June 22, 2009 by Mel Weiss
It is a well-publicized time for your country to be in the news, if it begins with “i” and is located in the Middle East. (My apologies to India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iceland and Ireland. There is much of note going on in your interesting sovereign states as well, but I’m pressed for time.)
I think it goes without saying that the incredible and still very much unfolding series of events in Iran are very much on everyone’s mind. (For an amazing example of this “citizen journalism” everyone’s talking about, read this intense reporting from Saturday’s protests.) There has been a gratifying amount of coverage about how—and how much—this revolution will change the roles women can play in Iranian society. If you’re looking for a good distillation, I’d recommend Roya Hakakian’s recent interview. Hakakian, a Jewish Iranian who’s been covering Iranian-American issues for a variety of sources for some time, points out that the more Iranian men have and continue to understand their rights as intertwined with those of Iranian women, the stronger the movement will be.
Meanwhile, news cycles march on everywhere. The State Department released a report on human trafficking around the globe; unfortunately, not much has improved in Israel since visited the issue a few years ago. Israel remains a tier-two country, and the report singles out the lack of victim services (shelter, medical, psychological, etc.) as the most pressing need. You can download the report here. Meanwhile, New York’s junior senator is proposing a plan to get infertility treatments much more widely covered by insurance policies, much as they are in Israel. (Having learned so much about the sometimes debilitating side-effects of hyper pro-natalism from Barbara Gingold, I’m interested in seeing where this leads. New York is as totally broke as any other state, of course, so this may all lead nowhere quite quickly.)
While the Mac folks develop the inevitable iCountry app (ten points to the person who best describes such a thing), the actual I-countries keep us on our toes.
–Mel Weiss
June 10, 2009 by Mel Weiss
In my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, sometimes, once the bloom begins to fade from a new relationship, it can be easy to feel…well, maybe a little disappointed. You and your co-relationship person might disagree on something, or they disappoint you somehow, and you just feel the magic seeping away. When you’re lucky, you and your relationship can catch a second wind: you can fall into that second honeymoon, get all impressed all over again, and remember why you felt as strongly as you did.
So with that clunky metaphor of an introduction—did you see or hear or read President Obama’s speech in Cairo? I know, it’s really long, but if you haven’t taken a moment (hour) to listen in, I strongly suggest you do. At least take in the highlights. A new day has dawned, and you don’t want to be left behind.
If you haven’t heard the speech, let me just say this—it’s a shocker. President Obama hits point after point of foreign policy common sense that no one in her right mind ever expected to hear from a politician’s mouth. Israel must abandon settlements; Palestinians must abandon violence. We helped overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953. The Holocaust, 9/11 and torture by American forces are all facts for the record, not up for debate nor subject to semantic contortions. (Speaking of semantics, our president’s Arabic accent is just lovely.) Obama also made a powerful declaration of women’s rights, during which you could see Secretary Clinton looking on. The whole moment was extremely profound.
For everyone who waded through the stinking piles of hateful and xenophobic fear-mongering during the election season (“He’s a Muslim, which means he’s a terrorist!”) and hoped and prayed for the lunacy to stop—it’s not a done deal, but what a start. The speech ended with wise words from the Quran, the Talmud and the New Testament, reminding us all that religion can bring us together, too.
–Mel Weiss
June 9, 2009 by Maya Bernstein
CalTrain, which runs from San Jose to San Francisco, zooms by the corner of East Meadow and Alma, about five blocks from our house, numerous times a day. It stops about two miles north and three miles south of that corner. When I go to work at my office in San Francisco, I bike the two miles to University Avenue, to take the bullet train. I love every aspect of the commute. The train represents the best of civilization – a common good that benefits the earth, society, and its individuals, and runs with efficiency, speed, and trust. My time on the train is sacred – conducive to writing poetry, connecting over the phone with friends and family, getting work done, or, simply, staring out the window, lost in the motion of thought.
My daughters love the train, too. We often have to cross the busy intersection at Alma and East Meadow, either in the car, on the way to school or music class, or in the double-stroller, me on roller-blades, on the way to the “sprinkler park,” a popular spot in the summer heat. My three-year-old is always on the lookout for trains, which she can hear coming by its bellows and whistles, and the cling-cling-cling of the red and white arms, which lower to prevent cars and pedestrians from approaching the tracks. Whenever we see a train, she shouts: “It’s my lucky day!” and we sing the “choo-choo” train song. Late at night, when it’s quiet, we sometimes hear the train from our bedroom; I have always found it to be a soothing, joyous sound.
This week, work took me to Los Angeles for the day. Driving home from the airport, where I had parked the car, I signaled my right blinker, planning to make the turn from Alma to East Meadow, so close to home! Flashing blue and red police lights jarred me into the realization that the intersection was closed, and that, no, I hadn’t imagined it, and had in fact just passed a train, which stood silent, frozen, ablaze from within, a hiding behemoth on the tracks. Fire-trucks and police cars blocked the intersection, where, because of an interminable red light, I was forced to sit and wait. I looked. A dark shape, covered, lay on the street, a few feet from the tracks. It was strangely silent. Nothing was in motion. The light turned green and I drove on, out of my way, to cross the tracks at the next block, and then circle back home.
That night, a 17-year old teenage girl had committed suicide by stepping onto the tracks in front of an oncoming train. She was the second teen suicide, a student at nearby Gunn High School, to die in that spot in a month. Last night, a mother successfully talked her son out of stepping in front of a train in the same spot, while an emergency meeting for parents was taking place on at a local community center.
The past few days I have been trying to block out the sound of the train. When I close my eyes, I see its bright lights, and feel its enormous weight, its unstoppable power. The battles I have been having with my daughter about whether or not she can take her favorite toys to school feel frighteningly insignificant, and I shudder when my babysitter laughs when I recount them, sighing – “little children, little problems; big children, big problems.” And when I pick up my daughter from school, I quietly hope that we won’t see a train, lest we stop by the tracks, lest I have to answer her questions about the flowers and bears and signs placed by their side, lest I hear her cheerful voice, gleefully shouting, “It’s my lucky day!”
–Maya Bernstein
June 1, 2009 by Mel Weiss
There were obviously big things afoot this past week, what with President Obama announcing his first Supreme Court nominee. If you are of a slightly wonkish persuasion, then perhaps you meditated on what it might mean for Secretary of State Clinton to have spoken very firmly to the Israeli leadership about curtailing the growth of settlements. A doctor known as an abortion provider was killed. And all this above the steady hums of Iraq, Guantanamo, healthcare, recession.
So pardon me using this space to briefly highlight two minor blips on the news screen that are, in their own way, pretty heartening. Timely and interesting, too—but their power to make us feel a little better about the world is much in demand.
First, local press got great coverage, most of which was not picked up nationally, of the post-Prop 8-court-decision protests. San Francisco’s protest was especially dramatic, resulting in a number of arrests for disrupting traffic. Apparently, the first arrested were local clergy, including Rabbi Sydney Mintz of Congregation Emanu-El of San Francisco, who, as she was led off in wrist cuffs, said, “It’s the right thing to do.” Talk about a role model.
Second, and perhaps even less glamorous, is the launch of a new and amazing fusion of labor and Middle Eastern politics. Meet TULIP—Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine, whose website not only provides information about the organization (which basically seeks to advocate for a two-state solution with strong co-operative unions) but also provides media that re-frames so much about the conversation, shifting almost entirely to an economic view of the conflict and related labor initiatives. Read the articles and reports they provide, and re-vision the power of workers. It’s pretty amazing.
Blips worth noting, no?
–Mel Weiss
June 1, 2009 by Maya Bernstein
On Tuesday morning, my small office’s regular staff meeting took place in the plaza in front of the Supreme Court building in San Francisco, under a chuppah, amongst hundreds of waving rainbow “marriage” signs. We were awaiting the news from the court about Prop 8, which, in November of last year, banned same-sex marriage in the state of California, after it had been approved by the justices in May, 2008. Though expectations were not high that the court would reverse the ban, the mood in the plaza was hopeful, joyous, and full of anticipation.
That morning, I’d had a fight with my three year old. I didn’t know that one could fight with a three year old until I became a parent of one. We fought about the washcloth. I keep a washcloth beside the sink in the girls’ bathroom. I use it to wash the yucky stuff out of their eyes and the crust from around their mouths (a casualty of the pacifiers), each morning. Now, this is a good washcloth. It prevents the waste of many tissues (which saves trees!) But it must be used appropriately. I use only a very small corner at a time, so that it can be re-used, and, most importantly, can dry quickly. Because if it gets too wet, it begins to emit a nasty, damp washcloth smell. Then it is a bad washcloth. The smell, like the ring in The Cat in the Hat Comes Back, sticks to everything it touches, including fingers, dolls, shoes, and toothbrushes. I find myself doing a load of laundry just to clean it. That wastes water, which is very bad for the trees. So, you will understand why, when, that fateful morning, my three year old was at the sink, cold water rushing around her, the washcloth soaked, dropping torrents of water on the counter, the floor, and the baby, I was not a happy mother. I know, and knew even then, that I should praise her for her independence. And talk calmly. But I grabbed the washcloth. And berated her. And gave her a time-out. And she cried, and I yelled, and a door got slammed. And I went to work with shame in my heart, and stood, in the hot sun, with people shouting, “we want justice,” thinking about my daughter.
The court upheld the ban while preserving the 18,000 marriages made between May and November of last year. The crowd immediately mobilized. It boo-ed. It chanted “shame on you.” And then a man with a megaphone organized a march, shouting out street directions, as people, peacefully, full of emotion, hand in hand, began to walk in protest. I was overwhelmed. If a passionate crowd of brutally disappointed people could respond civilly, its dignity intact, then why was I losing it over a washcloth?
My friend lent me a book: “How to Talk So Kids will Listen, and Listen so Kids will Talk” by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish. I liked the first sentence very much: “I was a great parent before I had children.” I read the first chapter, and, the next morning, the protests were more peaceful, from both our ends. We’ll see. In the meantime, I keep marching.
–Maya Bernstein
May 20, 2009 by Maya Bernstein
A close friend of mine has a box in a chest in her house. It is filled with her grandmother’s Christmas Tree ornaments – delicate, hand-picked, beloved pieces. Golden orbs and shining stars, heavy ceramics and light, painted glass. The ornaments have been passed down through her maternal line for generations. She has no idea what to do with them. Her father is Jewish, and she was raised in an interfaith home, going to Hebrew school, and celebrating Christmas with her grandparents. When she married her husband, a Jewish man, she decided to convert; though she considered herself Jewish, she wanted to be accepted as a Jew throughout the Jewish community. She no longer celebrates Christmas, but remains very close to her mother and her grandparents. Recently, she and her husband adopted a beautiful little girl from China, and they are raising her in a Jewish home. She already has my friend’s twinkle in her eye, and her adopted father’s laugh. My friend and her husband also create opportunities for her to connect to her birth country and culture. But they have no idea what to do with that box of ornaments.
What is the legacy that we pass on to our children? How much do we get to decide? And, despite our intentions, how much of that legacy will bring them fulfillment and joy? How much will they have to work hard to reject, to find their own space in the world?
Another friend of mine was telling me about his Vision Quest – a multi-day journey in the wilderness, during which, after many years, he finally shed himself of the fear of failure that his father passed on to him from his father, and from his father before. He is now beginning a new career path, and shared that finally, after many years, no longer has terrible anxiety.
When we raise our own children, is it possible to do so with a heightened awareness of the undercurrents of the patterns and values and traditions that were passed on to us, and which have shaped our own lives? Is it possible to change what we felt was harmful, and accentuate that which brought us joy? Or do the patterns, like the genes we pass on, shining ornaments we wish we could lovingly pick, inadvertently fall from our own trees to delicately hang on the branches of our children? And will those ornaments, some which we so treasure, shine eternally, or, after an ephemeral glow, be stored in a box, opened each year, tears glistening, to remember that which will be left in the wilderness?
–Maya Bernstein
May 18, 2009 by Mel Weiss
I’d say if there are two things other than the economy and healthcare gripping the minds of the people around me, it would have to be
the truth—generally in regards to things like, Did the Speaker of the House know about memos approving torture and when did she know it? and what the @$#!*& happened in Afghanistan?—and… those who are out. Gays keeps racking up news cycles, not just because of the gay marriage wave sweeping the Northeast, but also because of renewed interest in DADT, the genius policy that has allowed thousands of able and willing United States soldiers to be removed from the military. (I love yelling back at the tv that Israel has been dealing with openly gay soldiers for years.) When Lt. Dan Choi—West Point graduate and Arab linguist—came out on the Rachel Maddow Show, he set in motion his own termination, recently served by letter. He’s not the only one. If that strikes you as absolutely absurd—as does the fact that the Obama administration has already decided not to deal with it right now—then really the only good news is that Jon Stewart agrees with you. That aside, it’s pretty ugly.
I have a minority opinion of the whole how-America-deals-with-gays thing—or a minority assessment, anyway. To my untrained mind, it seems that when government treats gay people differently than straight people, and does so without much by way of demonstrably factual basis, it’s following somebody’s religious code, and that’s really not okay with me. (Not that it should matter, but the fact that it’s not my religious code doesn’t help.)
Women are getting their fair share of attention, too. Secretary Sebelius’s new report on why the healthcare system particularly screws women deserves a read. (Did you know that women are not only 13% more likely to delay needed care, but that 43% of women go uninsured?) And it looks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg might get some female company on the bench; word on the street is that Obama is looking to appoint a woman to replace Justice Souter… though we’ll have to see what the minority has to say about that.
Sigh. Yes, we can…and um, maybe we will… Can we get back to you on that?
–Mel Weiss
May 7, 2009 by Maya Bernstein
I was struck by the first sentence of Peggy Orenstein’s article, Kindergarten Cram, in this past week’s New York Times magazine. She claims, and I believe her, to have “made the circuit” of kindergartens in her town. And Berkeley’s no small town, mind you. I had to immediately put down the article to dodge the guilt wave that arose and threatened to soak me, Sunday bagel and all. For, you see, I have never made such a circuit. In my defense, my daughter’s not yet in kindergarten. She’ll be in pre-K next year. And I’ve visited, ahem, one pre-school, aside from the one she currently attends because, cough cough, that’s where my cousin sent his girls, it’s close to home, it’s the cheapest option we could find, and, of course it aligns with our philosophy of pedagogy and life. And, obviously, we’re NOT going to choose a kindergarten based on cost or location or convenience. Obviously we’re going to make the circuit and choose the absolute best school for our child, a school where they compost and play and don’t give homework and don’t confuse the shape of the Hebrew letter “samech” with an octagon.
Marion Milner, in her book On Not Being Able to Paint, cited in Avivah Gottleib Zornberg’s The Particulars of Rapture, describes the process of doodling, and how difficult it is, while doodling, to prevent oneself from creating a recognizable object. She writes:
It seemed almost as if at these moments one could not bear the chaos and uncertainty about what was emerging long enough, as if one had to turn the scribble into some recognizable whole when in fact the thought or mood seeking expression had not yet reached that stage. And the result was a sense of false certainty, a compulsive and deceptive sanity, a tyrannical victory of the common-sense view which always sees objects as objects, but at the cost of something else which was seeking recognition, something that was more to do with imaginative than with common-sense reality.
This is what Orenstein fears is at risk in our children’s schools – those rich moments of chaos, of uncertainty about what is emerging – moments of imagination and potential. Homework is part of the world in which sees objects as objects, but at the cost of something else.
Is it possible, though, that we too are caught in the clutches of homework’s tyrannical victory of the common-sense view? When we as parents research ad-infinitum the best possible schools and programs for our children, diligently doing our homework, aren’t we attempting to turn the scribble of parenting into some recognizable whole? Aren’t we prey to the compulsive and deceptive illusion that if we make the circuits, and at least spare them from homework until fourth grade, we will spare our children the chaos and uncertainty that we so fear?
–Maya Bernstein
May 1, 2009 by Maya Bernstein
The baby has another new trick. She’s taken to screeching. I’m not sure if, unbeknownst to me, and against my explicit will, she has joined the 15 month-olds Trying to Pass as Screeching Monkey Competition (very prestigious, really!), and is in the final weeks of rigorous practice. If that is the case, I have no choice but to be proud of her, feigning impatience but privately delighted – my daughter, the best screeching monkey of them all. I have a nagging fear, though, that this is not the case, and that I have on my hands, simply, a screeching baby, awash in a new awareness of the world around her, passionately desirous of it, and hysterically frustrated that she cannot articulate her needs, and, even worse, that they are often denied. Couple that with the fact that her big sister is so annoyingly verbal, using words like “actually,” and “lather,” it’s no wonder she’s screaming, using all of her weapons, very well, I might add, in the war for her parent’s ears.
I was answering emails at work last week when an icon popped up at the bottom of my screen, distracting me. It said: Adobe Acrobat needs your attention. I couldn’t believe it. It was as difficult to ignore as one of the baby’s cries. You want a banana? I almost asked Adobe. A strawberry? It just looked back at me, silently screeching, needing me, begging me to click on it, to put down the phone or the dishes or the book, and give it both of my eyes, and a smile. Then I realized that it was an icon on my computer screen, and not my daughter, and, with slightly too much delight and a crescendoing evil laugh (which, yes, frightened my colleagues), I closed the box.
So much needs my attention. It has become like a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. I respond to the screeches in order of shrillness. I am especially baffled that our society’s response to this ill has been to create a culture of screeching monkeys. Facebook Status!!! Tweet Tweet Tweet! And, of course, the phenomenon of the Blogging Mom. Why are so many mothers, their time so delicate, their attention fraying and threadbare, giving their eyes and ears so completely to strangers? Are we all just screeching toddlers, desperately searching for the elusive word to express a need we cannot comprehend but which consumes us, the eternal need to be recognized, seen, heard, understood, and, finally, lifted up, and embraced?
–Maya Bernstein
April 30, 2009 by admin
The following is the blogger’s analysis and personal musing on seduction, inspired by Aviva Zornberg.
Yesterday’s Daf (Bava Kama 86) considers the question of whether a naked person can be embarrassed. The Talmud begins by quoting a Braita which states, “If one embarrasses someone while he is naked, he [the embarrasser] is liable, and embarrassing someone naked is not the same as embarrassing someone when he is clothed…. Our master said: If one embarrasses someone when he is naked, he is liable. But is a naked person capable of being embarrassed? (?ערום בר בושת הוא) Rather, this refers to a case where the wind has bunched up his clothes and a person comes and lifts his clothing further, thereby embarrassing him.”
The Talmud, although at first asserting that it is indeed possible to embarrass someone while that person is naked, goes on to question this assumption. As Rashi explains, “Since he does not care about walking around naked in front of others, what does he have to be embarrassed about?” Presumably a person who does not mind if others see him naked is immune to other people’s opinions of him, and is therefore not susceptible to embarrassment. The Talmud is then left with the question as to why the Braita taught that a person is indeed liable for embarrassing someone who is naked, and concludes that this was a person who was at first only partially naked. The embarrasser comes along and exposes him even further, and thus he is considered to be liable.