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.

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.

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.