Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
infuriating
In the realm of the ridiculous is the Long Island school district that decided not to change the name of its winter concert. The winter concert has historically been called the Christmas Concert. But the population of this area has changed drastically in the last decade, and more than a third of the children are of Indian or Chinese descent. One can only imagine there is a sizable Jewish population, and indeed the Christmas Concert has often contained a Hanukkah song or two, which makes you wonder at the misleading nature of the name already. And somehow it seems even more offensive to include songs from another holiday or another religion and yet still insist on calling it a Christmas celebration. It kind of reminds me of a friend's mother-in-law finally sending her a Hanukkah card a couple Decembers ago, but then writing Merry Christmas inside. Good try, but still a swing and a miss.
Recently several parents in the district suggested to the Board of Education that the name be changed to a more inclusive Winter Concert, or even Holiday Concert. There was such a burst of outrage at the very suggestion that the Board of Education decided to leave the name as is. But even after the decision had been made, more than 200 outraged parents showed up at the school board meeting earlier this month to protest the idea of having anything but a Christmas Concert.
According to the New York Times article, "One woman said she could not understand how anyone could object to Christmas, 'which is about tolerance, love for your fellow man. Who would be against that?'" This, apparently, with no irony what so ever.
Even creepier, a lawyer made the pseudo-intelligent-sounding but totally insane comment that changing the concert's name from Christmas to Winter or Holiday is "a form of religious discrimination at best, religious bigotry at worst."
I'm not sure that the parents of any Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist children would agree. And I'm not sure how his argument falls into that whole concept of separation of church and state.
What I do know is that these people who wrote all the nasty letters to the local newspaper denouncing those who wanted to change the name (one letter-writer condemned the school officials for their efforts to "execute Baby Jesus in the arena of political correctness") were bad enough. But even worse were those who saw fit to stand up in a roomful of people and continue to so forcefully demonstrate their narrow-mindedness when they had already won. Being a sore loser is sometimes understandable, however annoying it might be; but there is no excuse whatsoever for being a sore winner.
Recently several parents in the district suggested to the Board of Education that the name be changed to a more inclusive Winter Concert, or even Holiday Concert. There was such a burst of outrage at the very suggestion that the Board of Education decided to leave the name as is. But even after the decision had been made, more than 200 outraged parents showed up at the school board meeting earlier this month to protest the idea of having anything but a Christmas Concert.
According to the New York Times article, "One woman said she could not understand how anyone could object to Christmas, 'which is about tolerance, love for your fellow man. Who would be against that?'" This, apparently, with no irony what so ever.
Even creepier, a lawyer made the pseudo-intelligent-sounding but totally insane comment that changing the concert's name from Christmas to Winter or Holiday is "a form of religious discrimination at best, religious bigotry at worst."
I'm not sure that the parents of any Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist children would agree. And I'm not sure how his argument falls into that whole concept of separation of church and state.
What I do know is that these people who wrote all the nasty letters to the local newspaper denouncing those who wanted to change the name (one letter-writer condemned the school officials for their efforts to "execute Baby Jesus in the arena of political correctness") were bad enough. But even worse were those who saw fit to stand up in a roomful of people and continue to so forcefully demonstrate their narrow-mindedness when they had already won. Being a sore loser is sometimes understandable, however annoying it might be; but there is no excuse whatsoever for being a sore winner.
coincidence?
On September 11th, 1857, more than a hundred men, women, and children were murdered as their wagon train passed through Utah on its way from the Ozark Mountains to California. I remember reading somewhere that not only did the Mormons commit this atrocity, but they then tried to blame it on the Paiute Indians. Now, a year before the first presidential election in which a Mormon is a serious contender for the Republican nomination, there is September Dawn. I'm not particularly fond of Mitt Romney, and feel nothing but contempt for his flip-flopping on abortion & gay rights, not to mention his stupid comments concerning his many sons & the military. But this leaves an icky taste in the back of my throat.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
irony that cuts to the quick
irony: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
tragic irony: Dramatic irony in a tragedy.
tragic irony: Dramatic irony in a tragedy.
Ohio: Killing at Event Promoting Nonviolence
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published August 14, 2007
A fatal shooting put a chilling end to a youth football tournament intended to promote nonviolence in Cincinnati neighborhoods. Earnest Crear, 19, was in a group of young adults gathered on a street near where spectators were watching the games Sunday when he was shot twice, officials said. The police said three suspects fled the scene. The children’s event, called the Peace Bowl, brought together 14 teams from youth organizations. Cecil Thomas, a city councilman who was at the games, said the Peace Bowl was intended to promote peace in city neighborhoods with athletic competition and family involvement.
Published August 14, 2007
A fatal shooting put a chilling end to a youth football tournament intended to promote nonviolence in Cincinnati neighborhoods. Earnest Crear, 19, was in a group of young adults gathered on a street near where spectators were watching the games Sunday when he was shot twice, officials said. The police said three suspects fled the scene. The children’s event, called the Peace Bowl, brought together 14 teams from youth organizations. Cecil Thomas, a city councilman who was at the games, said the Peace Bowl was intended to promote peace in city neighborhoods with athletic competition and family involvement.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
the end of an era
I was walking north on Amsterdam Avenue a few weeks ago with my coworker, Ken, on a Friday afternoon after work. It was a little bit awkward, not quite knowing what to say to each other, and not being entirely comfortable in the not knowing, but it was lovely too, and we are both clearly fond of walking around this crazy city, looking at things, keeping an eye on things, holding and replenishing in our heads a picture of this place we so love. I pointed out to him my favorite sign in the whole world, and he admired it accordingly, and teased me about the fish, and etcetera, and etcetera. And then a week later we were again walking up Amsterdam towards 125th street, and suddenly Ken stopped, gawking, and I couldn't figure out what he was doing until I looked up and across the street. And my heart sank. My beloved sign had vanished, covered over in cheap siding, gone in a flash, modernized, and oh so horribly.
I am eternally grateful that Nathan convinced me to buy my beloved digital camera those months ago, and so very glad that I've been able to take pictures, however badly, of the world around me, keeping a back-up of sorts for this swiss cheese memory of mine. And I am grateful that I have people like Ken to observe this world of ours with me, and keep an eye on the comings and goings of the history so deeply imbedded in the very bricks at the root of this city; grateful that there are people in my life I can turn to and say, "That was there. I know it was. I know you saw it, too."
Friday, August 10, 2007
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
where i've been wasting my time today
Yet another harry
Freakonomics the blog: I recently, finally, got around to reading Freakonomics the book, which Chris gave me for Christmas or for my birthday or something or other a few years back. I was thrilled to see that one of the chapters, about why so many crack dealers live at home with their mothers, focused on the research of one Sudhir Venkatesh, once a graduate student at University of Chicago and now a Columbia faculty member for whom we have provided reserves readings. Yay.
The world clock, courtesy of Richard
A tornado hit Brooklyn this morning. Seriously. And apparently the morning commute was hell. It took one of my staff members over five hours to get to work. That's commitment.
Freakonomics the blog: I recently, finally, got around to reading Freakonomics the book, which Chris gave me for Christmas or for my birthday or something or other a few years back. I was thrilled to see that one of the chapters, about why so many crack dealers live at home with their mothers, focused on the research of one Sudhir Venkatesh, once a graduate student at University of Chicago and now a Columbia faculty member for whom we have provided reserves readings. Yay.
The world clock, courtesy of Richard
A tornado hit Brooklyn this morning. Seriously. And apparently the morning commute was hell. It took one of my staff members over five hours to get to work. That's commitment.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
follow-up to anonymity
This morning the deli man refused to take my dollar bill, three nickels, and a dime. When I tried to insist, he said that everyone deserves a free coffee now and then. I accepted gratefully and dashed right back up the stairs.
I do so love this city.
I do so love this city.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
of bombs & abortion
According to some of our elected leaders, it's a good idea to threaten to bomb important Muslim holy sites, like Mecca and Medina, as a deterrent to Muslim extremists bombing us. When in doubt, escalate. This seems to me not all that different from suggesting that we pro-choicers should threaten to blow up the Vatican just because a few pro-life extremists would like to blow up abortion clinics.
Which brings me to my second topic of the day, and not the first time mentioned on this blog, nor probably unfortunately the last. Abortion. As in, who gets to decide. As in, Ohio Representative John Adams and his proposed legislation that would bring potential fathers into the decision-making process. Representative Adams has decided that men should have more of a say in determining whether a pregnancy should end in abortion or not. As he explains, "This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child."
I have no problem with this, on its surface, because in an ideal world, women and their partners would be making this difficult decision together.
But in the real world, of course, this is often not the case.
And in Adams' bizarre and twisted world, men should not be given more of a say, but rather should have the only say. In Adams' world, women would basically need permission slips from the fathers of their fetuses in order to obtain an abortion. The bill itself lists all the possibilities that would be forbidden, i.e. the woman cannot lie about the identity of the father, the woman cannot claim the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest without submitting court or police documents attesting to the rape or incest, the woman cannot claim that she does not know the identity of the father but must submit a list of her sexual partners in order for paternity tests to be performed, etc. But the clincher, the main point of the whole bill, is this:
When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus.
Didn't we already deal with this concept when the Supreme Court shot down spousal notification restrictions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey fifteen years ago? If women don't need to inform their husbands, how in the world is it feasible to even imagine requiring them to get permission from a one-night stand?
To quote the text-messaging generation, wtf?!?
Which brings me to my second topic of the day, and not the first time mentioned on this blog, nor probably unfortunately the last. Abortion. As in, who gets to decide. As in, Ohio Representative John Adams and his proposed legislation that would bring potential fathers into the decision-making process. Representative Adams has decided that men should have more of a say in determining whether a pregnancy should end in abortion or not. As he explains, "This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child."
I have no problem with this, on its surface, because in an ideal world, women and their partners would be making this difficult decision together.
But in the real world, of course, this is often not the case.
And in Adams' bizarre and twisted world, men should not be given more of a say, but rather should have the only say. In Adams' world, women would basically need permission slips from the fathers of their fetuses in order to obtain an abortion. The bill itself lists all the possibilities that would be forbidden, i.e. the woman cannot lie about the identity of the father, the woman cannot claim the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest without submitting court or police documents attesting to the rape or incest, the woman cannot claim that she does not know the identity of the father but must submit a list of her sexual partners in order for paternity tests to be performed, etc. But the clincher, the main point of the whole bill, is this:
When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus.
Didn't we already deal with this concept when the Supreme Court shot down spousal notification restrictions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey fifteen years ago? If women don't need to inform their husbands, how in the world is it feasible to even imagine requiring them to get permission from a one-night stand?
To quote the text-messaging generation, wtf?!?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
strange
It's a strange, strange world, this virtual world, when you read about the demise and fallout of your own relationship on someone else's blog. Thanks for the sweet words, Maia. And for being such an excellent neighbor and friend. I'm very much looking forward to seeing you next week. As long as Ilke's not along for the ride. She'd probably eat Nova in lieu of milkbones for breakfast and that would make me sad.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline... The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need?"
-Ayn Rand
-Ayn Rand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)