A friend and I were at the beach one day. We were maybe 11-ish. In the water, she would get under me and throw me upward, then I'd flail through the air before splashing clamorously into the water. Then I would throw her. Soon we heard a boy yelling, "Again! Again! Do it again!" He was having a good time, and we were having a good time. He was older than we were. After a while, we asked him what his name was. Every one of his sentences had an exclamation point.
"Charles!!" he said. "Do it again!"
We threw each other. All three of us were laughing. Throwing someone the same size as you are gets tiring in a hurry.
"Again! Again!"
"We can't, Charles."
"Again! Please! Again!"
I don't recall it clearly enough to know if we picked on him. I'm not sure when exactly I realized that he might be a little off. I do remember asking him if he was normal.
"I'm smart!!" he yelled, losing neither his verve nor his grin. His chin pointed into the air, and he weaved back and forth, making little splashes with his hands. The sun was bright enough to make us all squint.
"Who says so?" asked my friend.
"My mummy!"
This boy was older than we were, maybe 13. We thought it was funny to see a 13-year-old boy yelling so joyfully about how smart his mummy thought he was. We repeated, "My mummy!" and jumped stiffly making little splashes with our hands, as Charles had.
And it wasn't long before a sunburned fat man with a bushy black beard yelled at my friend and me. I didn't know if I'd done anything harmful, but this grown up seemed to think I had. Maybe he was right, but I'm really still not sure. Charles didn't seem to feel he'd been wronged. My friend and I were learning, I suppose.
Charles, if I hurt you, I'm sorry.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Opinions? Shrug.
I just watched a movie with Kevin Costner where the election of the next US president came down to just his vote, and he didn't really give a flying hoot. Both politicians changed their entire platform trying to impress this nonchalant man who had a handful of half-formed, ill-expressed, non-sound-bite-friendly opinions if he had them at all.
Here are some things I either don't care about one way or the other, or can easily see both sides:
1. Public displays of the Ten Thingies. I can't bring myself to call them commandments, at least not all of them. Maybe 6 or 7 are commandments. If my daughter's school wants to put up a sign that says, "Let's not kill each other, let's not steal each other's stuff, let's not be all jealous of each other, and let's not tattle tale," that'd be ok with me. They can leave the God stuff off though.
2. Who wins at the next big sports event. Meh.
3. Population growth. We are natural organisms who live here. We didn't ask to be born, but we're generally glad we were. Life's been going on here for a very long time; we aren't so powerful that we're going to kill the world. The worst we could do is cause a massive extinction, but life has hit the reset button here before. I'm anthropocentric enough to not want people to starve and suffer, and I think helpful innovations are amazing and fabulous. Life is a wild ride, and the idea that NYC may well be ocean floor before I die is pretty interesting. I don't know how it's going to go, but I don't count myself worrying about it so much as plain wondering.
4. Whether Pluto is a planet or not. It is what it is. A rose is a blah blah blah.
5. Genetically Modified Organisms. I heard a guy on the bus a few weeks ago characterize people who make GMOs as munny-grubbing azzholes. I took it personally. They may not be going about it in a way that is satisfactory to all, but people who make GMOs are trying to feed people. They're trying to help, in their way. But I don't think of myself as an advocate for GMOs. There may be gene products we can't anticipate, that we dont' want to eat. Things that wouldn't be helpful in the wild. I think they need more testing.
Here are some things I either don't care about one way or the other, or can easily see both sides:
1. Public displays of the Ten Thingies. I can't bring myself to call them commandments, at least not all of them. Maybe 6 or 7 are commandments. If my daughter's school wants to put up a sign that says, "Let's not kill each other, let's not steal each other's stuff, let's not be all jealous of each other, and let's not tattle tale," that'd be ok with me. They can leave the God stuff off though.
2. Who wins at the next big sports event. Meh.
3. Population growth. We are natural organisms who live here. We didn't ask to be born, but we're generally glad we were. Life's been going on here for a very long time; we aren't so powerful that we're going to kill the world. The worst we could do is cause a massive extinction, but life has hit the reset button here before. I'm anthropocentric enough to not want people to starve and suffer, and I think helpful innovations are amazing and fabulous. Life is a wild ride, and the idea that NYC may well be ocean floor before I die is pretty interesting. I don't know how it's going to go, but I don't count myself worrying about it so much as plain wondering.
4. Whether Pluto is a planet or not. It is what it is. A rose is a blah blah blah.
5. Genetically Modified Organisms. I heard a guy on the bus a few weeks ago characterize people who make GMOs as munny-grubbing azzholes. I took it personally. They may not be going about it in a way that is satisfactory to all, but people who make GMOs are trying to feed people. They're trying to help, in their way. But I don't think of myself as an advocate for GMOs. There may be gene products we can't anticipate, that we dont' want to eat. Things that wouldn't be helpful in the wild. I think they need more testing.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I love crows, and this time of year is when they seem to caw their way into my consciousness.
My friend Greg and I wrote this together a while ago:
Caw Cool Crow
Now that you’ve stolen
Fonzi’s coat
Let us go then, you and I,
and steal his white t-shirt too, for they are a pair,
and I in the one, and you in the other,
will don upside down crows' feet
and stomp peace signs up and down the black
volcanic beach mud of Guatemala,
while the sun sits on top of the horizon
like a fat bird on a wire
eyeing your navel with envy.
We'll sing songs of brotherhood,
until they stick in our craw
and we remember the upper room
where the women come and go
carrying the bacon.
Oh, do not ask "what's for breakfast?"
Let us rather go and cook up a mess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday the people on the bus were all talking with each other while I watched the sky catch fire. The crows were flying in it, and some sat like someone had thrown a bucket of spare commas into the trees. I also saw cranberry trees when we went through the college, their limbs so trimmed and perfectly bony. There was just enough light to see the darkened color of the berries, hanging there reminiscent of the crows. It just occurred to me that I might be the only one noticing that sky when a man sitting across from me said, "How you can see something like that and not feel warm?" and a woman who I once heard talk about how her mother used to switch her legs bloody said, "That's a Michelangelo sunset." And the chatter on the bus hushed for a moment.
Monday, January 26, 2009
I stole this Post
My friend Jack wrote everything below this line, except the stuff he quotes:
_________________________________
Leonard wrote in "Book of Mercy"
As a Canadian I want our fair share of the guilt for what has been going on in Gaza. A little bitter searching has led to the following:
Prior to the establishment of Israel in Palestine, the most reasonable, fair and intelligent minds in the world were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state that involved the stealing of land. This was especially true of the Jews who didn't want to be given a land that they only owned 6% of. Jews like Judah Magnes and Martin Buber used the words that Leonard echoed in his poem. They pleaded : "Do not make us thieves of holiness"
Judah Magnes was at the time the most well respected American Jew who had emigrated to Palestine and Martin Buber was the most respected Jewish Bible scholar among other religions. Other Jews who shared this opposition to a Jewish state included Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt.
In 1946 a Committee was formed to make a recommendation to the United Nations on what should be the fate of Palestine. It was called the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. After hearing the concern of all sides they proposed the establishment of a bi-national country. The land shared by Jews and Arabs with the claims of both sides taken seriously. Harry Truman, the president of the US, told Judah Magnes that he considered the document created by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to be of such importance that he kept it in a drawer that he had reserved for his copy of the American Declaration of Independence.
It was considered by the wise as the right thing to do although the politicians of both sides as in the Jewish Agency and the Arab League opposed it and it was well understood that for it to work the land of Palestine would need to remain under trusteeship for a considerable period of time. It was accepted that the job would fall to either England or the US. Truman said that the US would be willing if they did not have to do it alone. No other country came forward.
In May of 1947 the United Nations formed a committee called The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) that was to make the final recommendation for what was to be the fate of Palestine. Their committee was less knowledgeable than the American-Anglo committee but it contained the members of 11 United Nation member countries.
Canada was one of them.
This committee in turn heard testimony from all interested parties. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and in reading through some of the testimony presented to to UNSCOP and how those hearing it responded that it would be obvious that they would see that Palestine should become a bi-national state and that partitioning the land would lead to decades and decades of violence between Jews and Arabs. This was made absolutely clear to them.
In the early deliberations of the committee the leaning was toward a land shared but then the Canadian involved made his move.
The Canadian was a lawyer named Ivan Rand who became a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 6, 1947, Rand prepared his own memorandum for a solution to the problems in Palestine, advocating partition and the establishment of an independent Jewish state. Over the next three weeks, he gradually convinced a majority of the committee members to adopt this position and to give control over the Negev to the Jewish state.
Justice Ivan Rand never wrote an autobiography but from his personal papers which are kept at the University of Western Ontario we learn what influenced his decision. Unlike other members of the committee who tried not to be personally influenced outside of the proceedings, Ivan Rand opened himself to Jewish hospitality and accepted a large number of social invitations by the Jewish community. He wrote often of how well he was being treated by the Jews in Palestine. As far as I know he never mentioned similar contacts with Arabs.
Of specific note was the contact he had with a Rev. William L. Hull who was the only Canadian who he was made aware of that was living in Palestine at the time and who was considered his unofficial advisor. Rev. William L. Hull was a protestant fundamentalist who , if I can borrow Leonard's term, was "swaggering in the immunity of superstition". Rev. William L. Hull was a strong believer in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and to my thinking suits well Leonard's phrase "bloated on their scraps of destiny" To emphasize the influence that Hull might have had on Justice Ivan Rand here is a quote from a forward to Rev. Hull's books that Ivan wrote:
I can't help but wonder how Justice Rand would have voted if he didn't expose himself to a one sided influence. During the proceedings he often brought forward the Canadian experience of french and english living together in a Commonwealth in Canada.
The final vote was 7 to 4 for the partition of palestine and the establishment of an independent state of Israel. The 4 were for a bi-national state.
Who knows how history will see things? Maybe one day people around the world will honour Justice Ivan Rand as the Canadian who made the state of Israel possible. I can't help but consider the words of Martin Buber when in 1967 he responded to the cries of joy at the success of Israel's army with saying that there will come a day when what we celebrate today will be seen as a very sad detour on the road to humanity.
_________________________________
Leonard wrote in "Book of Mercy"
Israel, and you who call yourself Israel, the Church that calls itself Israel, and the revolt that calls itself Israel, and every nation chosen to be a nation – none of these lands is yours, all of you are thieves of holiness, all of you at war with Mercy. Who will say it? Will America say, We have stolen it, or France step down? Will Russia confess, or Poland say, We have sinned? All bloated on their scraps of destiny, all swaggering in the immunity of superstition.
As a Canadian I want our fair share of the guilt for what has been going on in Gaza. A little bitter searching has led to the following:
Prior to the establishment of Israel in Palestine, the most reasonable, fair and intelligent minds in the world were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state that involved the stealing of land. This was especially true of the Jews who didn't want to be given a land that they only owned 6% of. Jews like Judah Magnes and Martin Buber used the words that Leonard echoed in his poem. They pleaded : "Do not make us thieves of holiness"
Judah Magnes was at the time the most well respected American Jew who had emigrated to Palestine and Martin Buber was the most respected Jewish Bible scholar among other religions. Other Jews who shared this opposition to a Jewish state included Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt.
In 1946 a Committee was formed to make a recommendation to the United Nations on what should be the fate of Palestine. It was called the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. After hearing the concern of all sides they proposed the establishment of a bi-national country. The land shared by Jews and Arabs with the claims of both sides taken seriously. Harry Truman, the president of the US, told Judah Magnes that he considered the document created by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to be of such importance that he kept it in a drawer that he had reserved for his copy of the American Declaration of Independence.
It was considered by the wise as the right thing to do although the politicians of both sides as in the Jewish Agency and the Arab League opposed it and it was well understood that for it to work the land of Palestine would need to remain under trusteeship for a considerable period of time. It was accepted that the job would fall to either England or the US. Truman said that the US would be willing if they did not have to do it alone. No other country came forward.
In May of 1947 the United Nations formed a committee called The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) that was to make the final recommendation for what was to be the fate of Palestine. Their committee was less knowledgeable than the American-Anglo committee but it contained the members of 11 United Nation member countries.
Canada was one of them.
This committee in turn heard testimony from all interested parties. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and in reading through some of the testimony presented to to UNSCOP and how those hearing it responded that it would be obvious that they would see that Palestine should become a bi-national state and that partitioning the land would lead to decades and decades of violence between Jews and Arabs. This was made absolutely clear to them.
In the early deliberations of the committee the leaning was toward a land shared but then the Canadian involved made his move.
The Canadian was a lawyer named Ivan Rand who became a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 6, 1947, Rand prepared his own memorandum for a solution to the problems in Palestine, advocating partition and the establishment of an independent Jewish state. Over the next three weeks, he gradually convinced a majority of the committee members to adopt this position and to give control over the Negev to the Jewish state.
Justice Ivan Rand never wrote an autobiography but from his personal papers which are kept at the University of Western Ontario we learn what influenced his decision. Unlike other members of the committee who tried not to be personally influenced outside of the proceedings, Ivan Rand opened himself to Jewish hospitality and accepted a large number of social invitations by the Jewish community. He wrote often of how well he was being treated by the Jews in Palestine. As far as I know he never mentioned similar contacts with Arabs.
Of specific note was the contact he had with a Rev. William L. Hull who was the only Canadian who he was made aware of that was living in Palestine at the time and who was considered his unofficial advisor. Rev. William L. Hull was a protestant fundamentalist who , if I can borrow Leonard's term, was "swaggering in the immunity of superstition". Rev. William L. Hull was a strong believer in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and to my thinking suits well Leonard's phrase "bloated on their scraps of destiny" To emphasize the influence that Hull might have had on Justice Ivan Rand here is a quote from a forward to Rev. Hull's books that Ivan wrote:
It was a relief, then, when shortly after my arrival I had the good fortune to meet the author of this book. Here he was, a Canadian,... a clergyman,… a man of goodwill, well known to and knowing the many religious and racial groups in that amazing galaxy of rivalries and antagonisms. Whatever might be said of the soundness of his judgments, here, I thought, was one whom I could trust to express himself with honesty and frankness. Somewhat to my surprise, I listened to words of high admiration of the Jewish people, their standards of life and tremendous work they had done since returning to their ancient homeland.
I can't help but wonder how Justice Rand would have voted if he didn't expose himself to a one sided influence. During the proceedings he often brought forward the Canadian experience of french and english living together in a Commonwealth in Canada.
The final vote was 7 to 4 for the partition of palestine and the establishment of an independent state of Israel. The 4 were for a bi-national state.
Who knows how history will see things? Maybe one day people around the world will honour Justice Ivan Rand as the Canadian who made the state of Israel possible. I can't help but consider the words of Martin Buber when in 1967 he responded to the cries of joy at the success of Israel's army with saying that there will come a day when what we celebrate today will be seen as a very sad detour on the road to humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)