lewis also asserts, and I think I agree with him, that Storgi is furthermore the foundation of the other forms of love. Although it is the most basic form, and the least exalted, it is the case that very often without it the other forms of love begin to have a sense of the absurd to them without it.

In my 9th grade scripture class, we were given a quick summary of the other three Greek words for love, that while simplistic suits our purposes. Philia is the love of friendship and it is the love that seeks the companionship of the beloved (I love my friends, in that I love spending time with them, or sharing some sort of experience with them). Eros (Hindi, Mohabbat) is the love of “lovers” in English. It is a love that seeks a sensual satisfaction from the beloved. When you say that you love Pizza, you are talking about how you enjoy the tastes, smells and feelings that come with eating it (this explains also why despite my having an affection for mushrooms, our relationship need remain storgic, and will never quite compare to my love of pumpkin pie, which is essentially an erotic (though not sexual, pervert) encounter. Similarly, when we find ourselves loving someone erotically, it is a desire to experience some kind of sensual and often sexual satisfaction as a result of the encounter. Lust is very much a component of Eros, and as an aside it may be that lust is nothing more than Eros without Storgi. However, that is an analysis for another time. Finally, Agape (Hindi, Prem) is a selfless love that does not require anything of the beloved. This is the love that parents are presumed to have towards their children, and it is also the love associated with divinity in the Christian tradition. Consider the statement in John’s Epistle, “G-d is Agape”.

In so far as understanding the commandment to love, we do not find Philia nor Eros to be particularly useful. After all, the affection we develop via storgi is not philia although the latter may develop somewhat spontaneaously from the former. Our discovery of a relationship governed by Phlia is usually a pleasant surprise more than the product of a concerted effort. Similarly, eros is precisely what I failed to develop for mushrooms. It seems that there is something within us that allows us to encounter and also crave certain sensual stimuli, and while we may be able to encourage ro discourage these feelings to some degree, there seems tobe an aspect that is independent of our will.

Agape merits a further look however. What does it mean to love someone without desire to get something in return? IS that something we can consciously will? What does it look like?

Initially, Agape appears to be an unequal relationship. After all, if I give you my love with no desire for anything in return, that seems to imply a certain deficiency on your part and a corresponding wholeness on my part. It is not too difficult to conceive of a perfect being such as that which G-d might be, as Agape. We are somehow in need of G-d’s love, and G-d is able to give something that we could never repay. However, what does it mean to say that we have this relationship with another human being? I believe that one implication of it is that we are forced to give up any sense of ownership over the other person.

How often do we find ourselves acting as though by loving someone we are thus entitled to something from them in return? be it gratitude, deference, respect or affection? After, haven’t we given them something beautiful, isn’t it only fair to get something back in return? Perhaps this is precisely what Agape is asking us to give up. In a sense, Agape is a love that expresses itself negatively.

The idea of sacrificing our desire for our love should not be a new or foreign idea. However, it can result in some very strange situations at time. For example, consider a married couple. Let’s suppose that partner A has an intense sexual drive. Let us even consider the hypothetical possibility that partner A finds that without expressing that sexual desire s/he experiences some sort of negative consequence. Now, person B has a opposite situation s/he enjoys sex, but finds it tedious in excess. Consider the possibility that in every other aspect the marriage is perfect. With this one exception: A has a need that B is not able to comfortably satisfy. Were this an agapic relationship it might be the case that A and B reach an agreement whereby A satisfies his/her sexual needs in a way that does not include B except for when B is also desirous. While it might not be humanly possible, there is a certain way in which I respect very much the person that says, “I love you, and rather than expressing that love as a desire to possess you to myself exclusively, I want only to see you be happy, even if that means you must seek out satisfaction from a source other than myself.”

While the above example may be extreme, I do believe that this is a beginning to our answer. Part of Agape is about seeking our beloved’s happiness, even if it is not a happiness that we understand nor can we take part in it. Agape is the parent that supports her child in his dream to be an actor, despite their fear that he may starve without a “proper” job. Agape is the friend that encourages her friend to make a romantic relationship work even though she can’t for the life of her understand the attraction and would rather have her friend to herself. Agape is a willful withdrawing from interfering out of respect for the beloved’s desire and a trust that in realizing this desire some good will come to the beloved.

Now at this point, it may be fair to ask, how then are we supposed to exhibit Agape towards G-d? What could G-d possibly need from us? The short answer is, I don’t know. However, I think the there is a hint in the statement that all other commandments rest upon our fulfilling the commandment to love G-d. When we love, trust and respect someone, we sometimes find ourselves doing things that they ask of us without understanding, or even caring why. When we fear someone we will do their bidding so long as we consider them to be a threat, but often grow lax when the threat is gone. Not so when the labor is an expression of love. There are many commandments that G-d makes that are absurd and offer no clear explanation regarding why they should be followed. What can possibly be gained from the strict observance of Jewish dietary law, for example. In any case, if we commit to following the commandments G-d makes of us because we love G-d and trust that G-d knows what G-d is doing, it is possible to find motiviation for even the least palatable of the commandments. Even without the assurance that we are going to receive any reward whatsoever in return.

The next question however is, “what does this look like in the real world of human relations?” After all, of we as humans are imperfect, how then can we love in a manner that appears to presuppose perfection on the part of the lover? I think the truth is we can’t. And, I don’t think aspiring for an agapic relationship precludes the other types of love. Rather, it enables them. Consider this: if two individuals are in an erotic relationship with each other, they are both demanding something from each other, however, what evidence is there that either is giving? Potentially, such a relationship can burn itself out very quickly. Similarly, in a philic relationship, arguably both partners are looking for the same thing, companionship from the other. However, there is no guarantee that both partners are seeking the same amount of companionship or even the same type of companionship. However, when one is willing to keep by the value of agape—giving, without demanding anything in return—it allows a relationship to continue, and even grow stronger at the times it is most at risk of falling apart.

Furthermore, the only way this works is if an individual is able to be both on the giving and receiving end of agape. Part of being in an agapic relationship is allowing the other person to give, without feeling that you must immediately repay the favor, or that you in some way now owe them. However, it also requires of us that while we invite them into our more vulnerable places, we do not demand that they cater to us. That doesn’t mean we can’t be disappointed or hurt when someone chooses not to serve our needs, but it does mean that we ought not to feel that we are somehow owed, or deserve their attentions. It very simply means that loving, in the mode of agape, is simultaneously ministering to the needs of another out of love (and that includes withdrawing attention or encouraging them to seek fulfillment elsewhere if that would suit them best) while at the same time allowing others to minister to your needs without demanding that they serve you.

Now, I already see a problem here, but I think the text already predicted it. There is quite the potential here for some serious abuse. After all, if I am supposed to give unconditionally to you, what is to stop you from taking and taking and never giving? We’ve all seen it happen before. I think this is why the injunction to love your neighbor carries with it the injunction “as you love yourself.” I don’t think this carries the meaning of “in the same degree”. That would then mean that a person who bore themselves no love was not required to extend that same love to another. Similarly, in reading the text that way there is no reason for why a person ought not to love his or her ownself at all. I think what is intended here instead is the idea that you should love your neighbor, and at the same time be loving yourself. That is to say, rather than it being a reminder to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, it is a reminder to love yourself even while you are loving your neighbor. Just as we must minister to others and allow them to come to our needs, we must also be sure to take care of ourselves and allow ourselves to admit that we need our own love. This doesn’t mean that we should indulge every wish, but recognize that our happiness requires that we take care of our own needs.

So in summary, what I believe the commandment to love G-d, neighbor and self, is getting at is the following:

while it may not be possible to create a feeling of desire for another person, it is possible to cultivate respect, trust and awareness of that person’s needs and how you might be able to fulfill them. We are called upon to develop these emotive responses and then both act upon them to enrich the lives of those around us, while also making ourselves open to receiving love from others.

(Special thanks to Leah for helping me talk these ideas through while on a wonderful drive from Ithaca to Chicago! You're the best)

Thanks, forgiving?

2004-11-25T23:15:00.000-06:00

""One of the things Oxendine would like to see change after this event is the stereotype that Indians do not like to celebrate Thanksgiving.
'We don't protest it,' Oxendine said. 'We celebrate Thanksgiving like everyone else. I like eating my turkey, gravy and stuffing too.'" - "Speaker Discusses the Origins of Thanksgiving Traditions", Daily Tar Heel Online

Locally, Seminole Indians said they look forward to feasting with friends and family, but several questioned the story they were taught at school -- one of happy Indians welcoming friendly settlers, red-cheeked and grateful."

- "Some American Indians Say No to Thanksgiving ", South Florida Sun-Sentinel

"An annual tradition since 1970, Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after Day of Mourning so that participants in DOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in political action. Over the years, participants in Day of Mourning have buried Plymouth Rock a number of times, boarded the Mayflower replica, and placed ku klux klan sheets on the statue of William Bradford,
etc." - "Day of Mourning" ,
United American Indians of New England

Growing up in Boston, I always felt like we had a
special connection and privilege regarding certain aspects of American history
and myth. After all, we got the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere, The Witch Trials, Sam Adams and his delicious beer, and by no
means least of all: Thanksgiving. From as long as I can remember Thanksgiving,
it always happened in my backyard. When watching the countless thanksgiving
spcials on TV, and learning about how the Pilgrims landed at

Plimoth (Plymouth, nowadays) I knew that I had seen *the* rock.

When we would drive or fly down to
D.C. to visit my cousins as we often did for thanksgiving, I would swell with
pride over how Thanksgiving happened in my state. Sure, maybe we were in
Maryland for the holiday, but we owed it to the Puritans in
Massachusetts and their Native American friends, Squanto and the other
Wampanoags for
the fact that we were eating delicious turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce
and that particularly glorious confection: Pumpkin Pie.
Yum!

As I grew older I started learning
more about the history and story surrounding Thanksgiving. I accepted and even
internalized somewhat that the story most likely wasn't quite as rosy as I had
originally perceived it to be. Nonetheless, Thanksgiving remained a day of
exclusively happy connotations, sullied only by the realization that there would
be a price to pay for every slice of that cursed pie. Nonetheless, I still
trumpeted Thanksgiving as one of the greatest American holidays. It was (and
still is) one of my favorite holidays. It is a day I can share with my Catholic
family despite my Jewish faith without feeling like I am being forced to make
any uncomfortable compromises. It doesn't have the built up expectations that
come with the fast approach gift-giving season. And while it certainly lends
itself easily to religious reflection, it is not blatantly tied up in any one
tradition and can be easily made as secular as you want. This is a holiday
every American could get
behind.

However, I received something
of a wake-up call this morning. I had been talking to my friend Michelle, who
lives in Australia. We were discussing Thanksgiving and the reasons I love it;
Michelle asked my how Native Americans felt about the holiday. Full Stop. I
had never even given it a second thought. After all, why shouldn't they love it
as much as I do? After all this holiday commemorates a day when rather than
trying to kill each other, we actually even seemed to get along with each other.
Nonetheless, I didn't want to speak for a group of people I had next to know
experience with. So i turned to my Mother, who was serving herself breakfast in
the kitchen and asked her if there was any Particular N. American response to
Thanksgiving. Without batting an eye she mentioned that to her knowledge there
had been protests going on in Plymouth for some time now.

I ran to Google and immediately found

The United American Indians of New England. This organization has been organizing the Day
of Mourning for 35 years, now! As a good, well-trained liberal, their position
doesn't really surprise me and I certainly see where the criticisms are coming
from. Sure, the day itself may have been an example of good relations, but form
then on it has only been rapidly down-hill. I was more upset that I hadn't even
learned about this until I was twenty-one years old. After all, when we learned
about the Witch Trials we met modern day Wicca
practitioners that claimed descent from women that were persecuted in Salem.
Why was it that in all our time cutting out construction paper turkeys, making
feather headdresses and taping yellow cardboard buckles to our shoes and making
black hats that we never heard any of the criticisms? I mean, this organization
is in Weymouth, not terribly difficult to get to from my home village of Waban
(named after an influential woman from the Massasoit family,
incidentally).

Of course, I still
feel that Thanksgiving has a lot going for it, and I do still love it as a
holiday, but it would be worth our while to remember that even if on this day we
celebrate a moment when we managed to get along, we cannot forget that the joint
history of European Americans and Native Americans is one in which the Native's
were more often than not treated poorly, at best. It would be worth our while
to reflect on how we have wronged those that helped us in our time of need, and
maybe resolve to try to right some of those wrongs.

Home Coming

2004-11-24T08:04:00.000-06:00

Was it really that bad?
Oh it's hard to believe I want a highway roadstop
More than all the times we had, on little dirt roads
What am I reaching for that's better than a hand to hold?
It really was about driving, not fame, not wealth,
Not driving away from myself
It's just myself drove away from me
And now I gotta get it back and it goes so fast, so I am traveling again
-Dar Williams, "Traveling Again"

Road-tripping is like therapy for me.
Actually, sometimes I think it is better than therapy. And today i got an
excellent dose. My friend Leah and I left Chicago at noon, and within a few
minutes I was already feeling the recuperative effects of the road. I felt more
relaxed, and was able to get inside my head in a way I haven't been able to in
days. Something about the time and the motion, helps me sort through my own
brain, I think. It also didn't hurt that I was coming home for the first time
in nearly 6 months. I do miss the east coast, alot.

Serving the Community

2004-11-23T01:24:00.000-06:00

The Rambam's Eight Levels of Charity:

1. The highest level of charity is giving the poorer person a gift, a loan, or a job so that he
can become financially independent.

2. Giving to the poor in such a way that the benefactor does not know the identity of the
recipient nor the recipient that of the benefactor.

3. The benefactor knows the identity of the recipient but the recipient does not know the benefactor.

4. The recipient knows the benefactor but the benefactor does not know the recipient.

5. Giving
money directly to a poor person before he asks.

6. Giving after the poor person asks.

7. Giving less than the proper sum, but cheerfully.

8. Giving begrudgingly is the lowest level.

As I have done several times in the past, I went
with a group of students from Hillel to distribute food to people here on the
south side of Chicago with The Night Ministry . It's a great program in
many ways. They bring food to people that might not otherwise eat, provide
safer sex supplies and also HIV/STD testing. If I remember correctly they also
bring, when possible, trained doctors for any other issues that might be up.
But, I could be making that last tid-bit
up.

So, in any case, we help out by
cooking food at the Hillel House on campus and then bringing it to one of the
distribution sites (Usually an abandoned lot, or a street corner). It's always
been a lot of fun, sometimes I end up playing catch or just talking to some of
the kids after the main rush of people coming for food has slowed down. Some of
these kids are incredible sweet-hearts, and many of the adults also have neat
things to say. It's definitely a positive experience for me, and I expect for
many of the other folks
participating.

Nonetheless, when I got
back home tonight I was somewhat unsettled. A thought was nagging me that had
been rather persistently under the surface as well last spring, the last time I
had gone out with The Night Ministry: Here on the south side, it ends up being a
group of privileged white kids showing up in some of the worse neighborhoods of
Chicago serving food to black, mainly uneducated and very poor individuals. I
worry a little bit about what kind of message this sends to the people we are
serving, and also if it perhaps is sending harmful messages, especially to the
children we serve.

Are these kids
seeing us swooping down, like a Great White Santa Claus, bestowing of our great
bounty, wallowing in their thanks and then rushing back off to our heated
apartments with full fridges and other "luxuries"? Do they resent our coming in
this way, and even more so resent that in a sense they de[end on our charity?
Or do they not even notice at a conscious level? Are we possible creating a
dichotomy in their mind of white people as the givers of gifts and themselves as
blacks being the receivers of these gifts, but only passive agents in their own
fates?

I suspect that amonf the adults
there is some resentment. The people we are serving make it pretty clear to us
that 1) they aren't begging and 2) we better treat them with the same dignity
and respect that we would want to be treated with. For example, we were giving
out brownies today, and they were sticking to the parchment paper in the pan.
In our attempts at extracting them without completely destroying them we tended
to just use our bare hands. After all, we're practical college students.
However, almost immediately after attempting to pass out a brownie with my hand
having ben all over it to a women, she just looked at me and said, "That ain't
right," and walked away. And she was right. At first I thought to myself (I'm
embarrassed to admit), "What? It's food isn't it? And my hands are plenty clean.
How dare you just reject what
I'm
giving you,"

Of course, I was completely out of line. If I
had been in a restaurant and been served like that, I would have been furious.
Why should these people deserve any
less?

I wonder if this may somehow
explain why the Rambam considers it better to give charity
in such a way that the benefactor knows the identity of the recipient, as
opposed to the inverse. Is there real damage being done by the way we are
performing our community service?

I've
been thinking, maybe one way to improve the program would be for us college kids
not to be exclusively be the ones serving the food. What if there were some
ways for us to "hire" people from the community. For example, bring some of
them to our Hillel, have them help with cooking, maybe eat with us, and then we
drive them back to their tow and let *them* be in charge of distributing the
food. This way, they would be getting to feel like they were in some way agents
of change, and not just as passive recipients. Hell, with the experience they
might even be able to set up their own program and use *us* as helpers instead.
It might even turn into a sort of "loan" that might allow them to start becoming
independent of some of the charity we providing.

Making Protest Meaningful

2004-11-22T01:37:00.000-06:00

While i do believe that there can be no democracy
without dissent, I am perturbed by the sort of protest I am currently seeing
going on. I strongly believe that change needs to be made, but is this the way
to go about it?

There is a group of people that wants to stage a protest
at the inauguration of George W. Bush as President of the United States. The
idea is to not bring any banners, any posters, any stickers etc. Rather, they
are going to join the milieu at the procession and at an appointed time turn
their backs on the President as he walks by. There are several aspects of this
protest as well as many other protests I have seen taking place that I find very
disconcerting, and hope to explore them
here.

First, I want to make one point
very clear: I am not opposed to protest, even non-peaceful civil disobedience,
when it is appropriate and carries a clear statement. For example, I have
enormous respect for the Stonewall
rioters. They began the movement that was continued by groups such as ACT UP!
and Queer Nation and both made the clear statement that Gay people were tired of
getting crapped on by the rest of the population and brought the gay movement to
the American and later world community. This is only one such example, and I
could name countless more of ways in which I believe that direct action is
appropriate.

Furthermore, I strongly
believe that Democracy requires an open market of ideas to function. For this
reason i am appalled by the current administrations blatant silencing of
dissenting protesters at various
events.

This particular protest
intrigues me because I certainly understand where it is coming from. Dissenters
have been effectively silenced in may ways. They are trying to say, if I
understand correctly, that as they cannot speak, and they cannot bring signs or
posters, then they are going to have to use their bodies to show their rejection
of certain values that Bush endorses/represents. My concern, however, is that
rather than making a clear statement, they are in fact putting themselves in a
position to be misunderstood by those they are trying to reach. If I am correct
in perceiving the communication gap that appears to exist between liberals and conservatives in
America, then it is quite possibly that a lot of people are going to be seeing a
group of people turning their back on the President elect and be forced to come
to their own conclusions regarding the meaning behind this
action.

Given the rhetoric which has
gone down in the past, statements made such as "Bush is not my President", I
suspect that many people will see this protest as making a similar statement.
People will understand it as whiny liberals crying that they didn't get their
way. The action of this protest (turning backs on the president) does not
clearly demonstrate the goals of the protest. In fact, not even the website
gives a clear statement regarding what these protesters would like to see
change. All that they say is that Bush is bad for America and for the
world.

Now, I may understand them
saying that the action can not be more specific, because they have no means to
bring in signs, or stickers or anything else that will more clearly state their
aims. But in that case, how much more important is it that their website make
their goals explicit? Otherwise, I fear that the only thing that will be
achieved is those of us that know why they are protesting will pat ourselves on
the backs for a job well done, while those unfamiliar will draw very different
conclusions. This will only make our current situation more
complicated.

Dropping Jewish Hairpins

2004-11-21T15:21:00.000-06:00

Yesterday evening, motzei Shabbat, I went out with a friend of mine to see "Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" A staple of the Chicago theatre experience, which everyone should take advantage of. As we are standing in line, waiting to be let in to the show, a woman a few spots behind us calls out to us, "I like your hat!" My friend and I both assumed that she was talking about my friend's hat, as he was wearing a black cowboy hat and as a result he said "thanks," and I said nothing. A few minutes later, however, I felt someone standing right behind me, and turned around. It was the same woman, examining the Kipa I had forgotten I was even wearing. Apparently she had thought it was beaded. She liked it.

After the show, we decided to go to Charlie's, a gay country bar here in Chitown. This was certainly a first experience for me. Having only turned 21 recently my sum bar experience with Chicago bars was a few drinks at Jimmy's and the Pub. Additionally, I'd certainly never been to a "Country" bar. Nonetheless, always up for trying new things I figured why not, and off we went.

When we got there, it was a pretty neat place. Country music was playing and people were dancing on the central dance floor. Every few songs turned out to be a line-dance which was pretty fun to watch. After about 15-20 minutes my friend and i decided that despite my not having a clue and his only being somewhat informed we were going to get out on the floor and at least try to dance a little bit.

We started stumbling our way around the floor. I've never had to follow before so that was an interesting challenge. We bumped into a few other couples, laughed a lot at ourselves. Finally we started to get the hang of it. We're winding our circles around the floor, smiling when I feel a tap on my shoulder. I look around thinking maybe someone is going to give us some tips on how to look less like fools. One of the guys in the couple next to us, smile and starts pulling some hair from under his hat and holds the long strands away from his face. He is wearing Peyot! He had seen my kipa and wanted to Identify himself to me as an Orthodox Jew. I was in shock; it seemed unlikely enough that my friend and I would be here, but now there were *three* of us in this tiny bar.

After the song finished he came and found us, we chatted some he asked us where we daven, if there was any good learning going on, &c. Then he went back to his boyfriend. Needless to say, it was quite the pleasant surprise of the evening.

This (These?) United States

2004-11-20T15:20:00.000-06:00

I remember learning in school that despite looking like a plural term, The United States has taken a singular verb since the civil war. At the moment of our greatest dissonance it was decided that we needed to stress our unity as one nation above any other differences that we may have held. I always thought that that was a beautiful thing. Americans might disagree, passionately and vehemently, but there were Americans willing to die so that the States might remain united, a single nation of 50 States.

I’ve been in a state of shock since Nov. 2nd. Was I hoping Kerry would win? Yes. Do I think the election was stolen? No. Do I still believe fundamentally in our electoral process? Yes. So why am I hurting so bad? Because, never have I seen Americans turn so strongly against each other and with such vitriol. Never before have I been forced to doubt the legitimacy of using a singular verb to describe the United States.

Now, things are different. There is an online petition calling for California to secede from the Union. And there are countless email jokes circulating discussing immigration to Canada from the USA. I’ve certainly joked about this plenty. I’ve been talking for a while about the establishment of the “Independent United States of the North East”. When it was down to Ohio, I was making comments about how the color of the state would determine whether or not I would invite it to join my new country.

However, the more I have thought about how quickly these images have spread, and how many of the jokes are being told, the sadder I’ve become. While we may tell ourselves that these are just jokes, they are jokes with a kernel of truth. Many Americans no longer believe that we are fundamentally united. There is an Us vs. Them dichotomy that has been created and nurtured on both sides, and if we don’t do something about it now, we are asking for trouble.
As evidence of the polarization of our populace, consider how this election was battled for. Both candidates went to as much effort as possible to associate their opposition as evil. Liberal and Conservative have become dirty words in the opposing camps. Rednecks and bible-thumpers vote for Bush, terrorist-appeasing homos vote for Kerry. There is no longer an American identity, or common ground. We’ve turned against our fellow citizens in a way that I could hardly imagine years ago, and we are all responsible.

We’ve stopped listening to each other. While I am proud of Massachusetts’s strong liberal tradition, what does it say about our state that the Bush campaign barely even bothered with us? The few states that are considered “swing states” were inundated with smear campaigns and the rest were more or less ignored. Both parties realized that we aren’t interested in understanding each other, after all our ideology is that which is right and good, the other ideology is going to destroy America.

Well, I don’t think half this country is evil. When Al-Qaeda crashed airplanes into the WTC, I saw Americans reach out to each other in ways I never imagined. Were we perfect? No. But we were trying for the most part to help each other out. When anti-Muslim sentiments began to rise, churches and synagogues got together to defend the mosques and to reach out to the Muslims in their communities; At least, for a while. I suspect we’ve been lashing out at eachother because we are afraid. We thought we were invincible, and realizing we weren’t in such a painful way was a rude shock. In our desperation to make ourselves feel safer though, we’ve started turning against each other. We couldn’t protect ourselves form a nebulous terrorist network, so we’ve begun to imagine and thus create threats amongst ourselves.
I did it. For a couple of days I wore a shirt that labeled Bush as a douche bag. Sure, it made me feel better, and it got some laughs from schoolmates of mine in Chicago. But as I was driving to St Louis this evening, crossing into a “red” state. I realized that I was going to have to take that shirt off if I was going to get out of the car. I was actually worried that something might happen to me if I was seen wearing that shirt. And that made me pause. What did I hope to achieve by wearing this shirt? I have a lot of problems with Bush. No question. But by wearing that shirt, all I was doing was encouraging liberal Chicagoans to see Bush supporters as stupid, or at best, also douche bags. And, had I worn it out in public in “Red territory” it wouldn’t have changed anyone’s mind. It only would have re-enforced the idea that Kerry supporters are whiny jerks that have no respect for the president and resort to name-calling because they can’t actually do any better.

I don’t believe that things are such that the United States should dissolve the bonds that bind it. We are still one country. Or at least, we still have the chance to stay as one country. However, this will require a lot of courage and strength from all of us, but I think we are capable of it. It will require that we make a real effort to listen to, and understand each other’s desires, needs wants and fears. Does this mean that we should follow the current government blindly? Absolutely not. We must follow the truths that our moral conscience dictates. Without dissent there is no democracy. But, in dissenting we must speak to each other, not just to the people that agree with us and in the meantime continuing to demonize the opposition. There are many policies that the current government endorses that hurt me personally, and that I believe are bad for the nation, but I will never convince anyone else to change his or her mind by calling him or her names. Only be engaging each other fully as human beings will we be able to heal these rifts.

So what do we do then? How do we learn to love our fellow Americans again? By getting to know them again. By going to each others community centers, churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, parks, retirement homes, supermarkets and learning to have human interactions again. I do believe that there is common ground, more than we’ve convinced ourselves can possibly exist, but we have to have the courage and strength to admit that we don’t possess the entire truth before we will ever be able to find that common ground.
Let’s get to know each other again and respect that we are all still very much Americans, Humans Beings, and in need of one another.

الاهرم

2004-08-27T15:15:00.000-05:00

this morning Josh and I woke up at 6 to get to Giza and see the
pyramids. Word on teh street was, that by goping on friday we
could enjoy teh pyramids with a little bit of peace, as the more
pious of the merchants taek the day off. Its unclear if that is
why, but it was refreshingly empty at the pyramids. We were let
in at 8 and then there was a mini marathon against hte tour buses
to get to the ticket window, app. 500yds away. ONly the first 150
people are allowed to go inside teh great pyramid of Khufu
(Cheops). We fortunately made it, so we paid our 100 pounds (app.
$15) and went inside. To get into the pyramid, you have to duck
through this little entrance, and then climb up this ramp that is
about 4.5 feet high and at a 45 degree incline. It was hardwork
and incredibly claustrophobic. FInally it opens up, you go into
another passage, and then crawl though a tiny room which contains
the pharaos tomb. read: a big square black ston room, empty save
for 15 tourists and a emtpy black stone box in the middle. It was
a littel bti of a let down. We then had to walk back down teh
same way we went up. i hit my head a few times, it hurt.

(pictures! See Pictures here! )

After teh great pyramid we walked aroudn teh two smaller ones and
through some mini tombs outside the pyramid of Khafre. I found a
horseshoe, its my egypt souvenir now. WE were approached by
several guys on camels offering usall sorts fo stuff (i've have
decided that the camel is possibly the most ridiculous looking
animal in the world, with the possible exception of Ann Coulter)
the views were, stunning to saythe least. Thepyramids are
enormous, and beautiful against teh blue sky. it was partially
cloudy which afforded a nice respite from teh desert sun and two
horus went by without our having noticed. After some looking
around we foudn the sphynx (he's surprisingly little compared to
the pyramids) i got a couple of goodpictures and we calledit a
day. THis evengin we are going to goto the coptic neighborhood,
see some old churches and the Ibn Ezra synagogue. Hopefully, we
will eb abel to go to services there, that would be intensely
cool.

Egyptian Visas (Mastercard not Accepted)

2004-08-22T15:13:00.000-05:00

"Jew!"
I looked at the consul, in his sparse office, with the egyptian flag
behind him. He was scowling at my passport and i could have sworn he
had just declared at me"Jew!". "Um...pardon?" i questioned, horror
stories running thtrough my head, terrified that I wasn't even going to
make it back to the streets of Tel Aviv, just outside, nevermind to
Cairo. Again the Consul looked up from my passport, "Juice!" "huh?"
"Jew-zay?" And then i realized he was trying to pronounce my name...

my day started at 7am this morning. I had come out to Tel Aviv late
last night, to be sure I would be able to get to the Egyptian Embassy
early enough to acquire a visa for myself. I met my friend josh, with
whom i would be travelling to Cairo outside the egyptian embassy at
9am, right when teh embassy is supposed to open for business. we were
directed by signs to a little side waiting area, with two windows with
a sign over them that said very simply, Visas. the windows were closed.

We sat, and waited, looked at our watches, chatted a bit, looked at our
watches again, it was now 9:30. We turned ot the guard stationed a few
feet away and asked him, "when does the embassy open for visas?" nine
am was his answer. We looked at eachother, looked at our watches again
and sat back down.

As we continued to wait, several others arrived and had the same
conversation with the guard we had encoutnered earlier. Apparently,
despite our watches reading 10 and then 10:15 it was not yet nine.

Finally around 10:30, the window opened and I jumped up to giv emy
passport and visa application to the officer. He read my application,
asked me several times if I had an Israelian (sic) passport, which i
denied and then asked for NIS 65 and gave me a receipt. I asked him
when i would receive my visa an dpassport and he grumbled "the consul
will arrive at 11, he will decide." Apparently, the clerk did not have
the authority to actually grant me my egyptian Visa. So, realizing it
was still only going to be another 300 minutes, Josh and i decided to
go around the corner and grab ourselves some breakfast.

at 10:50 we returned. I wen tup to the clerk, passed him my receipt
and he gave it back. the consul has not arrived. come back at 11. Ok,
i shrugged and sat down. Josh and I chatted with our fellow visa
applicants, a briton, dane, australian columbian and israelian.

Our talk was suddenly interrupted when we heard the windows being
locked up again. It was 10:59. We all looked eachother and the briton
dashed to the window rapping loudly until it was opened. teh clerk
declared: "It is lunchtime, come back at 1" Indeed...

Josh an di decided at this point that we weren't going to waste our day
in Tel Aviv sitting behind the egyptian embassy, we waled across teh
street and went to swim in the beach. Forutnately Jellyfish season has
passed and the water was delightfully warm. At 12:30 we returned, just
in case thigns decide to be done a little early, we didn't want them to
close up on us for the day.

We asked our friends if there was any news, teh shook their heads,
sadly, maybe a little defeated and we continued waiting. At 1:05 the
ISraelian, frustrated left, saying she owudl send someone else, at 1:10
the window opened and we wer einstructed to go around to the front.
Another clerk opened the door holding our applications with our
pictures, and pointed at me, Josh, the Briton and the Dane. "This
way!" he barked and directed us to a room that had several french
magazines, a sofa and a horribly faded portrait of Pres. Mubarak
hanginon the wall. we sat for a few minutes and then we brought into
another room which, save for the orientation of the sofa was a pefect
carbon copy. At this point the briton turned to us and said, you know,
it hink we may have sigend up for hte tour bya ccident, we're not
getting visas, in a few more minutes tehy are oging to kick us out.

Fortuantely, he was wrong. One by one we were called into the next
room. I was third. From where I was sitting I could see the room we
wer ebeing led to whenever the door opened. This room had elather
sofas! and a desk! and blue curtains!

I was led in and saw that behind the desk was sitting a gentleman, who
was introduced to me as the egyptian consul, he smiled broadly,
gestured that I should please have a seat and then began chatting with
the four other men that were in his office. I tok teh opportunity to
enjoy the decor of the room, noticing another incredibly faded picture
of mubarak. Perhaps saturation and contrast are not photographic
techniques admired in Egypt? The consul pulle dou tmy passport looked
at the page with my personal information, looked at my appliction,
scowled, looked at my passport again, looked up at me and declared,
"Jew!"

Once we had my first name settled, he moved onto my middle name.
"François." "It's Francisco, Sir." He looked at me, smiled and said,
"you say francisco, we say françois" So, Juicy François, when are you
going to Egypt? Where are you going? How long are you staying? What are
you doing in Israel? Hvae you been to Egypt before? Why not? I answere
dhis questions satisfactorily, I assumed when he said, "Hvae a nice
visit" I was ushered suddenly back outside, looking back, thinking
"wait! my passport! I, uh need my..." but when i was back outside i saw
that none of compatriots had received their passports either.

Finally after another half hour we haerd the sound of stamps and the
window flung open and we recieved our passports. With that, we waved
good-bye to eachotehr and I returned to Jerusalem...knowing that in
another three days I will really be in Egypt!

El Niágara en Bicicleta

2004-07-08T15:11:00.000-05:00

The past week I have not been feeling very well. At first I thought it was just a product of having had too much fun Saturday night on my birthday, so I sucked it up on Sunday (yes, the work week in Israel is Sunday-Thursday) and went to class. As the day progressed, I started to suspect that maybe, just maybe, things were not what they seemed. A little too much alcohol does not usually cause severe sinus congestion and nasty coughs. Monday afternoon, Fabio sent me home, and Wednesday I decided Advil, hot showers and lots of orange juice weren’t cutting it. Additionally I was starting to run a low-grade fever, and was having much difficulty sleeping at night. Tuesday after class I went to the pharmacy, tried to explain to the pharmacist what was going on (I think I may have told her I had a traffic jam in my face trying to explain sinus congestion) and she tried to sell me the entire store. I kept explaining that Hydrogen Peroxide was not likely to help. By chance someone bought something that I noticed said pseudophedrine on it. “That! Give me a box of that!!” I think she concluded that I was some kind of addict, but she sold it to me.
24 hours later, the situation worsened. My headache got significantly worse, and by Wednesday afternoon I had a definite fever. I got a number for a doctor, to go tomorrow, but by 10pm I decided to go across the street to the hospital because I was starting to feel lightheaded and my face was throbbing. This was a mistake.
I have a theory. Israeli hospitals are designed such that if you are healthy enough to navigate the bureaucracy, they send you home. I arrived at the reception, and they said I had to go into the hospital before they could open a file for me and make sure they had an eye and ear specialist. So I enter the ER and they tell me that they can’t help me until I have a file… so I just go back to the reception and tell them they said to let me register and go in. I don’t have the energy to play these games.
I return to the ER waiting area and explain to the triage nurse that I have a facial traffic jam, a fever, haven’t slept etc. She takes my vitals, tries to guess how to spell compazine (a painkiller I am allergic to) in Hebrew and passes my file on to one of the doctors.
The doctor comes over (he is, of course, wearing Tevas) and takes me to one of the examining rooms. As he checks my breathing he takes a call from his girlfriend on his cell phone and asks me if I want Augmentin and tells me I need a sinus x-ray.
Upon receiving the order for the X-ray I am sent BACK to reception to pay for the x-ray separately, then sent off to find the radiology wing.
I find the radiology wing, after asking 6 people for directions and am greeted by a ^charming^ Russian woman who is watching a soap opera behind the window. Upon seeing me she snarls: “Go! Turn right! Door! :mumble mumble:” and returns to her television. I follow her directions and am presented with an empty hallway, with 8 numbered doors. Each door possesses a sign and a red light. The sign says: “when the read light is lit, stay far away from door! You will die.” (I am perhaps translating loosely, but that was the gist of it) ALL the red lights are on. Confused, I walk back towards my television-watching friend, as soon as I turn the corner she shouts at me again: “Door 4! Just wander around there!” At this point I’m a little tired of being treated like some vagabond coming off the street wandering into her living room and demanding that she cook me a steak so I whimper something along the lines of: “please don’t kill me. I have a traffic jam in my face, I’m lost and afraid.” She looks at me for a second, then shouts again: “Door 4! Wander…”
So I retreat, go back to the numbered doors. I see that the lights are now off on several doors, among them #4. I knock gently on the door, no answer. Try the knob…it’s locked. Off to my right I see some chairs, maybe 30 feet away, so I figure I’ll just sit down.
Ten minutes later, door #4 opens: it’s the Russian. She barks at me, “Did somebody x-ray you?” “No!” I want to bark back, “You are the only person in this entire wing! And unless the idea was to take my x-ray through the door I think we can both safely conclude that you have not done anything in the past 15 minutes other than watch TV and order me to wander!” Instead, I meekly shake my head and she orders me into the room.
The taking of the x-ray is uneventful, after a few minutes I am sent back to the ER lounge. Except the door I came in through is locked…I am forced to exit the hospital, go through security again and then explain to the guard at the actual door to the emergency room that I understand that he is not supposed to let people in that don’t have files, but that mine is lacking not because I am trying to infiltrate the top secret ER, but because the doctors never gave it back to me.
Somehow I get back into the ER. My doctor walks up to me and explains that I don’t have a sinus infection, or a facial traffic jam, but have a very bad head cold and then tells me that if I develop a fever or a headache I should come back. I don’t even know what to say. He writes me a Rx for some heavy duty decongestant spray and send me over to the nurses desk to find out which Pharmacy is open tonight so I can get it filled, and finally get some sleep.
The desk is, of course, empty. I stand there for a few minutes; my doctor notices me and says, “Go home! You don’t need anything here!” Stunned I can only point to the Rx and mumble “pharmacy?” “Oh!” he says, “you need her” and points to a nurse, deeply engrossed in conversation with another nurse, and runs away again. Eventually she saunters over to the desk. I explain to her that I need to know which pharmacy is open, she asks for the Rx, tells me that they don’t have any in stock and that I should go home. “No, you don’t understand! I *know* you don’t have any in stock, I need to know which is the pharmacy that is open tonight” She looks at me and says, “there is one on the other side of town, but you know, you don’t need this now, you can wait until tomorrow.”
With all my rapidly fading strength, I try to look as serious as I can and I tell her: “Look. I have a traffic jam in my face! Do you have any idea how much that hurts? I have barely slept for two days, I have been yelled at by a radiologist, I just want to be able to go to sleep tonight. Please, I just want to know where the pharmacy is.” “It’s too far away, wait.” And she starts shouting at my doctor who is now on the other side of the ER lounge with another patient, once more talking on his cell phone. He runs over a few minutes later, thrusts two little vials of saline solution into my hand and tells me that will keep me busy until tomorrow morning. The nurse then motions to me that I should listen to her and she whispers conspiratorially, “you know, you can make that at home, you just need some salt and water.”
So, now I am back home, with no idea where this all-night pharmacy is except that it is somewhere between me and Tel Aviv, and two little vials of salt water to put up my nose. Good Night.

New Punctuation Trend ^Sweeps^ the Nation

2004-06-10T15:06:00.000-05:00

didyou check out my blog any?

i was proud
or, rather, totally dismayed
but still & all
i did

what i read of it was pretty interesting but i figured i'd be better equipped for commentary once i'd read more
i'll be definitely checking it a lot while you're gone though
i'm sure you'll be having amazing adventures

dismayed?

lol -- the proud/dismayed comments referred to my propensity for time-wasting, not to the blog

ah ok

damn IM and its weird time discontinuities in conversation!

scared me for a second

yes, i was dismayed by your blog. damn, that is harsh
no no no, i liked it, obviously
or, as eliz would say, OBVI.

nice

um. yeah. or no.
"I foudn your writing shoddy, your ideas bland and the layout garish. Essentially, you fail"

there needs to be a sarcas punctuation mark

i know, that's such a like obscurely specific and deliberate insult
we could make one up
one of the lesser-used punctuation marks...
like, maybe, the percent symbol?
good job jose. really stellar.%

what about clsoing it in ^carats^

no, that just looks like a shoddy URL

yeah, i ^love^ brocolli

^i was so totally glad to see that steve lund was at the party^

^especially when it's spelled right^

yeah, i think that would work
its a new trend
can we do better?
hang on a sec
back

um...i don't know

what if the words intended to be read sarcastically contain "###%$" in teh middle?
i lo###%$ve your shirt
^that's much better^

yeah, that's ^so^ easy to read

and it makes typing ^so much faster^
shift-3-3-3-5-4

^very intuitive^

^totally^

i think this could catch on

do we like putting it in "equals" better?
like, =S. S. is so modest=
no, the carrots are better

carrots t hee
yeah because the "equal" is still used pretty frequently by me online
carats for sarcasm = yes
for example

true
yeah, i don't really use the carrot ever
i think it's pretty much only used by annoying people for pseudo smileys
like this: ^_^

except like 2^4 = 16

i do not like those

no those are stupid

well, yes, that, but it's rare that i just throw that into a conversation
actually -- i ^love^ smileys like that
also, how owuld oen pronounce a "_" saracastically?

ooh--and! the "carrot" function is sort of intuitive because it makes the words/sentence resemble a cat. and generally sarcasm is somewhat "catty"OHH. snap. puns rock.

there's ^such^ pitetntial for miscommunication

nice!

yeah, and it works especially well for like "fat girls look ^great^ in crop tops and miniskirts"

i love what a punctuation dork I am, and itmakes ^perfect sense^ when paired with my obsession with precise spelling

yeah, your emails ^never^ contain typos.
see, i actually tend to use the whole *emphasis* thing to denote sarcasm sometimes, but i like having this special little code.

i will get doug hooked on it too and from there we will spread the word to the masses

but then there is the ^huge^ debate:
me, you, doug = not the masses

yes?

bold? asteriks? italics?

you don't want this to become mainstrea,?

no, no, i'm just saying that *we* aren't the masses. from us, it must go elsewhere. to the masses. but this must happen.
agreed

The Trouble with Freedom

2004-06-07T15:04:00.000-05:00

The Trouble with Freedom

Liberalism is a philosophy of freedom, a fact attested to by its own etymology. The classical liberal thinkers focused primarily on the idea of economic freedom: the right to move capital without interference, but later critics have raised the questions: What is freedom? How is freedom created or maintained? Nonetheless, despite the critiques made in favor of a broader definition of freedom than the traditional model of freedom from governmental interference, the misconception remains: so long as there is protection from government abuse of personal freedom, the individual is fully free. This misconception is best exposed as such when examined in the light of socially stigmatized minorities in countries, such as the United States, in which there is supposed to be equality before the law. Furthermore, by understanding why movements for equal legal rights have in many ways failed, because they do not take into account extralegal threats to freedom, it becomes clear that not only are there many social groups that are denied freedom: Even those in the “free” majority are similarly oppressed.
On paper, America appears to be a land of incredible freedom. Many minorities that were previously seen as second-class citizens, with restricted rights, have achieved many legal victories that would suggest equal status before the law: all American citizens of legal age have the right to vote. American citizens have the same rights to buy or sell property. All American citizens are entitled to elementary and high-school educations. For many years it was interracial marriage was illegal: marriage is now available to all heterosexual couples (and additionally to homosexual couples in the State of Massachusetts).

Of course, there are still examples of double standards in the American legal system: residents of Puerto Rico, despite being American citizens, are not allowed to vote in presidential elections; same-sex couples are denied federal marriage rights as well as state recognition of marriage in the rest of the union; similarly “avowed” homosexuals are prohibited from serving in the American military. Nonetheless, there are those who believe that once these few exceptions to legal equality are discarded the problem of the absence of freedom for American citizens will be resolved.

This belief was the basis for many of the aims of the civil and women’s rights movements. The hope was that by securing the rights to vote, marry, serve in the military, &c., social equality would follow. This is precisely the trope that has been adopted by many currently seeking to end the oppression of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans individuals. One such thinker, Andrew Sullivan, in fact asserts that once homosexuals are allowed to marry and serve in the military they will have full equality: “…[T]he critical measure necessary for full gay equality…is equal access to marriage…[this] ban deals with the core of what it is to be member of society.” Sullivan argues that the denial of the right to marry prevents homosexuals from establishing the network of relationships that are necessary for human dignity. Indeed, there is something seductive about his argument: once gay people are allowed to do the same things that straight people are allowed to do, how can there be a question of inequality? Furthermore, other groups that were formerly denied full access to marriage and military have fought for these same rights, so it would seem that they must be worth fighting for.
Further examining two of these movements, the black and women’s, presents a problem that Andrew Sullivan fails to address: Why is it that despite achievement of legal equality, there remains gross and obvious inequity between these groups and the majority population? One way to understand this discrepancy is by examining oppression as a social phenomenon, of which legal oppression is only one facet.

In The Trouble With Normal, Michael Warner makes this very assertion. Warner understands oppression to be a product of societal norms. These norms have the effect of creating a hierarchy, which then allows for the social condemnation of those at the bottom of the hierarchy: those who deviate. The condemnation varies with respect to either the type of deviation (adulterous heterosexuals who are married are generally stigmatized less than “sluts”) as well as by the number of norms violated (drug-using, homosexual, black, tranny sluts are more actively discriminated against than white, married men who happen to be alcoholics). Nonetheless, these norms, which are frequently extralegal, result in severe social oppression upon those who are perceived as deviant.

Although he does not see it as problematic, Andrew Sullivan acknowledges the social force of these norms: “Giving these [homosexuals that are able to commit to long term relationships] a right to affirm their commitment…provides a social [my emphasis] incentive for lesbians and gay men to adopt socially beneficial relationships.” To the contrary, Sullivan sees this normalizing effect as a positive benefit. Being allowed to marry will give gay people free access to an institution previously exclusive to heterosexuals, but at a cost: there will be increased social pressure to behave within the bounds defined by white, heterosexual, middle-class America. Gays as a collective group receive no new benefits: only those who act like straight people benefit.

It is not just those who deviate from the norms of sexual behavior that are thus oppressed: the regulation of deviance affects all stigmatized minorities. Andrew Sullivan attempts to discredit the claim that in many ways the fight for equality and freedom among blacks and women is essentially the same as, and intertwined with that being faced by homosexuals. However, his objection only further demonstrates the naïveté of his faith in legal equality: Sullivan tries to assert that the battle for gay rights is essentially different because gay people have always had the option of passing themselves off as heterosexual. Secondly, he asserts that racial stigma (and presumably bias against women) is based on a physical trait, whereas sexual orientation is intimately linked to behavior. However, these two assertions fail to fully take reality into account, a fact in part belied by Sullivan’s own statements.

Sullivan’s first claim that closeted homosexuals are able to avoid discrimination is simply not true: only those who are able to pass themselves off as heterosexuals avoid oppression. In fact, even heterosexuals that are perceived as gender deviants are stigmatized as “gay” despite the fact that not only are they not “out”, but they are not even homosexual. Similarly, Sullivan’s claim that race is not behavioral is flawed: for example, the popularity of the term “wigger”, used to describe white people who act black. Furthermore, this term is not neutral: it stigmatizes white people who adopt the socially undesirable behavior of “niggers”, while similarly implying that black people who abandon these traits are able to make themselves acceptable to the majority culture.

Although Warner does not clarify the connection between racial, gender and sexual deviance as explicitly as he might, it is a necessary correlation to draw in order to fully appreciate the degree to which freedom is limited by social influence. This form of oppression and its influence are not negligible: additionally, despite its influence and presence being most easily detected among the groups that are most intensely stigmatized, this mode of oppression is a limit on everyone’s freedom, including those supposed to be in the majority. The stigmatization of any deviance effectively denies many individuals the opportunity to make their own decisions without risk of censure. Additionally, even those who are able to be covert in their peccadilloes experience guilt and shame unnecessarily: the individual is restrained in his or her ability to live his or her own life as he or she sees fit.

Flag Etiquette

2004-06-01T15:01:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person distressed by the lack of flag etiquette displayed by my fellow citizens. It's disappointing that so many americans don't even know that there are rules that regulate how the flag may or may not be displayed and worse, many of them don't care. However, today, I entered the Post Office by my school and saw that the American flag was flying, dirty, torn and tangled , despite my having complained about this 6 months earlier.
Let me explain myself a little further though. This isn't some anti-radical, fascist kick I'm on. In fact, part of the reason it bothers me so much when the flag is desecrated carelessly is because it makes it meaningless when a flag is intentionally desecrated in order to make some kind of statement.
I beleive that the flag does represent the country. It does NOT stand for the bush administration (or any other) but rather it is a signifier for the entire country. It is not simply decorative, it is not clothing and it is NOT meaningless. However, when people do not even care if they are flying a flag properly, it suggests a disregard for the signified as well. And if not just citizens, but the representatives of our national government don't even care, I find that truly sad.
Today, I went to my local post office as I mentioned above and when politely asked who was responsible for maintaining the flag , i was asked why I cared, if I was a soldier (which I'm not) if I was a bush supporter (which I'm not) If i critiqued every government institution i disapproved of (i try to, not that I was critiquing any INSTITUTION here, jsut didn't want to see a ripped up flag being flown) and then the clerk I was speaking to called the people responsible, and the part of teh conversation i overheard form her was pretty depressing...
essentially, the person in charge of hte flag was not even aware that there is such a thing as flag etiquette ! Sigh... sometimes i wonder.

Dilating Shavuot

2004-05-27T14:57:00.000-05:00

I was in shul today, davenning shacharit, the morning service, after having stayed up all night preparing for Shavuot. Today we commemorate when we receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and suddenly I was overwhelmed. I jsut started crying, softly, to myself, it jsut seems so much. Who am i even supposed to be? What does G-d want from me? Why has G-d led me into a tradition that is forcing me to engage things I never wanted to again? It's simply a afact that the guys I fall for are going to be closeted, conflicted and I promised myself i wouldn't put myself through that ever again.
It was odd though, It hrut and I was crying but it felt good. I hadn't let myself eb angry at G-d, engage g-d, tell G-d that certian things just aren't ok.
and then I talked to G-d, in a way i hadn't ever done before:
שים שלום טובה, וברכה, חן, וחסד ורחמים עלינו ועל כל ישראל עמך. ברכינו עלינו אבינו, כולנו כאחד באור פניך, כי באור פניך נתת לנו, ה' אלוקינו, תורת חיים ואהבת חסד וצדקה וברכה ורחמים וחיים ושלום. וטוב בעיניך לברך את עמך ישראל, בכל עת ובכל שעה בשלומך. ברוך אתה ה' המבורך את עמו ישראל בשלום
and then, having bitched at G-d about how difficult it will be for me to find someone, i was once again given hope. Hope is such a bitch.

ברכות השחר

2004-05-25T14:50:00.000-05:00

It’s the highlight of my day: watching you—your eyes still red, drowsy—as you go through your daily morning ritual. Your kipah is crooked. Your hair is mussed, flattened-up, on the left side of your face; I know what side you slept on. I mutter a quick, “hello,” you’re walking past, east. We see each other every morning; this is nothing special to you; you nod your head, and then turn back, ahead, no longer looking through the glass window between us.

You’re rolling up your sleeve now. I am reminded of a laborer getting ready for heavy work; your labor is of a different sort. Your taskmaster is insistent, and you bind yourself into his service: for what? You asked me that once, called me crazy. I was puzzled: was there something you were trying to tell me? How are you trapped? That question is meaningless at this hour, though. You whisper the words of betrothal as you wrap your finger, and I watch you unabashedly. I smile: we’ve just gotten out of bed, and now, you wrap yourself in another blanket. I can’t see your face now—you’re entire body absorbed in the soft folds—, it makes me wonder, “Do you ever see mine?” It’s hard to know. I never see you watching me. And, you’re so cryptic. Whenever we do anything, I leave unsettled.

This time, this morning, there is no interaction. This is intimate, secluded, safe. And, despite—or is it because of?—the wall between us, I feel closer to you than I have ever before, and, also so secure. G-d speaks to you; you speak to G-d; I Listen and drink in with my eyes.

You’ve been rocking back and forth, swaying gently, to a rhythm only you hear. At times, the words come more fluently: your movements—more fervent. Then, just as suddenly you come to a stop, almost… Your head still tips gently.

You’re more awake now, and I have my own rituals to attend to. I get back to my reading: the book, not you. And, I shouldn’t be watching you anyways. I focus on the words in front of me, struggling with the still somewhat unfamiliar text. It’s no good though, I’m distracted: you are speaking louder. What got in your way? I know you speak up to remind yourself, to put yourself back on track. I can’t decide, do I want you to have been thinking about, or maybe even watching me—you know the words by heart and don’t need the book in front of you—or do I fear that I, somehow, in doing so might have brought you down? Your words are fading down to a whisper again. Whatever it was, it’s passed and been forgotten.

The repetition begins (The whole day is, of course, a repetition) and you stand still, waiting. I wait too. You pace, eyes on the floor. What do you think during this moment to yourself? It’s only a minute at most. Then, with the resurrection of the dead, you jump to attention! You rise up on your toes, “Holy! Holy! Holy!” and ascending to the heights of the angels, I’ve never seen you look more human.

And then…it’s over. Twenty minutes are all I get. You unwrap yourself, put the folded blanket neatly away, and you release yourself from your bindings. You catch my eyes again. This time you nod: I say “morning.”

Andrew Sullivan is still a Farktard

2004-05-24T14:56:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan now asserts a "new" liberalism (that he maintains is in actuality old liberalism) whereby "all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homsexuals be ended and that every right and respoonsibility that heterosexuals enjoy by virture of the state be extended to those who grow up different. And that is all." By this he seems to mean that homos should be allowed to serve in the army and tehy should be able to get married.
He starts off with the military. H emaintains that HIS politics, "unlike anti-discrimination law...does not ask any citizen to hire or fire anyone of whom the do not approve; it merely asks public servants to to behave the same way with avowed homosexuals as with closeted ones." So let's parse this out for moment. He is assuming that closeted homosexuals are approced of, as he has asserted earlier, and get to become economicallly succefsul, because nobody fires them. Avowed ("And I henceforth foreswear any allegiance to a foreign sex in my intimate relationships, both public and private..."i took vows?!?! how about unapologetic, i like that better) Homos are nto approved of and frequently have to han gout with lazy peopel and be poor because public servants don't want to hire them.
So, nobody has to hire anyone they don't approve of, but, they ahve to treat us avowees jsut hte same as the covert homos. What does that mean? They ahve to set us up on dates with their daughters too? (assuming we're guys) I guess i just don't understand.
Of course, AS makes perfect sense when he then explains that "[gay politics] is a new kind of minority politics. It is less a matter of complaint than of pride; less about subversion than about the desire to contribute equally...Instead of seeking access, gays in the military are simply seeking recognition."
WHAT??? So, yes I will grant that being in teh closet gives us certain infiltration abilities. But honestly! Simply seeking recognition? I don't want to be recognized for hwo I act so "approrpaitely and laudably" pish tosh. I want the right to order my life as I see fit so logn as it doesn't interfere with your righ tot do the same. And i want that righ ton the grounds of my being a human, not on teh grounds of my being jsut as normal as you are.
Next Mr. Sullivan goes beyond army rights (which i suspect are dependant more on a deep-seated uniform fetish than on any kind of equality. "yes Sir!") to marriage. Apparently once we are able to get married, everythign will be fine. Bullshit.
Yes, I will agree that becuase of hwo society is currently set up, nto be allowed to marry is highly offensive. And yes, I agree that the implication that gay people can't handle marriage is also deeply offensive. BUt you know what else? The idea that unless your married you relaitonship is illegitimate is also deeply offensive: "Some [gay and lesbians] are [able to commit]...and giving them a right to affirm their commitment...provides a social incentive for lesbains and gay men to adopt socially beneficial relationships." So there we have it. Let gay people get hitched and then they have more social pressure not to be promiscuous sluts. Rather than realize that we have created entirely NEW constructs for relationships, having to be creative when former outlets were nto availbel to us, Models that might even be VERY socially useful, more so than the current american model of the nuclear family, we shoudl jetison that and behave. and the only way we get that is if my boyfrien ddresses up in a nice white dress and the minister blesses us.
He states that because we have none of this marriage business, our relationships lack any "way of integrating them full yinto the network of family and freinds that makes someone a full member of civil society." So mayb e your family Sucks andrew but mine has always doen a great job of integrating my Aunt and Uncles lovers, even after my Aunt and uncle both died, and to the degree that I want to a part of this oh-so-civil society, I'ma aprt of it as far as MY family is concenerned.
This jsut reminds me of the breaakfast club and the wierd girl. She's so fucking cool making snow with her dandruff eating th ebest lunch, being totally nuts and then at the end, Claire makes her "pretty" and she goes out with Jock-o. And hti sis upposed to be a happy ending? Make sme cry. Now that she becomes "normal" she's accepted, but she can't be in, otehrwise. thats tragic.

The Original Article

Andrew Sullivan = FARKTARD

2004-05-24T14:52:00.000-05:00

In Sosc we have to read "The Politics of Homosexuality" I've renamed his book "How to sell out every minority rights movements and look like an asshole" GAH!

So, this article is a paragon of intelligence, eloquence and class. And that's just the first page. But as he says, "Unless we begin to discuss this subject with a degree of restraint and reason...visceral unpleasantness...will dog the the question of homosexuality for a long time to come." Additionally, "not all of [the politics of homosexuality] contain reason." SO thus he will argue that because his reason is impeccable—which it isn't—and because he is emotionally devoid and vapid—which he may well be—is, we all have to get married. In this blog, I intend to demonstrate that, to the contrary, he is a FUCKTARD.
He then divides his argument into 4 sections describing the four primary politics of homosexuality. He first explains why repressive "conservative politics is bad" I'm going to take that for granted becaus ein this case he doesn't say anything that makes me want to light something on fire. This is a unique section of his article.
Now he talks about the "Radical" homosexual politics. Now, I migh tnot be a radical. BUT i was unaware of a "nietszchean desire to surpass all natural necessities, to attack the construct of 'nature' itself." Damnit, I hate it when i get that way. More appalling is his complete failure to understand the idea of homosexuality as a social construct. He states, "Homosexuality, in this politics, is a cultural construction forced up upon the sexually amorphous (all of us)" No! No! You stupid Fucktard! I'm going to try to explain this simply. its not that the desire is chosen. There have always been boys that preffered boinking boys, and always been girls that preffered the girly sex they jsut didn't identify as gay or straight because htese concepts didn't exist and therein lies the social construct. You choose to align yourself with teh queer identity, not who gets you wet.
He also slams the radicals for disdaining studies that show a genetic source for homosexuality. Again, unlike Mr. Sullivan who feels perfectly comfortable speaking for others, I can only speak for myself but, this is a bit mroe complicated than he gets it. I don't have a problem with "proof" that gay poeple ar eborn that way because hten it delegitimizes the radicalism of my choice. Rather I have problems with it because it hsouldn't matter! If i'm born that wya, then it legitmizes research to find a cure, if I choose it then its a moral issue. How about we jsut recognize that I like the man sex and thats jsut hte way it is, what i do in my room i smy business, thank you very much. have a nice day.
And now we come to fucktard moment number again: "for most gay people a queer identity is precisely what they want to avoid." Yes. That is prolly true. Ever ask why? Is it because there is somethign inherently evil with being perceived as "queer" when everyone else is "normal" and thats why we should make it easier for people that ar emistakenly perceived as abnormal to be recontextualized into the norms of society. Or maybe its because, as our society is currently set up, we rely on some kind of lesser other to justify ourselves, and by deluding ourselves into the belief that by being finally recognized as "just like everybody else" then everything will be better. O rmaybe we'll jsut find someone else to opress while we repress our own inherent differentness. Wouldn't it be better if we could find some way to appreciate difference without ranking it on some hierarchical value system? But that prolly wouldn't work...becuase then people would have to be willing to *gasp* be themselves. ewwww.
One of his more ridiculous statements is that "'Queer' radicalism's doctrine of cultural subversion and separatism has the effect of alienating those very gay americans most in need of support and help: the young and teenagers." See, here is the thing: No. Mr. Sullivan, you''ve been out of college for two long. ANd you're missing it. The radicalism of Queeritude is jsut what priveliged white kids in college wet themselves over. It drives mom and dad back in CT crazy, they get to be bisexual until graduation blah blah etc. Ladies! Boink a chich and your an insta-radical! Gents! Suck some dick and you're a subversive! No, the people that really are despreately in need of help are are working class queers. Peopel without the luxury of a place to be safely out, who literally can't afford to get fired because of tehir orientation (real or percieved). But, the reason they are at teh economic bottom is prolly because they are lazy, so they don't matter. I mean, don't get me wrong, being gay and being a kid is tough as hell. But...most of us weren't getting married in HS anyways. And also, lets face is the most fascist facet of our society is Middle School. Bein gdifferent in any way SUCKS. Even if you are straigh tand can potentially get married life can be hell in MS. sounds liek another sytem that needs to be radically restructured...but that could jsut be me. And apparently at the end of this section on radicals: I have contempt for gays. I had no idea.
I also have very little to say about his criticisms of the "moderates" ie those people that wish gay people would just shut-up already. He essentially says that this concept will go away, cause its stupid. I cna accept that.
Now the fourth section, on "liberals" (as opposed to "radicals") is that liberals want to extend the same rights to homos that other minorities get. he says this is flawed because:
1) Race is always visible; sexuality can be hidden
2) Race is in no way behavioral; sexuality is profoundly linked to a settled pattern of behavior.
I like that. It must be nice to live in your world, Mr. Sullivan. Let's start with the first "truth" that there is somethign unique about sexuality being hidden. For starters, plenty of minorities are invisible. white hispanics and jews are two fine examples. And people whoa re str8 but that are perceived as gay NEVER have any problems because of the behaviour that is perceived. Despite the fact that prior to my coming out i never had sex with anyone in my HS I was frequently harrassed for being "gay." hmmm...
the second assertion that race is in no way behavioral and only openly gay people are ever discriminated against. See above...closeted homos get treated jsut as shitty. Even str8 acting (have sex with chicks) nellies (that are gayly femme) and str8 acting (have sex wiht boys) dags (butchy dikish) are given shit all the time. And isn't it funny that the minrotiy individuals that do the best are the ones that act the "whitest"? Adopt White, American, WASP (yes the W is redundant) culture and you'll do fine, but speak with an accent, refuse to wrok on saturday, listen to too much R&B and suddenly you get taekn a lot less seriously, or worse.
For soem reason, he is most perceptive when he closes a section: "Moreover, unlike blakcs or other racial minorities, gay people are not subject to inherited patterns of discrimination." WHAT?! Yes, thats right mr sullivan. i am completely divorced from any of the opression and dsicrimination that gay people before me faced. Just because i ge thtat information form movies, newspapers and television instead of from my parents doesn't mean I have no cultural history. Jackass.

Now I am tired. there is more to the article, you can read it yourself if you like. If i get the energy I may continue this tomorrow. bt for now I'll throw out his conclusion. When gay people are allwoed to marry and serve in the military it will all eb better. yes...

The Original Article

a new vocab word

2004-04-24T14:49:00.000-05:00

Hipt - adj. not straight. Queer, with no political implications.
n. hiptitude; v.trans. to hip

eg.:
Rob has only dated girls, but I'm pretty sure he's hipt. I saw him hook up with a guy at the part last saturday

The village is pretty much soaked in hiptitude.

Susy hipped Emily at the Indigo Girls concert, not that anyone was all that surprised.

Hair Sighting

2003-11-24T14:47:00.000-06:00

"Is not the most erotic part of the body wherever the clothing allows an unafforded glimpse?"
-Roland Barthes, A Lover's Discourse: Fragments

Today I was hanging out with some of my orthodox friends, and one of the guys was sitting in a chair. What was exciting though was that he had decided to hold his kipah in his hand, and not wear it; this was the first time in three years that I have known him to that I have seen him with his head completely uncovered. The thing is, it was really sexy. This surprised me because it's not like 1) thetop of a guy's head is particularly sexy and 2) nor does a kipa cover all that much. Nothing is left to the imagination. Nonehteless seeing the mark in his hair were the edge of his kipa sits and his head being entirely uncovered made me feel like I was experiencing something intimate.

Why I Fear the Reg

2003-11-24T14:46:00.000-06:00

In the Regenstein library at the U of C there is an evil that has not been spoken of in millenia. An evil so unspeaable, so horrible that the few who have discovered it have refused to recognize it for what it was. In times immemorial there was a wicked professor, who cursed academia for stealing his life from him. He cursed the Regenstein, so that anyone who entered its doors would find it more difficult to leave upon each subsequent visit. The longer one remained among hte cursed stacks, the more one's soul would b lost. Indeed, so much so did the Reg behin to control the lives of its inhabitants that they gave up leaving, simply retreating further into its dark recesses to indulge their desires. Of course, the reg laid immeidate claim to teh souls conceived within its cursed womb. These and hte souls of the unfortunate victims who spent one night too many at teh reg are now kept in Jars in a secret level, ZZ3R, in a locked room that few know about. They have been there, some for htousands of years, other for only a month, but hte day will come when they will break free and wreak havoc upon the U of C. Chaos will ensue as htese forgotten spirits take their vengeance upon the University and academia which led them astray and failed to protect them from the ravenous monster which is the Reg.

Kaparot

2003-10-05T14:45:00.000-05:00

Today i aprticipated in what may have been one of the most amazing and bizarre religious rituals I have ever participated in. While waving a chicken over my head I recited "This is my exchange, my subsitute. This is my atonement. This rooster will go to death while I will enter and proceed to a good long life and to peace." I then handed the rooster over to the shochet, so he coul gkill it and give the meat to charity. It was an amazingly satisfying ritual; but, it raised some pretty big questions for me, teh biggest being: By what right do I, the responsible agent of my sins, simply declare: Ok, this chicken is instead of me. This Innocent chicken that has not even chosen to take my sins upon itself. That takes a LOT of nerve on my part.
Also, isn't it kind of the easy way out? It doesn't even imply repentance on my part. I'm taking the justice that is G-d's prerogative to hand out and doling it out myself. AND, if my sins were worth my entire life, they were certianly worht more than one $18 chicken, no? Seems cheap on my part.

Tripping on the Road

2003-01-27T14:42:00.000-06:00

Now we are going to play frisbee with the mennonites, if we are lucky.

Decisions made at 1 am tend to be interesting. Ezra was visiting, and taking roadtrips came up in teh conversation. Now, we are in Alabama visiting Dara, sitting in teh library with a frisbee. I also saw the mississippi for the first time. My frisbee glows in the dark and a small child nearly stole it from me, until a harvard graduate finally finagled it from him. Dara's roomie kicks collective tuches, a fine example being:

"Dara and I have the most amazing adventures; I just wish I was there for more of them." - Claire

Why Funerals Are Funny

2002-12-24T14:36:00.000-06:00

So we were at the cemetary, burying my grandmother and everything was going as one might expect a funeral to go, when, as her best friend finished eulogizing her the voices of concern stepped forward suggesting that perhaps my grandmother had been buried in the wrong plot...

We walked a few spots over to the east and voilá, we find the gravestone that says, "Portuondo" and has the little plaques for my grandfather and Aunt. Clearly there is a problem here. So we told the groundskeeper to open up our plot because we wanted to make sure that the urn and casket that shoudl have been there, were. As we are in the middle of doing this, the cemetary director comes over and pitches a fit, saying that we can't go opening whatever plot we want, &c.

Apparently, in our row, the tombstones were all labeled wrong. We owned plot 29, but our stone said 26. after much screaming and arguing it was all settled and we finally put her in the correct hole. Of course, y that point it was kinda anticlimactic. I was kinda hoping our plot woul dbe empty or someone else entirely would be there and we'd have to start opening plot after plot until we discovered a casket full of gold. Maybe next time...

Porquinho Da Índia

2002-12-23T14:34:00.000-06:00

Quando eu tinha seis anos
Ganhei um porquinho-da-índia.
Que dor de coração me dava
Porque o bichinho só queria debaixo do fogão!
Levava ele pra sala
Pra os lugares mais bonitos mais limpinhos
Ele não gostava:
Queria era estar debaixo do fogão.
Não fazia caso nenhum das minhas ternurinhas...

O meu porquinho-da-índia foi minha primeira namorada.

When I was six years old,
the gave me a guinea pig.
What heartache it brought me—
all the little beast wanted to do was hide under the stove!
I brought it into the livingroom
to the neatest parts of the house,
but all I wanted was to hide under the stove.
It didn't pay the slightest attention to any of my caresses.

That guinea pig was my first romance.

I Dreamed a Dream...

2002-12-22T14:33:00.000-06:00

The following is a dream I had. I hope it does not come true.

The Penguins had had quite enough. They were rising out of the swamps of Seattle, and frankly, they had had enough. So these mangy a$$ penguins were running around the streets of Seattle tripping people. It wasn't very friendly, I'll tell you that much, but for the most part it was harmless, albeit pretty obnoxious.

Later on, one of the penguins followed some guy home (who was my dream-father, it later turned out to be) and it then cut to a scene in which said penguin and the loyal family dog were having a heated, but diplomatic conversation. In the meantime, the family had barricaded themselves in the basement of the condo. Suddenly! An even more evil penguin was discovered hiding under the futon! The family dog chased it away and we locked several doors in teh hallway to keep the Penguin form coming back. Sadly we had to lock teh dog out as well. He prolly died.

Scene cuts back to inside the basement. We were feeling pretty safe when suddenly we heard glass breaking! That's when we remembered that the extra keys to the house were sitting inside the car. The penguin, who had now gone beyond just tripping people and was in fact bent on killing them, was in our kitchen. (we were in the basement) A few minutes passed, we heard strange noises. Then the penguin opened the door, we could only see his silhouette due to the bright light behind him. He started strutting down the stairs, pontificating in Penguin speech, which we could not understand, while tossing frisbees that had been cut in half on to the floor.

He then began zipping about on his stomach, using the curve of the frisbees to change directions. For some reason this was *very* threatening. We didn't know what to do, so we just tried to avoid getting hit. Then he started nipping at our ankles as he zipped along, and we suddenly discovered an enormous cache of kitchen knives.

This is when things stopped making sense. Rather than to try to kill the penguin, we decided that the most productive thing we could do was to chopp the frisbees into little bits. Sadly, I'll never know if it worked, because at that moment my roomie woke me up.

Rules of Bowling

2002-12-21T14:27:00.000-06:00

1) No Bowler may be called by his/her proper name
a) Team member names must be themed

2) Failure to press the rest button after one excused failing require a dance of shame

3) Every Frame bowled that results in a total of Zero requires a dance of Zero
a) Dances of Zero cannot be repeated
b) Dances of Zero must finish in a physical representation of a Zero

4) Do not touch the prophets

5) Prophetic Eras must be named chronologically

6) All zeroes must be pretty pictures

7) Threes are always slashed

8) Team Spirit is a virtue

9) Volume is a virtue