"Republicans to Cities: Drop Dead"

How the G.O.P Became the Anti-Urban Party

This isn't a new idea by any stretch, but it is informative and essential towards understanding the mentality of many national Republicans.








For many Republicans, cities have been cesspools of decay and moral corruption since the 1920s - and so long as they see cities, and the people who live in them, in this fashion, naturally they are going to be hard-pressed to  get any votes from urban dwellers. Further, as the article points out, they are going against the grain; urban living has been rising since the 90s, and especially with the 'Great Recession' in 2008, city life is becoming even more attractive, as people realize that they cannot live so far away from cities and still expect to work. The country is centralizing, finally, and we are all returning to cities. When you speak to anyone in my generation, ask them where they want to live, and they'll give you a list - and I'll bet you anything that list will be composed of nothing but cities, large or small.

Given how odious I find many (national) Republican policies, whether on an economic or social level, I am not displeased to see this. Let them keep their rural districts, their suburbia - in short, where life is simply boring, with nothing to do. Growing up in places like that, no wonder many Republicans are filled with so much hate and vitriol; they simply had wayyy too much time on their hands.

Article written by Kevin Baker, and published by the New York Times.

California Recognizes There is No Cure for Being Gay

California Bans Therapies to 'Cure' Gay Minors

It's about damn time. It's also fitting that the state which is the home of the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality would be the first to ban such practices. Young homosexuals have enough trouble as it is, they don't need "therapy" designed to brainwash them on top of it.

Article written by Erik Eckholm, and published by the New York Times.

The Purpose of Memory is to Remember, Not Relive

With Tattoos, Young Israelis Bear Holocaust Scars of Relatives

I strongly support the right of people to get whatever tattoo they desire, even if said tattoo would shock or offend others.

That said, I feel this practice is taking the "cult of remembrance" regarding the Holocaust yet another step too far. As Jonathan Ornstein said to me before I left Krakow, "Judaism as a religion has always encouraged people to move on, to not wallow in our grief. By constantly memorializing the Holocaust in this way, we risk constantly reliving it, not just remembering it." He was referring to the March of the Living, but I feel that this practice follows in the same category. It's one thing to want to signify or remember your family member's sacrifice and memory, it's quite another to say this:

“All my generation knows nothing about the Holocaust,” said Ms. Sagir, 21, who has had the tattoo for four years. “You talk with people and they think it’s like the Exodus from Egypt, ancient history. I decided to do it to remind my generation: I want to tell them my grandfather’s story and the Holocaust story.”

Our generation, whether in the States or Israel, knowing nothing about the Holocaust? Where did this kid go to school?  While in Israel, I saw nothing but reminders about the Holocaust - after all, it is the primary reason why Israel was founded, and why many Jews say we need a Jewish state, in order to ensure that the Holocaust doesn't happen again. I'd say that the odds of us forgetting about the Holocaust anytime soon is quite simply an over-reaction.

Should we forget about the Holocaust? Fuck no. But do we, as a people, need to move on? I'd say so.

Article written by Jodi Rudoren, and published by the New York Times.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Seeking Return of Art, Turkey Jolts Museums

This isn't a new issue by any stretch, but Turkey is calling for the return of archeological treasures which it claims are rightfully theirs, with statements like these to both back up their claims, and intimidate museums:

“Artifacts, just like people, animals or plants, have souls and historical memories,” said Turkey’s culture minister, Ertugrul Gunay. “When they are repatriated to their countries, the balance of nature will be restored.”

It strikes me that Turkey has a lot of gall to wage a campaign like this; they are leaning on an Ottoman-era law to get these pieces back, when it was Ottoman authorities who would often sell artifacts to foreign collectors in the first place. Further, they are claiming that any piece which was taken from Ottoman territory belongs to them - which conveniently protects items in their own museums which were taken from other countries, then under Ottoman control. Not only is it galling that they use such a double standard, but it is against the standards they agreed to under the banner of UNESCO. If Turkey succeeds in these cases, then any nation can claim any archeological treasure, anywhere - so long as it belonged to their state at some point, in this past. So does this mean that Italy can demand the return of all Roman antiquities?

This is bullshit, and I agree with the author wholeheartedly when he ties it together with Turkey's rising status as a powerful state in the Middle East. It is easiest to flex your muscles in the cultural realm, especially when you play on Western guilt regarding past colonial and imperial ventures - while conveniently forgetting your own.

Oh, and Mr. Gunay? Artifacts, plants, and animals don't have souls or historical memories; we created them for these objects, in every case.

Article written by Dan Bilefsky, and published by the New York Times.

Jamaica Bay Is Rising!

City and Federal Officials Will Jointly Manage Jamaica Bay

Awesome news from this past July - Jamaica Bay is a wonderful and beautiful place, and deserves greater awareness and dedication from the government. Lord knows it already has the individual dedication -  right, Dad?

The Declining American Empire?

Today were two articles in the NY Times' Op-Ed discussing the recent outbreak of anti-American feelings in the Middle East, dealing heavily with the "Innocence of Muslims" video. The first article uses Salman Rushdie and the laughter associated with the Newsweek cover 'Muslim Rage' to point out why we really need to simply stand our ground:

The Satanic Video

While another article points out why the US needs to become accustomed to the fact of its status as a declining empire:

America's Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East

I agree with the idea that the US should not apologize for its culture - I actually agreed with what Romney said, that we should stand for our way of life. Unfortunately, he said it with crappy rhetoric and the worst timing possible. Freedom of Speech is one of the best defenses against tyranny, and we should not give it up, or turn our backs on it, simply because some people get pissed off by it. Obama's response was diplomatic, to be sure, but I would have liked it to include a small explanation about how American society functions - and that the government cannot (and absolutely should not) shut down freedom of expression, even if the persons in question are idiots.

The second article was inevitable - since 9/11, everyone has enjoyed pointing out that the American Empire is on its way towards collapse. This has included me on occasion, I admit. It definitely includes everyone in the Univ. of Toronto History Department - which is rather amusing, given how much Canada benefits from American imperialism, but I digress. The author makes a comparison between the evacuation of Saigon in 1975 with the US' withdrawal from Libya - except it doesn't work. The US retreated from Vietnam because there was no strategic reason to be there, except stop the "spread of Communism" - which by then we had realized was never going to be the case. Vietnam had no economic benefit to require an American presence - while the Middle East definitely does. That was why we went into Iraq, and why we will continue to maintain a visible presence in the Middle East for decades to come, with the accompanying cost. The author is right, however, in stating that the US has really screwed up in the Muslim world during the past 20 years, and clearly pointed out the folly of following colonialist imperialism in a post-colonial world.

What I like about Obama in regards to foreign policy is his willingness to follow different models to enable American success - but those different models should not include apologies for free speech or other protected American rights.

Salman Rushdie really put it best when he was on the Daily Show last week - the US needs to stand up for its intellectuals and artists, regardless of how good (or bad) they are. Further, John Oliver made a funny point that the Muslim world is the same today as Christianity was 600 years ago - the latter got out of it eventually, and the former will do the same. We may never see Mohammed depicted on a box of Wheaties or in a sliced tomato, but every religion gets a sense of humor eventually. We just have to be patient, stand up for ourselves when necessary, and cooperate - while never forgetting that we forged an American Empire for a damn good reason.

"The Satanic Video" was written by Bill Keller, and published by the New York Times. "America's Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East" was written by Pankay Mishra and also published by the NYT.

On Europe's Last Dictatorship

Belarus - A Prison For Those Who Live There

A very moving op-ed describing the situation in Belarus, written by Andrej Dynko, the editor in chief of Nasha Niva, a weekly newspaper in Belarus. The article is a poignant rebuttal to the false sense of hope regarding Belarus held by many in the EU government - Mr. Dynko points out how entrenched Lukashenko is in power. Dynko effectively criticizes the ineffectiveness of "symbolic acts" by pointing out how they fit into the dictator's methods of holding on to power. Further, Mr. Dynko makes a damning accusation by the end of the article - Belarus is merely a prison for 9 million people, with conditions in society reflecting that which political prisoners find in jail. A damning portrayal of a country which needs concerted change, quickly.

The article was written by Andrej Dynko, and translated by Julia Sherwood. Published by the New York Times. 

Israeli’s Act of Despair Disheartens a Movement

Really?

I didn't like the NYT coverage on this story - it looks like the author is purposefully misrepresenting a genuine sense of shock and moral responsibility as being "disheartened" by Moshe Silman immolating himself. The statements the respondents in the article sounds, to me, merely that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and how Mr. Silman's act ups the ante for the movement as a whole - I'd hardly say they are disheartened. If anything, they seem more determined.

What is far more intriguing about this article is the description of how the movement is receiving far less support from the Israeli press - in fact, many newspapers who were once their supporters are now fighting against them. The author gives a good deal of sympathy to the newspapers, and much less to the movement that once had the former's support. So much for unbiased reporting.

Article written by Isabel Kershner, and published by the New York Times.

Denis Leary: Prophet?

U.S. Priority on Illegal Drugs Debated As Pill Use Rises

The stats are staggering - in the US, cocaine was used by 1.5 million people, and heroin by 220,000 - but over 7 million people abused prescription drugs in the past year. While this hardly qualifies as a staggering fact, the release of this new data came at the same time when many outspoken officials on both sides of the debate have condemned the War on Drugs as a failure. The article quotes NJ governor Christie as agreeing with this statement, and even Pat Robertson, who as symbol of morality (for better or for worse) has condemned the prosecution of small amounts of marijuana, and has even joined the campaign to have it treated like alcohol. Further, the newly elected president of Mexico has clearly stated that his priority will be social treatment, rather than new efforts at law enforcement; he has further stated that he dislikes the US' strategy of ending drug use through enforcement, rather than looking at their own problem.

For me, the article allowed the formation of an image in my mind - specifically, will I see the day where there is no longer a War on Drugs? I don't think it's coincidental that so many voices have joined together to condemn this war, which has so little benefit - and if anything, is only encouraging the problem.

Finally, the tagline to this post is a reference to Leary's routine regarding legal drug use - in No Cure for Cancer, he jokes about how one can abuse legal drugs and get as good as, or in some cases, a better high off the legal stuff than you can on the illegal - and it's far easier to obtain, to boot. Further, I think the number the article quotes regarding the abuse of prescription drugs is lower than it is in actuality; does that number include the abuse of drugs like ritalin and adderall, which is becoming increasingly prevalent among students, as described by a recent NYT article?

We should simply end this War, and accept the consequences of that decision. I think it is possible to transition to an actually free society, where people can utilize whatever substances they like, as people use alcohol and tobacco now - with the caveat of a high tax on your pleasure. The abuse of prescription drugs is just as bad as abusing heroin, cocaine, or marijuana; the only difference is that drug companies have legitimate representatives and lobbyists in Congress.

Article written by Damien Cave & Michael S. Schmidt; published by the New York Times.

The Difficulties of Making Friends

Why Is it Hard to Make Friends Over 30

While a lot of this article was clearly not meant for me, nevertheless I found it illuminating, as well as enjoyable. Much of the article revolve around marriage and children - two aspects of life which don't apply to me, naturally, but given that many of my friends are either married or in relationships akin to marriage, it did help to explain some of their behavior. Specifically, the concept of having to find friends "as couples" - probably showing off some of my own ignorance, but that part made no sense to me. Why can't you find (or make) friends on your own? That said, given how often I move around, the article appealed to me personally in many ways, though I did have a number of criticisms.

What the article said about careers being all-consuming was fascinating to me, especially since I have met so many people over the years who fall into that category; I certainly don't. I suppose because of my own approach to my career, I have found it difficult to relate to people who cannot make friends due to their own careers. Ditto on people who have "set" social groups - why eschew making new friends just because you seem like you have enough? In any case, it was good to see a different perspective, and to try to understand that aspect a bit more.

The part that really appealed to me was simply the challenge of making new friends when everyone around you already seems like they're set for friends. This was the experience I had in Toronto when I first moved there, and to say that I didn't like it would be an understatement. It was a similar experience for me in college also; it was difficult to make new friends (outside of the Polish Club) after the first year because everyone had their friends already made. My first year in college was a catastrophe in many ways, and I was keen to move on from it. Since I was walking around with not nearly as many friends, however, I stood out, or at least felt that I did. I also haven't held on to most of the friends I made in college; sure, I'm in contact with many of them, but they were definitely what the article called "situational friendships". Going away for a year from Toronto also revealed some of my close friends as instead being somewhat situational, but after Rochester I expected that.

This brings me to a major criticism I had of the article; it does not dwell nearly enough on how people make it hard for themselves to make new friends. In my experience, making friendships is a conscious choice, and what the article does is create excuse after excuse. Only once does it address the issue of people changing as they get older, and becoming less patient with people who are very different. For me, that is the key barrier to friendship - people are often lazy when it comes to making friends, or simply unwilling. That is the key problem in Toronto, and NYC also - people become so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change. Their lifestyles, whether unconsciously or by design, become so crowded that they cannot fit anyone new in. That sort of static lifestyle is dangerous, in my opinion - we need to be able to change. You never know when the life you've carefully crafted for yourself will come crashing down. The article addresses that, but only through divorce, and even then doesn't offer many alternatives.

My friends and friendships are really important to me, and from the article, it sounds like marriage makes it truly difficult to make new friends. I wonder if all marriages are so hostile to making new friends as the ones described in the article - if so, count me out! To be fair, I don't think marriage as a concept is to blame for this - I think how people approach their marriage and how it should impact their social life is the culprit. For me, a successful marriage is between two people with (close to) independent social spheres, in addition to the one they share together.

The article is courtesy of Rabbi Tyson's facebook feed. It was originally written by Alex Williams and published in the New York Times.

Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close

Milos Forman, director of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus”, responds.

"Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism"

An excellent rebuttal to the rhetoric used by Obama's detractors. Their tactics are cheap, and merely serves to reinforce the weakness of their own arguments; this is unfortunate, mostly because there are good arguments to use against Obama, but by using this rhetoric they diminish their own chances of success.

Forman goes further to say:

"What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody. 

Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players, desperately needs such unity. If all participants play fair and strive for the common good, we can achieve a harmony that eluded the doctrinaire socialist projects. But if just one section, or even one player, is out of tune, the music will disintegrate into cacophony." 

Well said. 

This opinion piece was written by Milos Forman,and published in the New York Times.

Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?

Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens

The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?

While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.

The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.

Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.

If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.

Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.

Should a Scandal Invalidate a Legacy?

Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters

The outcome of the investigation isn't what I'm thinking about; rather, what I am considering more is the idea, referenced often in this article, that Paterno's legacy is being actively undermined for his role in the scandal. My question is, does that legacy deserve to be brought down? It sounds like Paterno was a really good guy, a great symbol as well as a philanthropic figure. I merely find it sad that his legacy would (or maybe should?) be limited because of his role in this scandal.

I honestly don't know what to think - the vindictive part of my personality wants to see this guy pay for what he did. He knowingly covered up the sexual molestation of young boys, on what seems to be a regular basis. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was going on; this article and the other article in the NYT today makes that clear. He knowingly covered up for sexual molestation, so maybe he deserves to have his legacy torn asunder.

The other part of me argues for forgiveness, even of crimes like this. One aspect of this is a question of loyalty, and also the culture in which these men lived. We have forgotten that it used to be very common to cover up these kinds of acts, and that it wasn't part of American culture at all to report these sick crimes to the police. Further, it's obvious that Paterno felt a great degree of loyalty to Sandusky; far greater men than he have been blinded by loyalty before. Honestly, however, the idea of forgetting this crime, even in the face of his many accomplishments, sickens me.

I simply find it truly unfortunate that this scandal is going to destroy a man's legacy; everything else that he did over the course of his career is now going to be questioned or viewed through the prism of the Sandutsky scandal. And maybe it deserves to be. I would much prefer, however, a more nuanced view of a man; can we selectively salute someone's accomplishments, even in the face of their failures? We do that a lot in history - look at Andrew Jackson, or any American president, for that matter - but does that work in the present day?

Article written by Bill Pennington and Tim Rohan, published in the New York Times.

Thoughts About Moment, and Accusations of Racism

Everyone is still talking about what happened at Moment Sunday night, and likely will be talking about the incident for a while. At this point I support Moment, and am willing to cut the place a bit of slack. Talking about the issue in recent days, though, has brought up some considerations about incidents like this, and how I'm affected by the mere accusation of racism.

Personally, I was annoyed at myself at how quickly I initially rushed to judgment about Moment. I read von Steltmann's statement on the matter Monday morning, and I was ready to accept not only his word on the incident, but also ready to accept that an establishment I have patronized for a year was anti-Semitic. I was ready to never go to Moment again, and it wasn't for a few hours until I started really thinking about why I had made that judgment.

Let's think about that for a second - I was ready to jump ship and abandon Moment after only reading the word of some guy I never met, which was seconded by someone who I don't know particularly well. The mere accusation of anti-Semitism was enough to set me off - I didn't care about details, nor the other side of the story. For me, this is a problem - and I know I wasn't alone in jumping to this conclusion. In the end, I only opened my mind to other possibilities because I was prompted by friends, and thinking about the prospect of never going to Moment again.

This really got me thinking about how damaging a mere accusation can be - if the charge of anti-Semitism sticks to Moment, it could end as a business. At the very least, this would be greatly unfair. It also happens all the time. How many times has a business or a location been accused of anti-Semitism, and how often did I simply accept the charge? Many, many times - especially if it was seconded by the New York Times. Doing so was easy for me, because I didn't know the business in question. Now that it's hit so close to home, however, I thinking more about the ramifications of doing so, and I hope that, in the future, I engage in a bit more critical thinking before rushing to judgment.

It also got me to thinking about what constitutes anti-Semitism. Specifically, what makes an establishment anti-Semitic? I think we need to be far more careful with how we use that word, especially as Jews. One of the amazing things that has happened to Jews since WWII is that the societies in which we live fight along with us against discrimination and anti-Semitism, especially in the U.S. and Canada. This has not happened often in history, and I fear we might be taking this for granted. We also have to recognize the power this label has, and not to use it lightly - especially since in many places, when it comes to this issue our word is accepted so readily, by non-Jews and Jews.

So no, one incident does not make an establishment anti-Semitic. In the case of Moment, it's continuous support of minorities needs to be taken into account. For others without such a reputation, I think we need to think twice before throwing around such a label. We have power in this field, and I think we're in danger of abusing it - if we haven't done so already. Lord knows way too many Jews play the "Jew Card". But that's a whole other post entirely.

Yeah, Andersoon Cooper Waited Too Long

Love Among the Spuds: Tammy Baldwin's Senate Run in Wisconsin

Great article giving a vignette of Tammy Baldwin's campaign for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin. If she is elected, she will be the first openly gay Senator in history - and what is remarkable about her run is just how little the "issue" of her sexual orientation matters. This is fantastic - of course, you expect that from a state like Wisconsin, who has had both openly gay Democrat and Republican legislators at the state and federal level. But I liked what the article had to say about how the times are changing, that sexual orientation is becoming increasingly seen as a non-issue.

Really, this is the best thing to expect from rising tolerance - you don't need people dancing around with Rainbow stickers everywhere, you just need a person's background to become a non-issue, to be accepted without question. It'll be a long time before this attitude extends beyond states like Wisconsin, but it's a good start nevertheless.

It also brought to mind something that Malgosia said to me last week, when I was talking about Anderson Cooper's article about officially coming out. She didn't understand why it was a big deal, and here the article's author, Frank Bruni, echoes her sentiment - it wasn't a big deal, because you have Ellen DeGeneres as a J.C. Penny spokesman. Cooper waited far too long.

But I can see why Dan Savage hasn't picked up on Baldwin's run - she isn't a gay rights activist. Savage does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to supporting openly gay politicians; if they're not loudly outspoken on the issue of gay rights, he doesn't hear about them at all.

Even if Baldwin loses, I find it remarkable and heartening that her sexual orientation doesn't mean a damn thing. 



Article written by Frank Bruni and published in the New York Times.