Yesterday I took my niece to the Met for the first time (for her, obviously). Even thought by the time I got her, I was warned that she was a bit cranky and whatever undertaking I was going to embark on was going to be on my head, all in all the trip turned out to be a truly memorable experience.
First of all, she loves riding the subway. By the end of the ride, at least half the car becomes her friends, waiving and playing peekaboo, or she decides to give loud and screeching orations by picking herself up in her stroller. Unlike adults, she loves gazing at the tunnel through the windows and looking at colored ads in the cars.
At the museum, she charmed everyone from security guards and cloak room attendants to a middle-aged Italian tourist who ignored the humongous organ and decided to strike a conversation with my little American Gnome. She herself loved the huge entrance hall with it's domed ceiling so much that she did a little twirl there. We rode the escalator (wheeee), saw a whole bunch of different musical instruments (toy), saw a few pictures of what my family refers to "widow with child" (baby), and then there was a chorus of happy screeches from the balcony of musical instruments all the way down to the arms and armor collection (if you were ever at the Met and know the general layout, you can really appreciate this one). Plus there was one more picture dubbed "baby" ( little Spanish prince), to which I felt compelled to add "no, a little boy with horsey".
Then we went to the roof and enjoyed the magnificent view of Central Park, along with the shrubs surrounding the balcony (flower). After being informed that she can not touch the strange metal cylinders with the sand on top, she felt it her duty to inform everyone upon observing those things "Yabitch, fuh!" There was an ever increasing demand for milk in the Greek gallery (all the Russian speaking people can really appreciate this one); then we had to pass through the "Arts of Oceania" (or a bunch of ugly idols), at the sight of which poor child got scared and had to be picked up. In my opinion, by the way, this was the best critique on these so called "arts". At the very end the whole experience was a bit spoiled by the fact that scatterbrained aunt forgot her "sosa" (pacifier) in her stroller, so, by the time the aforementioned stroller was retrieved from the coat check and after the repeated demands for sosa, there was a full blown rebellion on my hands (use your imagination).
Every outing with our little Golden Delicious brings me such joy! Two minutes looking at her twirling are worth every single diaper I have ever changed ( and I did plenty of those)!
Monday, August 27, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
A GOOD TEST FOR POLITICIANS
A few weeks ago the unending wait for the last Harry Potter had reached its peak. As a result, I couldn't really concentrate on any kind of half serious reading material and ended up justifying my Netflix fees by watching my DVDs in record time. The show I was going through at the time was Babylon 5.
Now, leaving aside personal love or deep dislike of the Sci Fi genre, the usual mediocre acting abilities you can expect from TV show actors, and the standard agitprop that always seeps our way from Hollywood, Babylon 5 is interesting in a sense that it has one cohesive story and two parallel mystery lines running through it that are engaging enough; but that is not why I mention this particular experience. What really caught my attention was a little development at the end of the second season.
One of the main characters in the show is an alien woman called Delenn. She comes from a race called Minbari, which, of course, is much superior to Earth on many different levels. Even though officially she is just an ambassador to B5, in reality she is a member of the ruling Grey Council, and her real mission is quite different. There is a prophesy of the terrible ancient enemy coming to destroy the galaxy, and humans and Minbari are destined to unite in fight against that enemy. More than that, the prophesy alludes to the fact that Delenn most probably will play a crucial role in that fight. So, believing herself destined for that important mission, Delenn plays a diplomat in order to start preparations for the war.
Later on, in order to breach the gap between humans and her race, she undergoes a painful transformation in order to become half-human. As a result, she is shunned by her own people who are unaware of the greater mission, and later on loses her seat on the Council, which is aware, but stops trusting the prophecy and Delenn.
To top all this off, she must somehow prove herself to the other ancient race, which is running the whole show. So, while trying to explain why she thinks the prophecy meant specifically her, what her true motives are in all this, and why she thinks she is not really full of arrogance, Delenn is faced with an unbearable situation: she might die, or her friend might die trying to protect her. She keeps insisting on protecting her friend and sacrificing herself. "This is my mission: life! It does not matter if it is one life or one billion; I have to protect it!" is her anguished reply. She is willing to die alone, ignobly, unacknowledged, without any kind or hero recognition just to protect another being; and by making that choice she proves that her intentions are pure and noble, and there is no arrogance and self-delusion.
Now, just imagine doing that to any aspiring politician!!! Let them forget laurels and do meaningless and boring job; let them experience disdain and physical discomfort; and in the end, let them prove that they are willing to sacrifice their life without any kind of acknowledgement in order to save just one human life! It boggles the mind, does it not?
Now, leaving aside personal love or deep dislike of the Sci Fi genre, the usual mediocre acting abilities you can expect from TV show actors, and the standard agitprop that always seeps our way from Hollywood, Babylon 5 is interesting in a sense that it has one cohesive story and two parallel mystery lines running through it that are engaging enough; but that is not why I mention this particular experience. What really caught my attention was a little development at the end of the second season.
One of the main characters in the show is an alien woman called Delenn. She comes from a race called Minbari, which, of course, is much superior to Earth on many different levels. Even though officially she is just an ambassador to B5, in reality she is a member of the ruling Grey Council, and her real mission is quite different. There is a prophesy of the terrible ancient enemy coming to destroy the galaxy, and humans and Minbari are destined to unite in fight against that enemy. More than that, the prophesy alludes to the fact that Delenn most probably will play a crucial role in that fight. So, believing herself destined for that important mission, Delenn plays a diplomat in order to start preparations for the war.
Later on, in order to breach the gap between humans and her race, she undergoes a painful transformation in order to become half-human. As a result, she is shunned by her own people who are unaware of the greater mission, and later on loses her seat on the Council, which is aware, but stops trusting the prophecy and Delenn.
To top all this off, she must somehow prove herself to the other ancient race, which is running the whole show. So, while trying to explain why she thinks the prophecy meant specifically her, what her true motives are in all this, and why she thinks she is not really full of arrogance, Delenn is faced with an unbearable situation: she might die, or her friend might die trying to protect her. She keeps insisting on protecting her friend and sacrificing herself. "This is my mission: life! It does not matter if it is one life or one billion; I have to protect it!" is her anguished reply. She is willing to die alone, ignobly, unacknowledged, without any kind or hero recognition just to protect another being; and by making that choice she proves that her intentions are pure and noble, and there is no arrogance and self-delusion.
Now, just imagine doing that to any aspiring politician!!! Let them forget laurels and do meaningless and boring job; let them experience disdain and physical discomfort; and in the end, let them prove that they are willing to sacrifice their life without any kind of acknowledgement in order to save just one human life! It boggles the mind, does it not?
Monday, August 13, 2007
SUBWAY TALES
Part 2
This one is short and sweet. I observed it about five years ago during the evening rush hour on either A, C, or E train.
Due to the above mentioned rush hour, the train was pretty full, and since it had bench seats, the seating space was even more limited, because even the skinniest Y chromosome carries have an uncanny ability to occupy at least a space and a half on those benches.
Diagonally from me the following tableau was taking place: a gentleman of the old school, about seventy five years old and in possession of a cane, was persistently trying to give up his seat to a pregnant woman in her early thirties, while the above mentioned Y (and, for that matter, X) chromosome carriers in their thirties and twenties were taking advantage of their seats by occupying themselves with weighty matters like newspapers, magazines and snoozing.
Despite the adamant protests of the pregnant lady, the old gentleman won the skirmish and proceeded to his destination hanging on to the pole with one hand and to his cane with the other, while the rest of the seated population blissfully continued with their very important matters at hand. Hurray for chivalry! It is still alive!
This one is short and sweet. I observed it about five years ago during the evening rush hour on either A, C, or E train.
Due to the above mentioned rush hour, the train was pretty full, and since it had bench seats, the seating space was even more limited, because even the skinniest Y chromosome carries have an uncanny ability to occupy at least a space and a half on those benches.
Diagonally from me the following tableau was taking place: a gentleman of the old school, about seventy five years old and in possession of a cane, was persistently trying to give up his seat to a pregnant woman in her early thirties, while the above mentioned Y (and, for that matter, X) chromosome carriers in their thirties and twenties were taking advantage of their seats by occupying themselves with weighty matters like newspapers, magazines and snoozing.
Despite the adamant protests of the pregnant lady, the old gentleman won the skirmish and proceeded to his destination hanging on to the pole with one hand and to his cane with the other, while the rest of the seated population blissfully continued with their very important matters at hand. Hurray for chivalry! It is still alive!
Friday, August 10, 2007
A LITTLE PS
MAZAL TOV, HARRY!
According to the "influential Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan" Harry Potter books are nothing more than Zionist ploy aimed at "disturbing young Muslim minds". So, Harry, and, by association, Joanne Rowling, Mazal Tov and welcome to the club!
According to the "influential Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan" Harry Potter books are nothing more than Zionist ploy aimed at "disturbing young Muslim minds". So, Harry, and, by association, Joanne Rowling, Mazal Tov and welcome to the club!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
BITTERSWEET
Last night I finished the last Harry Potter book. It may sound childish and corny, but that last page closed a chapter in my life.
My sister's gentle (about one year worth of) badgering opened the door. At the time Harry and I met, he already finished his fourth year at Hogwarts. I instantly fell in love with his world, and the amazing imagination of his creator and her wonderful sense of humor. Like everyone else, I had to suffer the three year waiting for the fifth installment, and the subsequent two years each for sixth and then the final seventh. In the interim, there were the usual heated discussions, musings, and loads of guessing; and, of course, constant re-readings.
Now that the saga is over and almost all the questions have been answered, so that we can compare notes and see who and when was right, there will be no more anticipation, no more waiting, no more British Amazon or mad dashes on Saturday night to book stores, there is a certain sense of loss. We will never say good buy to Harry; but the relationship will be different from now on, and that brings forth a bittersweet feeling.
Of course, as usually happens in the case of something very popular, everyone and their brother had to get on the bandwagon and express their opinion; and, as always, the predictability of the usual stupidity is amazing. For example, I do not know who first decided that JK took her ideas from Star Wars, but the idea stuck and every single critic felt it incumbent upon him or her to repeat it. Then there were the usual musings about supposed other sources, like Lord of the Rings, the discussions of why the books are so popular, the predictions of wherever or not they will survive after this generation, the critique of her writing style, mentionings that for some people reading her books is like being subjected to the Cruciatus curse, counting of the amount of cliches on every page, the phrase "her flatfooted dialogues", the suggestions that here she sacrifices the plot for character development and here she sacrifices character development for the plot, the learned scholars' discussions of what and how supposed to happen according to the cannons of classical literature and mythology, hints that she was lying about having the whole series in her mind beforehand and only writing them when her first books turned out to be so popular, et cetera, et cetera... The most fun ( at least for me) was provided by our Christian "brothers". From paralleling Harry to the late JC to accusing him of teaching witchcraft and occult to our children and everything in between, like predicting the future disobedience of children as a direct result of reading those books; let's just say it was very, very amusing.
I just feel like adding my two cents worth to all this. As I always maintained, liking or not liking of any kind of literary work is a purely personal and subjective thing; on the other hand, repeating somebody else's moronic opinions, usually without touching a book, is, well, moronic; plus it reminds me of the good old Soviet phrase: "I did not read, but I feel honor-bound to say..." Of course, the craziness will slow down a bit simply because there are no more books to look forward too; but surviving for the next few generations? Hell, yes. Classic or not? That will probably be decided in about hundred or so years, because, let's face it, "true classics" have to be at least that old and written by somebody dead. As for all the discussions of literary merit or the lack thereof, allow me to paraphrase the dialogue from one of my favorite BW movies. It was called "Love in the Afternoon" with Cary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn in the lead. Cooper's character keeps giving compliments to Hepburn's, to which she replies "I am too thin, and my ears are too big, and my teeth are crocked, and my neck is much too long" to which he replies: "That's true, but I like the way it all hangs together!" True beauty does not have to be symmetrical and perfect to give immense delight and sublime pleasure.
One of the main reasons, in my humble opinion, why these books are so unbelievably popular, aside from Rowling's unending imagination and humor, is their deep humanity. Everybody can relate to them and everybody can find some parallels to their lives in there. There are a lot of likable and admirable characters, but not one of them is perfect; they are all human, with their flaws, mistakes, and shortcomings. In our wonderful times of nihilism, modernism, post-modernism, general fascination with psychotics and perversions, moral relativism, and very strange definitions of when and how and under what circumstances does human life have value, how can a simple story about school for magic and its students attract attention and become a bestseller? The "childish" book about ordinary people with extraordinary talents living right next to us is fascinating enough; when you add to it the beauty of friendship, loyalty, selflessness, humility, innocence, heroism, love being "the deepest magic of all", and the morality tale of "our choices, not our abilities, which make us who we are", is it any wonder that everyone from seven to eighty seven years old can't get enough of the book?
My sister's gentle (about one year worth of) badgering opened the door. At the time Harry and I met, he already finished his fourth year at Hogwarts. I instantly fell in love with his world, and the amazing imagination of his creator and her wonderful sense of humor. Like everyone else, I had to suffer the three year waiting for the fifth installment, and the subsequent two years each for sixth and then the final seventh. In the interim, there were the usual heated discussions, musings, and loads of guessing; and, of course, constant re-readings.
Now that the saga is over and almost all the questions have been answered, so that we can compare notes and see who and when was right, there will be no more anticipation, no more waiting, no more British Amazon or mad dashes on Saturday night to book stores, there is a certain sense of loss. We will never say good buy to Harry; but the relationship will be different from now on, and that brings forth a bittersweet feeling.
Of course, as usually happens in the case of something very popular, everyone and their brother had to get on the bandwagon and express their opinion; and, as always, the predictability of the usual stupidity is amazing. For example, I do not know who first decided that JK took her ideas from Star Wars, but the idea stuck and every single critic felt it incumbent upon him or her to repeat it. Then there were the usual musings about supposed other sources, like Lord of the Rings, the discussions of why the books are so popular, the predictions of wherever or not they will survive after this generation, the critique of her writing style, mentionings that for some people reading her books is like being subjected to the Cruciatus curse, counting of the amount of cliches on every page, the phrase "her flatfooted dialogues", the suggestions that here she sacrifices the plot for character development and here she sacrifices character development for the plot, the learned scholars' discussions of what and how supposed to happen according to the cannons of classical literature and mythology, hints that she was lying about having the whole series in her mind beforehand and only writing them when her first books turned out to be so popular, et cetera, et cetera... The most fun ( at least for me) was provided by our Christian "brothers". From paralleling Harry to the late JC to accusing him of teaching witchcraft and occult to our children and everything in between, like predicting the future disobedience of children as a direct result of reading those books; let's just say it was very, very amusing.
I just feel like adding my two cents worth to all this. As I always maintained, liking or not liking of any kind of literary work is a purely personal and subjective thing; on the other hand, repeating somebody else's moronic opinions, usually without touching a book, is, well, moronic; plus it reminds me of the good old Soviet phrase: "I did not read, but I feel honor-bound to say..." Of course, the craziness will slow down a bit simply because there are no more books to look forward too; but surviving for the next few generations? Hell, yes. Classic or not? That will probably be decided in about hundred or so years, because, let's face it, "true classics" have to be at least that old and written by somebody dead. As for all the discussions of literary merit or the lack thereof, allow me to paraphrase the dialogue from one of my favorite BW movies. It was called "Love in the Afternoon" with Cary Cooper and Audrey Hepburn in the lead. Cooper's character keeps giving compliments to Hepburn's, to which she replies "I am too thin, and my ears are too big, and my teeth are crocked, and my neck is much too long" to which he replies: "That's true, but I like the way it all hangs together!" True beauty does not have to be symmetrical and perfect to give immense delight and sublime pleasure.
One of the main reasons, in my humble opinion, why these books are so unbelievably popular, aside from Rowling's unending imagination and humor, is their deep humanity. Everybody can relate to them and everybody can find some parallels to their lives in there. There are a lot of likable and admirable characters, but not one of them is perfect; they are all human, with their flaws, mistakes, and shortcomings. In our wonderful times of nihilism, modernism, post-modernism, general fascination with psychotics and perversions, moral relativism, and very strange definitions of when and how and under what circumstances does human life have value, how can a simple story about school for magic and its students attract attention and become a bestseller? The "childish" book about ordinary people with extraordinary talents living right next to us is fascinating enough; when you add to it the beauty of friendship, loyalty, selflessness, humility, innocence, heroism, love being "the deepest magic of all", and the morality tale of "our choices, not our abilities, which make us who we are", is it any wonder that everyone from seven to eighty seven years old can't get enough of the book?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
SUBWAY TALES
Part 1
Like every normal, red-blooded New Yorker, I spent at least two hours of every working day on the subway. As I mentioned before, New York subway is not just a mode of transportation; it is a constant source of entertainment and adventure. Here are some of mine.
I love riding the subway chiefly because this is my reading time. So, in order to maximize the enjoyment, I have to make sure to get a seat (at all times) and to insure that the AC is working (during the summer months). The latter is achieved by simply touching the poles (although I know I look totally demented while doing so). The former, on the other hand...That requires art, one of the applications of which is following: during rush hour (if you have time), do not, under any circumstances, take Brooklyn-bound train on any stop located in the heavy Midtown shopping areas (like 34th or 42nd Street). Instead, take a north bound train for a few stops, then you can board the train when it is less crowded, and you will be insured a comfortable ride back home. Q train makes this especially easy for the past few years, since it finishes its route on 57th Street and then goes back. So, if you are shopping in Macy's, take the uptown train, ride two stops backwards, wait a little while, and you are on your way back to less exiting borough, but in comfort.
Which is precisely what I was doing one nice winter evening. After semi-successful shopping excursion I got on the uptown Q on 34th Street, found a seat, and opened my book. At the time I was reading Othello. Now, as previously mentioned, I get very passionate about my reading material and very involved with the characters and story line. As the train was trundling towards 57th Street, I was deeply involved in Othello's tortured monologue about his love for Desdemona and his deep feeling of betrayal at the news of her supposed infidelity. The more I read, the more disgusted I became with the stupid idiot. Unfortunately, I can never keep a poker face and contain my feelings inside. So, I kept shaking my head, raising my eyebrows and muttering. At one point I proclaimed out loud: "Just over a handkerchief, you stupid idiot!"
Diagonally from me there sat a middle aged, mild mannered looking tourist, who kept staring at me with fascination and horror. Here it is at last, one of authentic New York loonies! I saw him fiddling with his camera strap; fortunately, he obviously was not sure if I am harmless enough to permit picture taking. So, I continued cursing Othello, and he continued to stare at me and play with his camera.
Finally, we arrived at 57th Street. Since I had already found a favorite perch, I ploughed on through the misadventures of the jealous Moor. The kindly tourist decided to take pity on me before leaving the train. He cautiously approached my bench, looked down and pointed at the door: "it's the last stop." "Yes, I know, thank you", was my response with a smile, then I bend my head to continue sympathizing with Desdemona. The poor guy gazed at me with renewed terror and quickly run out of the car.
Till this day I have no idea if he had regrets for not taking that souvenir shot.
Like every normal, red-blooded New Yorker, I spent at least two hours of every working day on the subway. As I mentioned before, New York subway is not just a mode of transportation; it is a constant source of entertainment and adventure. Here are some of mine.
I love riding the subway chiefly because this is my reading time. So, in order to maximize the enjoyment, I have to make sure to get a seat (at all times) and to insure that the AC is working (during the summer months). The latter is achieved by simply touching the poles (although I know I look totally demented while doing so). The former, on the other hand...That requires art, one of the applications of which is following: during rush hour (if you have time), do not, under any circumstances, take Brooklyn-bound train on any stop located in the heavy Midtown shopping areas (like 34th or 42nd Street). Instead, take a north bound train for a few stops, then you can board the train when it is less crowded, and you will be insured a comfortable ride back home. Q train makes this especially easy for the past few years, since it finishes its route on 57th Street and then goes back. So, if you are shopping in Macy's, take the uptown train, ride two stops backwards, wait a little while, and you are on your way back to less exiting borough, but in comfort.
Which is precisely what I was doing one nice winter evening. After semi-successful shopping excursion I got on the uptown Q on 34th Street, found a seat, and opened my book. At the time I was reading Othello. Now, as previously mentioned, I get very passionate about my reading material and very involved with the characters and story line. As the train was trundling towards 57th Street, I was deeply involved in Othello's tortured monologue about his love for Desdemona and his deep feeling of betrayal at the news of her supposed infidelity. The more I read, the more disgusted I became with the stupid idiot. Unfortunately, I can never keep a poker face and contain my feelings inside. So, I kept shaking my head, raising my eyebrows and muttering. At one point I proclaimed out loud: "Just over a handkerchief, you stupid idiot!"
Diagonally from me there sat a middle aged, mild mannered looking tourist, who kept staring at me with fascination and horror. Here it is at last, one of authentic New York loonies! I saw him fiddling with his camera strap; fortunately, he obviously was not sure if I am harmless enough to permit picture taking. So, I continued cursing Othello, and he continued to stare at me and play with his camera.
Finally, we arrived at 57th Street. Since I had already found a favorite perch, I ploughed on through the misadventures of the jealous Moor. The kindly tourist decided to take pity on me before leaving the train. He cautiously approached my bench, looked down and pointed at the door: "it's the last stop." "Yes, I know, thank you", was my response with a smile, then I bend my head to continue sympathizing with Desdemona. The poor guy gazed at me with renewed terror and quickly run out of the car.
Till this day I have no idea if he had regrets for not taking that souvenir shot.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
THE TRIUMPH OF MACARONI AND CHEESE
A few weeks ago I had a random discussion with one of my friendlier co-workers. Not surprisingly (since I just returned from my vacation/time with niece and nephew), we started discussing baby-sitters. I told him that my sister was in the process of looking for one, and one of the candidates recommended to her was usually working in Manhattan, hence her asking price for $20 per hour for two kids. I jokingly remarked that that was more than I was making, to which my sister remarked that I should think of a career change; my co-worker seconded the motion after I retold him this story.
That remark started an interesting discussion of its own. I replied that I am not dying to become a babysitter, because being responsible for somebody else's kids, especially tots, is not worth any amount of money. Plus, I added, working with their parents is usually no mean feat also. Since we were talking about Manhattan prices, he assumed that I was talking about Manhattan parents (even though I meant the ones in my sister's neighbourhood actually), and so he told me the following story.
He and his wife have family friends, who, though being of middle class income, somehow managed to land themselves digs in the Upper East Side. The "matriarch" of the family (let's call her Amy) is usually being snubbed by the other mothers of her children's classmates. To compound the situation (or to make it ironic), her older daughter is absolute bosom buddies, or BFF, with the daughter of the chief snubber, so to speak.
One time Amy was babysitting her daughter's friends after school (although there was some kind of fancy name for it, something like "family sharing", basically, it was free babysitting). When the "chief snubber" came to repossess her progeny, she naturally inquired what was served for lunch. Imagine her horror at the response "Mac and cheese"!!! "All those carbs!" Now she hates the poor Amy not just for being beneath her financially, but also for introducing her daughter to peasant, full of carbs, but actually beneficial to growing children, food (which her daughter, of course, loved).
Why did I chose to re-tell this story, which my sister actually dubbed "one of the saddest" she had ever heard? You see, the cynical and the misanthropic part of me thinks that the bosom buddies situation between these two girls is an aberration due to their young age, and in a few years, once they become teenagers, the daughter of the chief snubber will become the part of the coolest crowd and will drop Amy's daughter like the proverbial hot potato. The idealist and the unbeatable romantic in me, on the other hand, says no, this is not an aberration. These two girls like each other despite the general air of bourgeois snobbery all around them. So maybe, the disgusting chain of snobbery will be broken by them. They will truly be best friends forever, support each other through all the ups and downs of their lives, and share many more bowls of macaroni and cheese.
That remark started an interesting discussion of its own. I replied that I am not dying to become a babysitter, because being responsible for somebody else's kids, especially tots, is not worth any amount of money. Plus, I added, working with their parents is usually no mean feat also. Since we were talking about Manhattan prices, he assumed that I was talking about Manhattan parents (even though I meant the ones in my sister's neighbourhood actually), and so he told me the following story.
He and his wife have family friends, who, though being of middle class income, somehow managed to land themselves digs in the Upper East Side. The "matriarch" of the family (let's call her Amy) is usually being snubbed by the other mothers of her children's classmates. To compound the situation (or to make it ironic), her older daughter is absolute bosom buddies, or BFF, with the daughter of the chief snubber, so to speak.
One time Amy was babysitting her daughter's friends after school (although there was some kind of fancy name for it, something like "family sharing", basically, it was free babysitting). When the "chief snubber" came to repossess her progeny, she naturally inquired what was served for lunch. Imagine her horror at the response "Mac and cheese"!!! "All those carbs!" Now she hates the poor Amy not just for being beneath her financially, but also for introducing her daughter to peasant, full of carbs, but actually beneficial to growing children, food (which her daughter, of course, loved).
Why did I chose to re-tell this story, which my sister actually dubbed "one of the saddest" she had ever heard? You see, the cynical and the misanthropic part of me thinks that the bosom buddies situation between these two girls is an aberration due to their young age, and in a few years, once they become teenagers, the daughter of the chief snubber will become the part of the coolest crowd and will drop Amy's daughter like the proverbial hot potato. The idealist and the unbeatable romantic in me, on the other hand, says no, this is not an aberration. These two girls like each other despite the general air of bourgeois snobbery all around them. So maybe, the disgusting chain of snobbery will be broken by them. They will truly be best friends forever, support each other through all the ups and downs of their lives, and share many more bowls of macaroni and cheese.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
WANNABES
My native borough of Brooklyn, being not half as exiting as Manhattan, non the less can boast more strange characters running loose on its streets than the fair island itself; they are just different in their strangeness. For one thing, the northern part of Brooklyn is filled to capacity with what my sister nicknamed "Manhattan wannabes". They tried to imitate to the minute detail TriBeCa and Upper East Side combined ( and the real estate prices followed suite).
Not to be outdone, South part ( where yours truly resides) decided to follow suit, but in a slightly new direction. For one thing, where is a totally different ratio of hippies and yuppies to the general population; on the other hand, the ragtag band of the recent influx of immigrants (mostly illegal) is amply represented, my favorites being Muslims of any ilk and Russians (real ones, not Russian Jews). So, wannabes galore from all groups. There is only one problem: two cultural attributes of "in" neighbourhood are largely absent. Can you guess what they are, aside from the park? Trendy coffee shops, mainly Starbucks, and book superstores like Barnes and Noble.
To be fair to the denizens of my neighbourhood, I do not think a lot of them are pining for a book superstore. Coffee, on the other hand... In the absence of Starbie, here comes DD. The fact your you will be lucky if your "no sugar" would not be translatd into sickeningly sweet cup of weak joe does not usually deterr anyone. Every time you walk into one of them, you are guaranteed to see at least one bunch of strange (and sometimes smelly) characters discussing their business (shady or otherwise). Then, a few weeks ago, one dude pulled something totally hilarious (although at the time is was maddening, because he was right in front of me and holding up the line). That character ordered (ready for this) a caramel latte, 2/3 regular, 1/3 decaf, not too sweet, and some more specifications that I do not recall. Stupid idiot! Sure enough, about five minutes later he got something which was half regular, half decaf. He thought about it hard, left the store, came back and asked to add some more regular, because otherwise it was not strong enough; then he confounded it by asking for a very specific amount of cream! All he needed to do is not to pretend where he was, buy himself coffee (0r brew it at home), take the train, and then stop by Starbie on the way to work. This way, he was saving himself from about fifteen minutes lost in the morning rush, never mind the general disappointment. No, he wanted to pretend.
What really put me in the reminiscent mood was the following. There is a new "super luxury" condo attached ( and I mean glued to one wall) to my building. Due to the above mentioned glued wall, which successfully deprived some people of their windows, plus the amount of time the construction took, plus the prospect of the lost parking spaces, there was a certain amount of curiously attached to who eventually will occupy those condos.
Now, the contractor, being a true Brooklynite, had produced two "penthouse" suites on top of the "super luxury". That alone is hilarious: the best few from those penthouses would be the Verazzano bridge; the rest is a very panoramic view of South Brooklyn, slightly obscured by the church on the corner. So, finally, somebody bought the cheaper penthouse suite (the one attached to the above mentioned wall). Then, few weeks later, I observed something totally incredible: there was a whole bunch of laundry, including the unmentionables, drying on the line on the balcony of that penthouse! Here is something you would never see on Upper East Side!
Hurray for South Brooklyn!! Even our wannabes are one of a kind!
Not to be outdone, South part ( where yours truly resides) decided to follow suit, but in a slightly new direction. For one thing, where is a totally different ratio of hippies and yuppies to the general population; on the other hand, the ragtag band of the recent influx of immigrants (mostly illegal) is amply represented, my favorites being Muslims of any ilk and Russians (real ones, not Russian Jews). So, wannabes galore from all groups. There is only one problem: two cultural attributes of "in" neighbourhood are largely absent. Can you guess what they are, aside from the park? Trendy coffee shops, mainly Starbucks, and book superstores like Barnes and Noble.
To be fair to the denizens of my neighbourhood, I do not think a lot of them are pining for a book superstore. Coffee, on the other hand... In the absence of Starbie, here comes DD. The fact your you will be lucky if your "no sugar" would not be translatd into sickeningly sweet cup of weak joe does not usually deterr anyone. Every time you walk into one of them, you are guaranteed to see at least one bunch of strange (and sometimes smelly) characters discussing their business (shady or otherwise). Then, a few weeks ago, one dude pulled something totally hilarious (although at the time is was maddening, because he was right in front of me and holding up the line). That character ordered (ready for this) a caramel latte, 2/3 regular, 1/3 decaf, not too sweet, and some more specifications that I do not recall. Stupid idiot! Sure enough, about five minutes later he got something which was half regular, half decaf. He thought about it hard, left the store, came back and asked to add some more regular, because otherwise it was not strong enough; then he confounded it by asking for a very specific amount of cream! All he needed to do is not to pretend where he was, buy himself coffee (0r brew it at home), take the train, and then stop by Starbie on the way to work. This way, he was saving himself from about fifteen minutes lost in the morning rush, never mind the general disappointment. No, he wanted to pretend.
What really put me in the reminiscent mood was the following. There is a new "super luxury" condo attached ( and I mean glued to one wall) to my building. Due to the above mentioned glued wall, which successfully deprived some people of their windows, plus the amount of time the construction took, plus the prospect of the lost parking spaces, there was a certain amount of curiously attached to who eventually will occupy those condos.
Now, the contractor, being a true Brooklynite, had produced two "penthouse" suites on top of the "super luxury". That alone is hilarious: the best few from those penthouses would be the Verazzano bridge; the rest is a very panoramic view of South Brooklyn, slightly obscured by the church on the corner. So, finally, somebody bought the cheaper penthouse suite (the one attached to the above mentioned wall). Then, few weeks later, I observed something totally incredible: there was a whole bunch of laundry, including the unmentionables, drying on the line on the balcony of that penthouse! Here is something you would never see on Upper East Side!
Hurray for South Brooklyn!! Even our wannabes are one of a kind!
Friday, June 15, 2007
ANOTHER DEFINITION OF STUPIDITY
I do not remember where I have first read the brilliant phrase defining Anti-Semitism as a totally irrational hatred, but that phrase stayed with me; and as more time passes, more examples pass by my eyes reaffirming it.
Of course, in every discussion like this there is always going to be at least one person, most assuredly a Jew, who will feel it incumbent upon him or her to point out that our people provide sufficient excuses to hate them. Just look at the people who orchestrated the Russian revolution, or the members of the American communist party during and after WWII! To this I somehow always feel compelled to reply that a little band of Communists would not have been able to accomplish what they did anywhere else but Russia, and American Communist Party which doubled as USSR spies during the war had plenty of WASPs in it; but those two specific examples require a separate discussion apiece. My point is and always will be that Gentiles do not need excuses to hate us; moreover, that hatred is almost always irrational.
Case in point: the general outlook at our somewhat tumultuous relationship with our "brothers" in "monotheistic, Abrahamic, peaceful" religion of Islam. As much as uprooted Sephardim would like to reminisce about the "good times" and the fact that before the official establishment of Israel we were able to co-exist quiet nicely and peacefully with our Muslim "brothers", the fact remains that such reminiscences are mostly chimeras. Although at certain points in history Muslims may not have been as vicious and obvious in their hatred as our other "brothers", Christians, we always have been "infidels".
As soon as we have established some kind of recognizable presence in the Holy Land, the murderous hatred for the infidels reared its ugly head and became very apparent for the international community. A tiny country, not visible on most maps, with its name sticking out into the Red Sea, Israel was constantly attacked by its Muslim neighbours and was able to miraculously survive and defend itself. In the midst of this struggle all of a sudden we see the "birth" of heretofore unknown nation called "Palestinians". Everyone with a little grain of logic, never mind the rudimentary knowledge of history and geography, would recognize this "nation" for what it is: a terrorist organization created with one single agenda in mind - to destroy the Jews and the Jewish state.
So why are these "people" recognized as a nation, given diplomatic status, etc.? And why, all of a sudden, do we see sudden rise of love for Muslims amongst the Westerners? Europeans, and, by the same route, Americans, were never big friends with Muslims and Muslim-controlled countries. So, what gives? Maybe, subconsciously, they see a power that will finally put "paid" to the "Jewish problem"?
In the eyes of the international community, Jews and the Jewish state are somehow the only entity that has a totally different set of laws applied to it, especially when it comes to self-defence. The whole situation would have been very interesting for the sarcastically-minded, if it was not so heart-wrenching. Deciding to appease the terrorists and bowing to international pressure, the cowardly and corrupt Israeli government decided to grant the "Palestinians" some of the "occupied" territories. In the latest round of that saga, Israeli army was sent to remove Israeli "settlers" from their homes, and poor "Palestinian refugees" finally got the a part of "their historic" land to finally create their own state. "Peaceful refugees" promptly took control of that land and, using crude, but very effective Anglo-Saxon expression, shitted it up and destroyed everything in sight, and then they proceeded to have "Democratic" elections, during which they by overwhelming majority elected Hamas.
The entire civilized world reacted with absolute bewilderment and dismay; they did not expect that! They expected the "pro-Western" Fatah to win! Your humble servant's reaction to that was "are you all suffering from Helen Keller's affliction or are you just plain morons?" They are not "a people", they are a terrorist organization, no matter who or what is leading them; and the only difference between Fatah and Hamas is that the Fatah has some semblance of PR ( and is also more corrupt). Washington's decision? Let us funnel few millions from the monies confiscated from American citizens under the guise of taxes to the "pro-Western" organization. They need our support! And, once we are at it, let us supply them with arms and ammo, because Muslim terrorist do not have enough of that to attack the above-mentioned American citizens (and not necessarily the ones of the Jewish descent).
Then, a little while ago, another piece of breaking news splashed across the international media: the fighting broke out in "Palestine" between Hamas and their opposition. Another round of surprise and another round of American help to "pro-Western" Fatah. My reaction? I hope they will all kill each other soon. New York Times' reaction? Palestinians never did anything violent to one another; it is all Israel's and America's fault.
You see, my dear Western non-friends, "Jewish problem" will never go away. We are vulnerable, but not totally destructible (just spent a bit of time with a few dusty History volumes). You can embrace these murderous thugs, the only faction in the world producing suicide bombers, all you want. They will not, despite your best hopes, put "finished" on Jews or Jewish state. We will bleed and suffer a lot, but we will not go away. Your "helpers", on the other hand, will not contain themselves to killing the Jews alone. You, all of you, are just as much the infidels as we are, and they will treat you accordingly (already are, come to think of it). Your blind cowardice and your blatant and virulent anti-Semitism, examined with a plain, straight logic, just looks like extreme stupidity. I hope you will wake up in time to see it and to save yourselves. We have already survived and outlived many great civilizations; we will survive and outlive you. It is up to you to see that you do not become just another part on the History line and a few broken pots and old paintings in the museum (provided the members of the "Religion of Peace" will leave that much).
Of course, in every discussion like this there is always going to be at least one person, most assuredly a Jew, who will feel it incumbent upon him or her to point out that our people provide sufficient excuses to hate them. Just look at the people who orchestrated the Russian revolution, or the members of the American communist party during and after WWII! To this I somehow always feel compelled to reply that a little band of Communists would not have been able to accomplish what they did anywhere else but Russia, and American Communist Party which doubled as USSR spies during the war had plenty of WASPs in it; but those two specific examples require a separate discussion apiece. My point is and always will be that Gentiles do not need excuses to hate us; moreover, that hatred is almost always irrational.
Case in point: the general outlook at our somewhat tumultuous relationship with our "brothers" in "monotheistic, Abrahamic, peaceful" religion of Islam. As much as uprooted Sephardim would like to reminisce about the "good times" and the fact that before the official establishment of Israel we were able to co-exist quiet nicely and peacefully with our Muslim "brothers", the fact remains that such reminiscences are mostly chimeras. Although at certain points in history Muslims may not have been as vicious and obvious in their hatred as our other "brothers", Christians, we always have been "infidels".
As soon as we have established some kind of recognizable presence in the Holy Land, the murderous hatred for the infidels reared its ugly head and became very apparent for the international community. A tiny country, not visible on most maps, with its name sticking out into the Red Sea, Israel was constantly attacked by its Muslim neighbours and was able to miraculously survive and defend itself. In the midst of this struggle all of a sudden we see the "birth" of heretofore unknown nation called "Palestinians". Everyone with a little grain of logic, never mind the rudimentary knowledge of history and geography, would recognize this "nation" for what it is: a terrorist organization created with one single agenda in mind - to destroy the Jews and the Jewish state.
So why are these "people" recognized as a nation, given diplomatic status, etc.? And why, all of a sudden, do we see sudden rise of love for Muslims amongst the Westerners? Europeans, and, by the same route, Americans, were never big friends with Muslims and Muslim-controlled countries. So, what gives? Maybe, subconsciously, they see a power that will finally put "paid" to the "Jewish problem"?
In the eyes of the international community, Jews and the Jewish state are somehow the only entity that has a totally different set of laws applied to it, especially when it comes to self-defence. The whole situation would have been very interesting for the sarcastically-minded, if it was not so heart-wrenching. Deciding to appease the terrorists and bowing to international pressure, the cowardly and corrupt Israeli government decided to grant the "Palestinians" some of the "occupied" territories. In the latest round of that saga, Israeli army was sent to remove Israeli "settlers" from their homes, and poor "Palestinian refugees" finally got the a part of "their historic" land to finally create their own state. "Peaceful refugees" promptly took control of that land and, using crude, but very effective Anglo-Saxon expression, shitted it up and destroyed everything in sight, and then they proceeded to have "Democratic" elections, during which they by overwhelming majority elected Hamas.
The entire civilized world reacted with absolute bewilderment and dismay; they did not expect that! They expected the "pro-Western" Fatah to win! Your humble servant's reaction to that was "are you all suffering from Helen Keller's affliction or are you just plain morons?" They are not "a people", they are a terrorist organization, no matter who or what is leading them; and the only difference between Fatah and Hamas is that the Fatah has some semblance of PR ( and is also more corrupt). Washington's decision? Let us funnel few millions from the monies confiscated from American citizens under the guise of taxes to the "pro-Western" organization. They need our support! And, once we are at it, let us supply them with arms and ammo, because Muslim terrorist do not have enough of that to attack the above-mentioned American citizens (and not necessarily the ones of the Jewish descent).
Then, a little while ago, another piece of breaking news splashed across the international media: the fighting broke out in "Palestine" between Hamas and their opposition. Another round of surprise and another round of American help to "pro-Western" Fatah. My reaction? I hope they will all kill each other soon. New York Times' reaction? Palestinians never did anything violent to one another; it is all Israel's and America's fault.
You see, my dear Western non-friends, "Jewish problem" will never go away. We are vulnerable, but not totally destructible (just spent a bit of time with a few dusty History volumes). You can embrace these murderous thugs, the only faction in the world producing suicide bombers, all you want. They will not, despite your best hopes, put "finished" on Jews or Jewish state. We will bleed and suffer a lot, but we will not go away. Your "helpers", on the other hand, will not contain themselves to killing the Jews alone. You, all of you, are just as much the infidels as we are, and they will treat you accordingly (already are, come to think of it). Your blind cowardice and your blatant and virulent anti-Semitism, examined with a plain, straight logic, just looks like extreme stupidity. I hope you will wake up in time to see it and to save yourselves. We have already survived and outlived many great civilizations; we will survive and outlive you. It is up to you to see that you do not become just another part on the History line and a few broken pots and old paintings in the museum (provided the members of the "Religion of Peace" will leave that much).
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
19 YEARS
Our Anniversary.
Today is the 19th anniversary for our family. On June 12 nineteen years ago we boarded the plane from Moscow to Vienna. Nineteen years of being free!
Only recently did I realize the significance of that anniversary: we left the cursed totalitarian Russia exactly a year after President Reagan made his famous speech by the Berlin Wall! Rest in peace, Mr. President! You accomplished a great miracle! Thank you, G-d, for our freedom!
Today is the 19th anniversary for our family. On June 12 nineteen years ago we boarded the plane from Moscow to Vienna. Nineteen years of being free!
Only recently did I realize the significance of that anniversary: we left the cursed totalitarian Russia exactly a year after President Reagan made his famous speech by the Berlin Wall! Rest in peace, Mr. President! You accomplished a great miracle! Thank you, G-d, for our freedom!
MAZAL TOV!
I have a nephew!
My sister had a little boy! The second member of our family born in America!
He was born on Thursday morning at 10:15. At that time he was 9 lb 2 oz and 22 inches. Most of his weight seems to be concentrated in his head; the rest of him is pretty skinny:) So, another smart Jewish head. He has a sister who finally realized that "baby" is not just a cute toy, but a contender for Mama's attention, so good luck to both of them (never mind my sister). He is also a typical boy: he demands more food and attention than his sister did, and his cry is much louder!!
He is tiny, red, slightly wrinkled, soft and very huggable. I love him!
My sister had a little boy! The second member of our family born in America!
He was born on Thursday morning at 10:15. At that time he was 9 lb 2 oz and 22 inches. Most of his weight seems to be concentrated in his head; the rest of him is pretty skinny:) So, another smart Jewish head. He has a sister who finally realized that "baby" is not just a cute toy, but a contender for Mama's attention, so good luck to both of them (never mind my sister). He is also a typical boy: he demands more food and attention than his sister did, and his cry is much louder!!
He is tiny, red, slightly wrinkled, soft and very huggable. I love him!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
MY READING
POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERATURE
Just finished another excellent book from the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series. This one was especially dear to my heart, since I am an avid reader, and overwhelming percentage of what I enjoy reading is British. The woman who wrote it sounds like a very enjoyable college professor of English literature with a great sense of humor and totally in love with her subject.
Actually, I had a professor like this. I loved her and took all my English prereqs with her. There was only one problem with good dear Dr. E.: she always assigned the most depressing reading imaginable; either a piece that was written by an author who was slightly deranged, or, if we were studying a particular author, she would invariably pick up his or hers most depressing work. Aside from that regrettable tendency, Dr. E. was a great prof.
She had a saying: "The best way to kill a book is to give it for an assignment in school". I tend to agree with her there for a number of reasons: first of all, you have to be in a mood to read something. The book may be the greatest in the world, but your mind has to be tuned to appreciate it, otherwise, it is just a waste of time. Plus, I never enjoyed all the dissecting done in classes. "The country was going thorough a war, and you can clearly see it in this piece." "The author was going through financial problems, and the hero of the story reflects this." "This work is imbued with revolutionary pathos!" I always had one question for all this nonsense: "How do you know that?" Unless you have a telepathic connection with the author (usually deceased), you have no idea what he or she was thinking or feeling at the time, and how exactly it is reflected in the writing, no matter how great an expert you are on the biography. Unless a letter or a journal survived that clearly indicates the connection between the writer's life and his or her writing, all the rest is just a guesswork and a matter of personal perception. So, yes, giving out a literary piece for an assignment in school is a very sure way to kill the true appreciation for it.
Or so I thought till I read Elizabeth Kantor's PI Guide. As much as I heard and read about the loony left's taking over of the colleges, nothing paints the exact horror as specific pictures. Apparently, students now a days either are not required at all to take English Lit as a prereq., or they are required and offered courses in English Lit., but only to teach them the horrors of Western Civilization, and the racism, misogyny, and the hatred of the homosexuals inherent in the above mentioned Civilization. Kantor makes a very good observation: professors who used to teach garbage like Marxism are not needed that much anymore. So, where could they transfer to? They can't teach science or math, so they somehow end up the literature department and continue to teach their miasma under the guise of English Lit.
Kantor gives a whole bunch of examples of loony teachings, saying that "English professors are so politically correct they're beyond parody." Here are some courses offered as "English": Comparative Cross Dressing; Gender Relations in the 19th Century Romantic Ballet: Sex, Drugs and Crime; Latino/a Popular Culture; Sex Outside the City; The Bourgeois; Race and Ethnicity in the Caribbean. She also gives some specific examples of PC language imposed in classes: subject instead of human being or person, the literary production instead of the work of literature, binaries instead of truth and falsehood, Marxist instead on Communist, priveleges instead of benefits, and so on. Suffice it to say that the blood boils from such garbage.
Most of the book is dedicated to basically going over the greatest English writers and their major work, touching on the main biographical points and explaining why all these works are classics and what we can learn from them (aside from supposed "priveleging" of white males to the detriment of everyone else). Despite the fact that I do not necessarily see all of these literary works in the same light (like nothing will convince me that I will enjoy The Taming of the Shrew), her sheer enthusiasm and obvious love for her subject was very contagious.
She concludes the book by offering the ways of teaching English Lit to yourself. I found that especially delightful: finally somebody tells me that it's OK to think of the literary characters as somebody real and argue with them. Plus, she suggest starting an amateur production of Shakespeare with your friends and relatives. What a grand idea! (Moish, how about you as MacDuff)?
As much as I enjoyed Kantor's witticism, the sad conclusion is inevitable. Long gone are the days when the worst what could have happened to you while studying English Lit. was somebody with Dr. E.' propensity for assigning depressing works. Now the wide-eyed college freshmen are subjected to English professors like Grover Furr, credited with saying: "This article outlines Joseph Stalin's attempts, from the 1930s until his death, to democratize the government of the Soviet Union", and instructors teaching "theory", "meaning Marxism, feminism, deconstruction, bashing of dead white males" and general "resistance to literature". Let us also not forget that a lot of it is done using our tax dollars. Great!
Just finished another excellent book from the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series. This one was especially dear to my heart, since I am an avid reader, and overwhelming percentage of what I enjoy reading is British. The woman who wrote it sounds like a very enjoyable college professor of English literature with a great sense of humor and totally in love with her subject.
Actually, I had a professor like this. I loved her and took all my English prereqs with her. There was only one problem with good dear Dr. E.: she always assigned the most depressing reading imaginable; either a piece that was written by an author who was slightly deranged, or, if we were studying a particular author, she would invariably pick up his or hers most depressing work. Aside from that regrettable tendency, Dr. E. was a great prof.
She had a saying: "The best way to kill a book is to give it for an assignment in school". I tend to agree with her there for a number of reasons: first of all, you have to be in a mood to read something. The book may be the greatest in the world, but your mind has to be tuned to appreciate it, otherwise, it is just a waste of time. Plus, I never enjoyed all the dissecting done in classes. "The country was going thorough a war, and you can clearly see it in this piece." "The author was going through financial problems, and the hero of the story reflects this." "This work is imbued with revolutionary pathos!" I always had one question for all this nonsense: "How do you know that?" Unless you have a telepathic connection with the author (usually deceased), you have no idea what he or she was thinking or feeling at the time, and how exactly it is reflected in the writing, no matter how great an expert you are on the biography. Unless a letter or a journal survived that clearly indicates the connection between the writer's life and his or her writing, all the rest is just a guesswork and a matter of personal perception. So, yes, giving out a literary piece for an assignment in school is a very sure way to kill the true appreciation for it.
Or so I thought till I read Elizabeth Kantor's PI Guide. As much as I heard and read about the loony left's taking over of the colleges, nothing paints the exact horror as specific pictures. Apparently, students now a days either are not required at all to take English Lit as a prereq., or they are required and offered courses in English Lit., but only to teach them the horrors of Western Civilization, and the racism, misogyny, and the hatred of the homosexuals inherent in the above mentioned Civilization. Kantor makes a very good observation: professors who used to teach garbage like Marxism are not needed that much anymore. So, where could they transfer to? They can't teach science or math, so they somehow end up the literature department and continue to teach their miasma under the guise of English Lit.
Kantor gives a whole bunch of examples of loony teachings, saying that "English professors are so politically correct they're beyond parody." Here are some courses offered as "English": Comparative Cross Dressing; Gender Relations in the 19th Century Romantic Ballet: Sex, Drugs and Crime; Latino/a Popular Culture; Sex Outside the City; The Bourgeois; Race and Ethnicity in the Caribbean. She also gives some specific examples of PC language imposed in classes: subject instead of human being or person, the literary production instead of the work of literature, binaries instead of truth and falsehood, Marxist instead on Communist, priveleges instead of benefits, and so on. Suffice it to say that the blood boils from such garbage.
Most of the book is dedicated to basically going over the greatest English writers and their major work, touching on the main biographical points and explaining why all these works are classics and what we can learn from them (aside from supposed "priveleging" of white males to the detriment of everyone else). Despite the fact that I do not necessarily see all of these literary works in the same light (like nothing will convince me that I will enjoy The Taming of the Shrew), her sheer enthusiasm and obvious love for her subject was very contagious.
She concludes the book by offering the ways of teaching English Lit to yourself. I found that especially delightful: finally somebody tells me that it's OK to think of the literary characters as somebody real and argue with them. Plus, she suggest starting an amateur production of Shakespeare with your friends and relatives. What a grand idea! (Moish, how about you as MacDuff)?
As much as I enjoyed Kantor's witticism, the sad conclusion is inevitable. Long gone are the days when the worst what could have happened to you while studying English Lit. was somebody with Dr. E.' propensity for assigning depressing works. Now the wide-eyed college freshmen are subjected to English professors like Grover Furr, credited with saying: "This article outlines Joseph Stalin's attempts, from the 1930s until his death, to democratize the government of the Soviet Union", and instructors teaching "theory", "meaning Marxism, feminism, deconstruction, bashing of dead white males" and general "resistance to literature". Let us also not forget that a lot of it is done using our tax dollars. Great!
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
OK, WHAT HAD SHE DONE NOW?
Part 2
The name of that edifying chapter was "J.K. Rowling, Dirty Harry Potter, and the Gobletygook of Gold". That alone basically tells us the gist of the story. Huberman starts by flirtatiously demurring: 'They said I was mad. Attack the Harry Potter books..?" Then he continues: "Why am I growling at Rowling? For starters, the sheer scale of her success is unforgivable.." Thanks for making it clear for us, dude.
Then he goes on to profess the desire to read a book, and not be "a part in a cult phenom", and "further confesses" the prejudice against "fantasy/sword-and-sorcery genres", compounding it by calling the Lord of the Rings "basically a comic book." For the record, oh educated genius, Bush-bashing is "a part of cult phenom" of the "educated" left, and the dude who wrote "basically a comic book" was a Professor of Anglo-Saxon literature at Oxford, never mind the fact that the descriptions of the battle scenes came from his personal experiences as a solder (but why bother with facts).
Then he boldly goes on to inform us exactly where J.K. got her ideas for Harry. The list ranges from Japanese comic book, loops to "Moses, Oedipus, and Hamlet but also Spiderman, Batman, and Superman", and somehow ends up with Star Wars. I think his (Huberman's that is) parents refused to buy him comics, and he developed an unnatural hate of comic heroes; plus, some hard-core Star Wars fans had probably beat him up but good one time: "Both Georges, Lucas and Bush, must be stopped!" Such sane guy! Of course, the best sentence is this: "Who here hasn't had it with Forces of fucking Good and Evil?" Sorry for the profanity; just wanted to give the direct quote.
He continues with some more murky analogies, then goes on to ask "how badly, really, do kids still need lessons in the toleration of diversity - the Potter books' principle claim to moral and social value?" Kids are stuffed with lessons of diversity ad nauseum, so that they definitely do not need; but that is by far not the principle lesson of these books.
Then Huberman goes on to accuse the books of being "packed with morals, character, and, if you scrape a bit, political lessons on which George Dumbledore Bush would gladly stamp his great seal of presidential approval"; then goes the whole discussion about Harry and his friends disregarding authority and fighting the Ministry of Magic that somehow translates into free enterprise initiative and Newt Gingrich. "In short", goes a wise conclusion, "if kids really need more role models for contempt toward rules and regs - and by extension, toward government, the Constitution, and international law - can't we just direct their attention to the Bush administration?" How is it that the story of a fifteen year old orphan courageously standing up to the corrupt and cowardly government, often at the big expense to himself, is not morally appropriate for the children? Never mind that that pronouncement is made by a talentless, green with jealousy writer, whose only claim to fame is speaking up against the government in the freest country of the world. How about he moves to China or North Korea and then starts moralizing and protecting human rights there?
Then Mr. Huberidiot goes on to pontificate that kids grow up "deeply literate" in mythologies", but ignorant of history, geography, science. Well, re-writing of history and teaching deliberate historical lies has been one of the main mission statements of his left "intellectual" friends. As for teaching of science, and not just Darwinism, that was attempted by the Kansas State Board of Education, which this hypocrite also included in this volume of America's "screwers".
Then he progresses to compare the world of Harry Potter with popular TV, lists all the movies and popular TV shows dealing with magic and supernatural, which he hates for whatever reason. Then goes the quote belonging to "TV critic Lee Siegel" : "So, ...thanks a lot, Al Qaeda...We now share with Islamic fanatics an all-consuming desire to escape into fantastical imaginings of the Beyond". On behalf of my fellow Americans, thanks a heap, guys! What Islamic "warriors" have is not fantastical imaginings, it is "absurdly childish masturbatory fantasy" about 72 virgins (Yashiko Sagamori, 2004, "De Profundis"). For that fantasy they are willing to kill themselves any time, providing they will take with them as many infidels (and possibly infidel structures) as they can. Nice parallels between these fanatical murderers and Americans addicted to fantasy in movies and on TV.
Finally, he mentions a 2004 Gallup poll, according to which, 78 percent of Americans believe in angels (oh horror!). "Only 40 percent, another poll found , believed in evolution..." Thanks for being clear on this, bud, because believe is what it is, since Darwin's theory was never proven.
"'Narr' is German for "fool." Well, welcome to Narrnia.'" Of course, my German is pretty rusty, but I believe German for fool is another word entirely; but never mind that. On the other hand, accusing people of being idiots because they enjoy fantasy books is in itself idiotic.
Finally, here comes this masterpiece of a conclusion: "All I'm suggesting is a fifty-to-seventy-five-year moratorium...on ghosts, angels, hobbits, witches, wizards... Eventually, we may even be able to distinguish political fact from fiction again." Wow!!!! Moratorium on people's imagination! Not only is he mortally jealous of a single mother on welfare who became a billionaires due to her imagination and talent, he is basically proposing a form of though police!
Congratulations, Comrade Huberman! Comrades Lenin, Stalin, and Brezhnev, along with Parteigenosse Goebbels salute you from their graves!
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
OK, WHAT HAD SHE DONE NOW?
Part 1
At a certain point in my life I have discovered political non-fiction. Now, one of my friends declared that to him it is a waste of time, because he either reads something at which he feels like spitting, and that is a total, well, waste of time, or reads something with which he agrees anyway, and he does not need that. I look at it a little differently. First of all, it is always advisable to have at least a general idea of what the enemy is up to, and the modern left is definitely the worst inside enemy of this country today; so, as much as I feel like spitting at or burning the despicable trash they call books, I always find it advisable to at least skim through them.
On the other hand we have all the books that are labeled "conservative" or "far right", even though a lot of them are neither. The people who write them come from very different backgrounds, political camps, or schools of thought. What unites them is one thing and one thing only: they refuse to toe the general party line set up by parteigenossen of what is ironically called "intellectual elite" (or, as Ann Coulter aptly called "the treason lobby").
One phenomenon I observed is that for every "right" book that comes out, there are on average at least two or three books from the "other" side shrieking denunciations (Ann Coulter usually garners at least five books calling her a bitch, but that's Ann). So, it came at no particular surprise to me that a little while after Bernard Goldberg's "100 People Who Are Screwing up America" came about I accidentally stumbled on the one called "101 People Who are Really Screwing America" by Jack Huberman. Yep, another observation is that the Shriekers do not usually bother much with creativity, but that's another story.
The blurb on the back of that literary masterpiece calls Goldberg's book "unforgivably successful" and attributes to the current author such wonderful works of courageous, almost life-threatening political dissent as "Bush-Haters Handbook" and 'Bushit!" The general format of the book also follows Goldberg's book: listing the offenders in descending numerical order, from bad to "badder" to "baddest". Yours truly was duly curious. If this book was a "shriek" response to Goldberg, who is actually more centrist than right, who are the offenders now?
I opened the book to satisfy my curiosity. Of course, I have found the "usual suspects": AIPAC, Linda Chavez, Regnery Publishing, Halliburton, SUV Buyers, The Wall Street Journal, The Discovery Institute and The Kansas State Board of Education (may G-d give them strength, but that is a different story), James Inhofe, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, The Federalist Society, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the current President and the Vice President of the United States, and even "GOD" (coming up at #77). Again, that list was not surprising. What really floored me was # 96 on this hit list. Can you guess who it was? Three tries? You are wrong. It was ... Ready? J.K. Rowling!!
Now, just for fun, I have read a lot of anti-Rowling tripe, ranging from "fundamentalist" Christians to self-proclaimed book critics. But this was the absolute corker. What had she done that was terrible enough to put her on that list? So, yours truly decided to find out, and here we are. ( to be continued)
At a certain point in my life I have discovered political non-fiction. Now, one of my friends declared that to him it is a waste of time, because he either reads something at which he feels like spitting, and that is a total, well, waste of time, or reads something with which he agrees anyway, and he does not need that. I look at it a little differently. First of all, it is always advisable to have at least a general idea of what the enemy is up to, and the modern left is definitely the worst inside enemy of this country today; so, as much as I feel like spitting at or burning the despicable trash they call books, I always find it advisable to at least skim through them.
On the other hand we have all the books that are labeled "conservative" or "far right", even though a lot of them are neither. The people who write them come from very different backgrounds, political camps, or schools of thought. What unites them is one thing and one thing only: they refuse to toe the general party line set up by parteigenossen of what is ironically called "intellectual elite" (or, as Ann Coulter aptly called "the treason lobby").
One phenomenon I observed is that for every "right" book that comes out, there are on average at least two or three books from the "other" side shrieking denunciations (Ann Coulter usually garners at least five books calling her a bitch, but that's Ann). So, it came at no particular surprise to me that a little while after Bernard Goldberg's "100 People Who Are Screwing up America" came about I accidentally stumbled on the one called "101 People Who are Really Screwing America" by Jack Huberman. Yep, another observation is that the Shriekers do not usually bother much with creativity, but that's another story.
The blurb on the back of that literary masterpiece calls Goldberg's book "unforgivably successful" and attributes to the current author such wonderful works of courageous, almost life-threatening political dissent as "Bush-Haters Handbook" and 'Bushit!" The general format of the book also follows Goldberg's book: listing the offenders in descending numerical order, from bad to "badder" to "baddest". Yours truly was duly curious. If this book was a "shriek" response to Goldberg, who is actually more centrist than right, who are the offenders now?
I opened the book to satisfy my curiosity. Of course, I have found the "usual suspects": AIPAC, Linda Chavez, Regnery Publishing, Halliburton, SUV Buyers, The Wall Street Journal, The Discovery Institute and The Kansas State Board of Education (may G-d give them strength, but that is a different story), James Inhofe, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, The Federalist Society, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the current President and the Vice President of the United States, and even "GOD" (coming up at #77). Again, that list was not surprising. What really floored me was # 96 on this hit list. Can you guess who it was? Three tries? You are wrong. It was ... Ready? J.K. Rowling!!
Now, just for fun, I have read a lot of anti-Rowling tripe, ranging from "fundamentalist" Christians to self-proclaimed book critics. But this was the absolute corker. What had she done that was terrible enough to put her on that list? So, yours truly decided to find out, and here we are. ( to be continued)
NEW YORK MOMENTS
Spring is finally here!!!! Hurray!!! My love for this city is usually equal to my hatred of the climate here, so double enjoyment of Spring!! Everything is fresh and beautiful! I am at peace with the world (till my next date or next petition carrier, that is). Makes me also recall amusing incidents that make New York City so, well, amusing!
A Chinese dude on the subway using a roll of toilet paper as a tissue box.
A prime parking spot off Lexington Avenue occupied by two motorcycles.
A teenager who rides to school every day with a denim bag with a cartoon of a cute little girl on it with gigantic balloon "I hate people".
A husband and wife riding to work together: husband reading Dr. Laura's "Proper Feeding of a Husband" and wife just looking at him indulgently.
An un-named musician who keeps playing Saint-Saens' "The Swan" every single morning.
A construction worker who has put down his cup of Starbucks (minus the lid) to cool down on the subway floor during the rush hour.
A persistent dude who kept transporting his shiny hog from Prospect Park to 34th Street every single morning during the rush hour for about a year.
Street vendors with sun glasses who magically grew up on every corner overnight.
A hapless traffic cop in Times Square, who, unable to control the steady stream of pedestrians crossing on the red light, just stepped away, put down his hands and waived at the cars in despair: "Just run them over, they don't want to live!"
New Yorkers finally abandoning their uniform black for rainbow of colors.
Ice cream trucks got resurrected from last fall.
Tourists finally enjoying the top of the double-decker buses.
Flowers and fresh grass all over the "stone sack".
Two sprigs of crocuses that I have discovered on the way to my sister's house. They came out at the first hint of warmth, and had survived the worst rainstorm in thirty years and two consequent cold blasts.
Welcome, Spring!
To new beginnings!
A Chinese dude on the subway using a roll of toilet paper as a tissue box.
A prime parking spot off Lexington Avenue occupied by two motorcycles.
A teenager who rides to school every day with a denim bag with a cartoon of a cute little girl on it with gigantic balloon "I hate people".
A husband and wife riding to work together: husband reading Dr. Laura's "Proper Feeding of a Husband" and wife just looking at him indulgently.
An un-named musician who keeps playing Saint-Saens' "The Swan" every single morning.
A construction worker who has put down his cup of Starbucks (minus the lid) to cool down on the subway floor during the rush hour.
A persistent dude who kept transporting his shiny hog from Prospect Park to 34th Street every single morning during the rush hour for about a year.
Street vendors with sun glasses who magically grew up on every corner overnight.
A hapless traffic cop in Times Square, who, unable to control the steady stream of pedestrians crossing on the red light, just stepped away, put down his hands and waived at the cars in despair: "Just run them over, they don't want to live!"
New Yorkers finally abandoning their uniform black for rainbow of colors.
Ice cream trucks got resurrected from last fall.
Tourists finally enjoying the top of the double-decker buses.
Flowers and fresh grass all over the "stone sack".
Two sprigs of crocuses that I have discovered on the way to my sister's house. They came out at the first hint of warmth, and had survived the worst rainstorm in thirty years and two consequent cold blasts.
Welcome, Spring!
To new beginnings!
Monday, May 07, 2007
AN EARLY THANKSGIVING MESSAGE
When I was a young, naive and idealistic seminary student, I have accepted (without any questions) that we, Orthodox Jews, do not celebrate Thanksgiving because we do not dedicate only one day a year to give thanks for all the blessings bestowed upon us, and the same goes for Mother's day and Father's day.
As I grew older, the usual questions and re-evaluations followed. Yes, we can not dedicate only one day to give thanks to our Creator and his partners, our parents, but taking one day to make it extra special: what harm in that? The older I get, the more I realize how blessed my life is, and one of the biggest blessings are my parents. I can never thank them enough or come even close to giving them back all they have given me; never the less I try to do something sweet and special for them on Mother's and Father's Day respectively. As for Thanksgiving, it became my special day to give extra thanks for this wonderful country (without traditional dinner, since I hate turkey and sweet potatoes).
A few days ago I was browsing the net for something totally unrelated, but somehow stumbled on an interesting website. The site is called Thegratitudefund.org, and it is created by one of the former Soviet dissidents with a specific purpose to collect funds in order to assist other dissidents who are languishing in poverty in Russia. The site also has sort of a Memorial Wall, listing all the names of deceased dissidents; it also tells when and how they died. As I was reading this list, I got tears in my eyes and shivers down my spine. All those names leaping up at me! The days of my childhood when I used to hear those names on the garbled transmissions from Radio Svoboda! Then my eyes turned to the "death" column. My goodness! How many of them have died in jail or forced labor camps!
As I kept reading and re-reading this Memorial, my thoughts kept turning to two things: my love and unending gratitude for this country and the definition of a hero. These people were definitely not normal when you look at it logically. They lacked something which is inherent to all humans: the instinct for self-preservation. They may have been idealists, but they were definitely not blind or mis-informed. They knew the risks involved; that did not stop them from going against the biggest and the most horrendous suppression machine in the history of mankind, slowly, but successfully eroding this machine in the process. I also kept thinking how wonderful my life is, and how grateful I am that my family escaped when we did without experiencing the most tender mercies of the Soviet regime.
So, in my mind, I raise the biggest glass of the best wine and say this: Thank you, G-d, for this great and wonderful country, for your protection in our darkest hours, and for allowing us to escape with our lives and health intact. Please protect this country from her external enemies and all the traitors and useful idiots who are trying to destroy it from within! Thank You for all the "lunatics" who do not cower in darkness but have the courage to protest the tyranny and fight for every human's right to be free! Please continue to protect them and to protect USA!
As I grew older, the usual questions and re-evaluations followed. Yes, we can not dedicate only one day to give thanks to our Creator and his partners, our parents, but taking one day to make it extra special: what harm in that? The older I get, the more I realize how blessed my life is, and one of the biggest blessings are my parents. I can never thank them enough or come even close to giving them back all they have given me; never the less I try to do something sweet and special for them on Mother's and Father's Day respectively. As for Thanksgiving, it became my special day to give extra thanks for this wonderful country (without traditional dinner, since I hate turkey and sweet potatoes).
A few days ago I was browsing the net for something totally unrelated, but somehow stumbled on an interesting website. The site is called Thegratitudefund.org, and it is created by one of the former Soviet dissidents with a specific purpose to collect funds in order to assist other dissidents who are languishing in poverty in Russia. The site also has sort of a Memorial Wall, listing all the names of deceased dissidents; it also tells when and how they died. As I was reading this list, I got tears in my eyes and shivers down my spine. All those names leaping up at me! The days of my childhood when I used to hear those names on the garbled transmissions from Radio Svoboda! Then my eyes turned to the "death" column. My goodness! How many of them have died in jail or forced labor camps!
As I kept reading and re-reading this Memorial, my thoughts kept turning to two things: my love and unending gratitude for this country and the definition of a hero. These people were definitely not normal when you look at it logically. They lacked something which is inherent to all humans: the instinct for self-preservation. They may have been idealists, but they were definitely not blind or mis-informed. They knew the risks involved; that did not stop them from going against the biggest and the most horrendous suppression machine in the history of mankind, slowly, but successfully eroding this machine in the process. I also kept thinking how wonderful my life is, and how grateful I am that my family escaped when we did without experiencing the most tender mercies of the Soviet regime.
So, in my mind, I raise the biggest glass of the best wine and say this: Thank you, G-d, for this great and wonderful country, for your protection in our darkest hours, and for allowing us to escape with our lives and health intact. Please protect this country from her external enemies and all the traitors and useful idiots who are trying to destroy it from within! Thank You for all the "lunatics" who do not cower in darkness but have the courage to protest the tyranny and fight for every human's right to be free! Please continue to protect them and to protect USA!
Friday, May 04, 2007
A SLIGHTLY LATE RESPONSE
It has been a little while since my last entry; but I can see that one of the main issues I have raised, that of the Second Amendment rights and gun control, has generated a little lively debate between my friend Moshe and my reader Maria Lokhankin. After reading all their comments, all I want to add is this:
1. With all due respect to the police officers, their job usually ends up being investigating the crimes or dealing with the aftermath of those crimes, but not preventing them. The mass shooting at Virginia Tech was a prime example of that.
2. The idea of allowing college students to parade around the campus with guns may not sound very bright, but (forgive me for being crude) neither is the idea of those same kids having indiscriminate sex a la March hares, getting drunk all the time, or using drugs (and if you do not perceive all those things as having the same degree of danger, allow me to politely disagree). It all boils down to one thing: were those kids raised to be responsible, moral human beings or not.
3. If I am not mistaken, the original mission of the much maligned NRA was to teach people how to operate guns, and only much later were they forced into defending the right to own gun, not just teaching to operate it. It is a simple logic and common sense that if a person owns a gun, he or she have to know how to operate it and take care of it.
4. And last, but most important: it is a Constitutional Right of every American Citizen to own a gun! Just because some people do not like it, or disagree with it, or feel threatened by it, it does not give them the right to dictate to the rest of the country! I may not like it when an anti-Israel crowd is marching across the Brooklyn bridge; more than that, I would have been overjoyed had the bridge collapsed, and they all drowned. Actually, scratch that: not very hygienic, plus I would feel bad for the bridge. Let us say, if they all magically disappeared forever, I would be thrilled. But as much as I hate those people and everything they stand for, I have no right to deprive them of their First Amendment rights! So who the hell are the Brady lobby, Michael Moore, and the rest of that stinking crown to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional Right?! Who gave them the right to deprive us of our right to choose to own or not to own a gun?
As per statistics and legal jargon, below is the link to an article written by David B. Kopel, who was an ADA in Manhattan. The article is entitled "Trust the People". I think that says it all. On this happy note I personally close this discussion for now; not because I want to follow in the illustrious steps of the Darwinists who claim that there is no need for discussion because the topic was proven irrefutably, but because I can not say it better or clearer or with better examples than this dude. Here we go:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html
1. With all due respect to the police officers, their job usually ends up being investigating the crimes or dealing with the aftermath of those crimes, but not preventing them. The mass shooting at Virginia Tech was a prime example of that.
2. The idea of allowing college students to parade around the campus with guns may not sound very bright, but (forgive me for being crude) neither is the idea of those same kids having indiscriminate sex a la March hares, getting drunk all the time, or using drugs (and if you do not perceive all those things as having the same degree of danger, allow me to politely disagree). It all boils down to one thing: were those kids raised to be responsible, moral human beings or not.
3. If I am not mistaken, the original mission of the much maligned NRA was to teach people how to operate guns, and only much later were they forced into defending the right to own gun, not just teaching to operate it. It is a simple logic and common sense that if a person owns a gun, he or she have to know how to operate it and take care of it.
4. And last, but most important: it is a Constitutional Right of every American Citizen to own a gun! Just because some people do not like it, or disagree with it, or feel threatened by it, it does not give them the right to dictate to the rest of the country! I may not like it when an anti-Israel crowd is marching across the Brooklyn bridge; more than that, I would have been overjoyed had the bridge collapsed, and they all drowned. Actually, scratch that: not very hygienic, plus I would feel bad for the bridge. Let us say, if they all magically disappeared forever, I would be thrilled. But as much as I hate those people and everything they stand for, I have no right to deprive them of their First Amendment rights! So who the hell are the Brady lobby, Michael Moore, and the rest of that stinking crown to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional Right?! Who gave them the right to deprive us of our right to choose to own or not to own a gun?
As per statistics and legal jargon, below is the link to an article written by David B. Kopel, who was an ADA in Manhattan. The article is entitled "Trust the People". I think that says it all. On this happy note I personally close this discussion for now; not because I want to follow in the illustrious steps of the Darwinists who claim that there is no need for discussion because the topic was proven irrefutably, but because I can not say it better or clearer or with better examples than this dude. Here we go:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html
Monday, April 23, 2007
VIRGINIA TECH
I do not think were many people in this country who were unaffected by last week's tragedy. I mean, there have to be a special kind of callousness affecting anyone who did not at least for one moment feel sad or angry at the total horror of that mass shooting. Unfortunately, just like with any other national tragedy, the body count did not become final when all kinds of yammering bastards and accompanying them morons crawled out of their respective holes to hammer down their despicable political agenda or just to get some media exposure, or just to publicly re-affirm their total idiocy.
About two hours after the "Breaking News" segment run over the Internet, MSN posted another segment titled something along the lines of "many blame our prevalent gun culture". What bloody gun culture? What we have is a Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads precisely this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Now, I am not a lawyer, linguist, or a Constitutional scholar, but what I personally see is this: in order to preserve our country as a free state, we need a regular well trained army, and the rest of the citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and to stay free! That right is being systematically stripped away from us. "Guns kill!" "Peaceful gun-free zone!" "If we want to be tough on crime, we have to declare an uncompromising war on firearms!" Blah, blah, blah, blah. There are two clear facts that are so obvious that mentioning them have become a cliche, but somehow they are not obvious to the media and the "Brady Bunch". 1. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. 2. If something is outlawed, it usually becomes the exclusive property of the criminals and the black market. The only people who can not or will not try to get the forbidden item are the proverbial law abiding citizens. There is an overwhelming amount of statistical material available on the Internet that basically repeats one thing over and over again: all the public mass killings were commited in a "gun free" zones. The geographical locations that do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights are usually speared the slaughter, because there is usually somebody with a gun to stop it. But the morally corrupt and hypocritical anti-gun lobby will stop at nothing in order to disarm everyone but themselves and their body guards.
We also did not see the shortage of all kinds of different "experts" all other the place offering the public all kinds of opinions, mostly of psychological nature, mostly moronic, and mostly totally unneeded. But they got their coveted media exposure! What kind of a human worm uses such horror to get media exposure?
Let us also not forget the brave actions of the police. The details are still a bit sketchy, but one question remains: what in blue blazes were they doing in the two-hour interval between the shootings?
Let us also pay a proper tribute to the nincompoops at the Virginia Tech itself. One bright higher-up (unfortunately I do not remember her exact status) had nothing better to do than to yell at the Memorial Service "We will prevail; we are the Virginia Tech!" Prevail over what and how? False bravado and cheerleading have no place at a memorial service. The "religious" part was also very note worthy. The very first to speak was a Muslim representative. Why? Do we have the Muslim majority in the country, in the state of Virginia, at the college itself, or amongst the victims? The Buddhist representative delivered his usual message along the lines of the general goodness of all people, (which, as we all know, the people of Tibet currently experience every day); and now another thirty two families became a living testament to that statement.
Afterwards some Christians expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the late JC was not mentioned anywhere, and that it was W's place to do that. As far as I can see, the transcripts of the President's speech definitely have the word "God" in them, and, since, according to the Christian teachings, JC was His son, I don't see any problem with the speech itself. The fact that there was not Christian representation in the "religious" part is another matter entirely. If they went for the "multi-cultural, multi-religious" gambit, why did they exclude the representatives of the religion that is practiced by the majority of the country, majority of the state of Virginia, at least some of the students of the Virginia Tech, and definitely some of the victim's families?
Then there was the ultimate doozy that I also became aware of courtesy of MSN. There was an article about the students hanging the flags and releasing the balloons in honor of the victims. Guess what? There were thirty three balloons! The murderer got honored along with his victims!!! Why?! Why?! Why?!
There was a lot mentioned about the heroic actions of that day. Thank you! Finally something that actually belongs in the media and can not be mentioned enough. Speaking of heroic actions, I can not stop thinking about Liviu Librescu. Nazis and Romanian Communists did not success in crushing decency and humanity out of his Jewish soul. His wife told the media about the e-mails she got from his students crediting him with saving their lives. A cynical portion of my brain can't help but ask: will they remember in twenty years from now that a Jew saved their lives? Will they tell their children?
Something possessed me to look at the pictures of the victims over and over and over again. Every single time tears came to my eyes. Most of the them were so young! I know (and not just believe) that they are in a better place now, devoid of the trials and sorrows of living. But there is a reason all of us are granted hundred twenty years in this world. We all have a purpose in this world, whatever it may be. Most of those lives were cut so short! They were just beginning to live and fulfill that purpose!
When you disregard all surrounding rhetoric and pontifications, all you are left with are thirty two grieving families, some of whom are confined to the most horrible purgatory on earth: that of a parent who have lost his or her child. Time will never eradicate their pain; they will never stop grieving or have a closure. A hole like this can not be filled. May our Heavenly Father watch over all our children!
About two hours after the "Breaking News" segment run over the Internet, MSN posted another segment titled something along the lines of "many blame our prevalent gun culture". What bloody gun culture? What we have is a Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads precisely this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Now, I am not a lawyer, linguist, or a Constitutional scholar, but what I personally see is this: in order to preserve our country as a free state, we need a regular well trained army, and the rest of the citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and to stay free! That right is being systematically stripped away from us. "Guns kill!" "Peaceful gun-free zone!" "If we want to be tough on crime, we have to declare an uncompromising war on firearms!" Blah, blah, blah, blah. There are two clear facts that are so obvious that mentioning them have become a cliche, but somehow they are not obvious to the media and the "Brady Bunch". 1. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. 2. If something is outlawed, it usually becomes the exclusive property of the criminals and the black market. The only people who can not or will not try to get the forbidden item are the proverbial law abiding citizens. There is an overwhelming amount of statistical material available on the Internet that basically repeats one thing over and over again: all the public mass killings were commited in a "gun free" zones. The geographical locations that do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights are usually speared the slaughter, because there is usually somebody with a gun to stop it. But the morally corrupt and hypocritical anti-gun lobby will stop at nothing in order to disarm everyone but themselves and their body guards.
We also did not see the shortage of all kinds of different "experts" all other the place offering the public all kinds of opinions, mostly of psychological nature, mostly moronic, and mostly totally unneeded. But they got their coveted media exposure! What kind of a human worm uses such horror to get media exposure?
Let us also not forget the brave actions of the police. The details are still a bit sketchy, but one question remains: what in blue blazes were they doing in the two-hour interval between the shootings?
Let us also pay a proper tribute to the nincompoops at the Virginia Tech itself. One bright higher-up (unfortunately I do not remember her exact status) had nothing better to do than to yell at the Memorial Service "We will prevail; we are the Virginia Tech!" Prevail over what and how? False bravado and cheerleading have no place at a memorial service. The "religious" part was also very note worthy. The very first to speak was a Muslim representative. Why? Do we have the Muslim majority in the country, in the state of Virginia, at the college itself, or amongst the victims? The Buddhist representative delivered his usual message along the lines of the general goodness of all people, (which, as we all know, the people of Tibet currently experience every day); and now another thirty two families became a living testament to that statement.
Afterwards some Christians expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the late JC was not mentioned anywhere, and that it was W's place to do that. As far as I can see, the transcripts of the President's speech definitely have the word "God" in them, and, since, according to the Christian teachings, JC was His son, I don't see any problem with the speech itself. The fact that there was not Christian representation in the "religious" part is another matter entirely. If they went for the "multi-cultural, multi-religious" gambit, why did they exclude the representatives of the religion that is practiced by the majority of the country, majority of the state of Virginia, at least some of the students of the Virginia Tech, and definitely some of the victim's families?
Then there was the ultimate doozy that I also became aware of courtesy of MSN. There was an article about the students hanging the flags and releasing the balloons in honor of the victims. Guess what? There were thirty three balloons! The murderer got honored along with his victims!!! Why?! Why?! Why?!
There was a lot mentioned about the heroic actions of that day. Thank you! Finally something that actually belongs in the media and can not be mentioned enough. Speaking of heroic actions, I can not stop thinking about Liviu Librescu. Nazis and Romanian Communists did not success in crushing decency and humanity out of his Jewish soul. His wife told the media about the e-mails she got from his students crediting him with saving their lives. A cynical portion of my brain can't help but ask: will they remember in twenty years from now that a Jew saved their lives? Will they tell their children?
Something possessed me to look at the pictures of the victims over and over and over again. Every single time tears came to my eyes. Most of the them were so young! I know (and not just believe) that they are in a better place now, devoid of the trials and sorrows of living. But there is a reason all of us are granted hundred twenty years in this world. We all have a purpose in this world, whatever it may be. Most of those lives were cut so short! They were just beginning to live and fulfill that purpose!
When you disregard all surrounding rhetoric and pontifications, all you are left with are thirty two grieving families, some of whom are confined to the most horrible purgatory on earth: that of a parent who have lost his or her child. Time will never eradicate their pain; they will never stop grieving or have a closure. A hole like this can not be filled. May our Heavenly Father watch over all our children!
PS TO THE LAST ENTRY
Something possessed me to re-read my last entry, and I realized that even though I am generally an able multi-tasker, I can not type my blog entries and do other things at the same time. I realized that my second paragraph was not sufficiently clear, and that my married friends might interpret the rest of the entry as personal attack on their own married lives. Girls and guys, nothing could be further from the truth! All my inferences actually come from people whom I try to avoid as much as possible and sometimes even succeed; but even unsociable people like yours truly usually know more people when they want to, especially when you live and work in the big city and slowly advance in years. I might be an angry witch, but jealousy was never one of my sins, and I do not envy my married friends their happiness or feel bitter about the fact that they found somebody and I didn't.
One of my readers, Maria Lokhankin, has pointed out that in her personal opinion, sometimes you get a Mr. Darcy and end up wishing you'd have married Mr. Bingley instead. I think what she meant was that you marry an almost perfect guy and end up wishing for an easy-going dude next door. A very valid point, because being with a nearly perfect anybody is a very daunting and exhausting task. My point was that a dude with strong character is soooo much better and more desirable than somebody who is friendly and easy going but can't keep his loyalty.
On this note, Hurray to marriage and the pursuit of happiness, in whatever form we hope to acquire it!
One of my readers, Maria Lokhankin, has pointed out that in her personal opinion, sometimes you get a Mr. Darcy and end up wishing you'd have married Mr. Bingley instead. I think what she meant was that you marry an almost perfect guy and end up wishing for an easy-going dude next door. A very valid point, because being with a nearly perfect anybody is a very daunting and exhausting task. My point was that a dude with strong character is soooo much better and more desirable than somebody who is friendly and easy going but can't keep his loyalty.
On this note, Hurray to marriage and the pursuit of happiness, in whatever form we hope to acquire it!
Thursday, April 12, 2007
FOR UNMARRIED LADIES ONLY
My recent bout of dating confirmed my believe in something I claimed some time ago: Pride and Prejudice is an all time dating classic. For more or less civilized people, of course. We are not talking about stealing a bride or paying two sheep to her closest male relative. But, seriously, the more I read it and then look around, the more I am convinced of that fact.
For the record, among my relatives, friends, and close acquaintances, I am the only one who has never been married. One of my closest friends is divorced; the rest of the ladies in my circle are married. So, between my unending dating horrors, and recent (or not so recent) dating sagas of my relatives and friends, plus my observations of the people that are sort of passing through my life and my general field of vision, certain patterns and conclusions are beginning to emerge in my brain.
For the record, among my relatives, friends, and close acquaintances, I am the only one who has never been married. One of my closest friends is divorced; the rest of the ladies in my circle are married. So, between my unending dating horrors, and recent (or not so recent) dating sagas of my relatives and friends, plus my observations of the people that are sort of passing through my life and my general field of vision, certain patterns and conclusions are beginning to emerge in my brain.
Mr. Darcy is the personification of our romantic dreams. He is the classical tall, dark and handsome, although that phrase always annoyed me. It is so damn shallow! Yes, it may be a tad annoying if your significant other is shorter than you, but it is not the end of the world. Preference between dark or blond is a matter of personal taste: I personally think redheads are the sexiest. As to handsome, it is my deep personal conviction, confirmed by observation and experience, that guys that are, or considered, handsome, are usually vain, conceited, and posses the highly elevated sense of entitlement; but I digress.
You see, Darcy is a kind of dude we are all hoping to marry one day. He is not just rich and handsome; he is also very kind, honorable, responsible, has high moral principals to which he actually sticks, and even open to criticism to a certain extent. Now, thanks to the barracudas from NOW, extremely loudmouthed gay lobby, and others of their ilk, guys like Darcy are supposed to be un-cool and outlawed, and for women to hope to one day meet someone like this is considered extremely un-PC. The whole meaning of the word "decent" got distorted, and the word "honorable" became obsolete. Despite all this, for any girl with at least one romantic bone in her body, hope springs eternal. Unfortunately, for overwhelming majority of us, meeting and marrying somebody like Fitzwilliam Darcy remains just that: a nice but impossible romantic dream.
The best we can usually hope for, and usually get, is Bingley. He is a nice and decent guy, warm, friendly, and not too high on the instep. Let us just not forget that when Darcy pointed out the general unsuitability of the Bennet family, Bingley dropped Jane like a hot potato (forgive the cliche), and only when his friend retracted that opinion, was Bingley comfortable to continue his courtship and eventually propose. Again, somebody like him would make a great husband; but how far will his loyalty stretch when the road will get a bit bumpy?
And how many women you know who have followed the path of Charlotte Lucas and have married a Mr. Collins? I actually know a few (fortunately, not close friends). At a certain point in their lives they all have decided that for whatever reason their prospects of marrying somebody who would be their equal are small or non-existent, so they settled for somebody who was their inferior on many levels, intellect usually being one of them. A girl has to eventually face the hard facts of live: she does not have spectacular looks, or fortune, or social connections. If she wants to have a marriage and family, she absolutely has to settle! So she is going to settle for a guy who just needs to get married soon, and any woman who looks like she is going to become a "comfortable wife" will do. Charlotte married a person who not only was intellectually inferior to her, but also happened to be a pompous jerk and a boot liker; but he gave her a husband, a child, a certain place in society and, most importantly, a status of a married woman. What more do you need?
For that matter, how many women you know that ended up just as Lydia did? Young, naive, flirtatious, a bit dumb, they end up falling for a dashing, handsome, absolutely devoid of honor womanizer, and end up connected to a prize like this for life. And how many are in the position of Mrs. Bennet? Very attractive, but intellectually inferior to her husband, she initially attracts him with her youth and beauty, but in the course of their shared lives loses his respect . He becomes eccentric, reclusive, and mostly ignores the rearing of their children and the concerns for their future. The saddest fact of all: how many of us were repeatedly instructed to be a Lydia or a Mrs. Bennet in a sense that a woman should be pretty and not very bright, for a man loves with his eyes, but is not stupid enough to marry a girl who is smarter than him?
Let's be fair: a lot of us do not deserve Mr. Darcy; and how many of us will have Elizabeth's courage to reject a proposal made to us "despite better judgement" or show the proverbial door to the likes of Lady Catherine? On the other hand, a quote keeps popping into my mind. I am not sure where I have heard it, but I think it was a Russian movie version of "Ideal Husband". It went something along the lines of "If we married the women we deserve.."
As I type this, another thing pops into my mind. An image of somebody very wise, a matron, most probably, but any man will do also. "OK, Barbie", he or she would say very kindly (or not so kindly), "you have a couple of problems. First of all, a green monster of jealousy is eating you alive. After all, even your younger sister is married, never mind all your friends. You just admitted that! Plus, you are unrealistic, unwise, your head is stuck in the proverbial clouds, and, most probably, you are unable to commit to a mature relationship, or (gasp), you totally do not comprehend the noble institution of marriage. You also forget that you are not eighteen anymore (twice that much, actually). You are short and fat (which is considered unattractive by about 95 % of our population). Your wardrobe is atrocious, your limited supply of make-up usually ends up in the trash because you use it about twice a year, you are not very rich, your family is kooky, you are interested in things most normal people do not give a fig about, you argue with your books on the train, and, for that matter, buy them instead of clothes. So, dearie, if you do not face reality and settle, you will end up an old maid!
To which I will raise my glass of chardonnay and propose two toasts. One, to the noble institution of marriage, to my married sister and all my married friends: may G-d bless all your marriages and all your children. May He rain good health, happiness and prosperity on you all! (Special honorable mention to my friend CW and her husband: continue to behave like newlyweds, you two are so perfect together!) Two, to every hopeful romantic single girl out there, and to every single romantic bone in my un-attractive body and every single strand of my hair that's stuck in the clouds! I may be a strange girl, but, even if only 50% of me deserves a Mr. Darcy, I know I will meet him. Wise gentlemen and wise matrons out there: just take care of your own boring lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)