Shiavo comment

Not to dig up a very well covered topic, but the memo sent to Republicans that I mentioned in myTerry Shiavo blog is a bit sketchy. Apparently its origins are unknown, as discussed in this Washington Post Washington post article by Howard Kurtz:

While there is no hard evidence that the memo is fake, there are several strange things about it, including the basic fact that no one seems to know who wrote it and that the noncontroversial part of it is lifted from a Republican senator's press release.

ABC and The Post say their reports on the Schiavo memo were accurate and carefully worded. The document caused a stir because it described the Schiavo controversy as "a great political issue" that would excite "the pro-life base" and be "a tough issue for Democrats," singling out Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson. Two days after the memo was reported, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a bill, signed by Bush, to transfer jurisdiction of Schiavo's case from Florida courts to the federal judiciary in an effort to restore the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.

Please read the article for more details, but in the interests of fairness I wanted to mention the uncertainty.

Thoughts on the Seasons

We had our first real break of warm weather in Madison these past few days. It was nearly 70 today and just beautiful to be outside. Of course, everyone loves it when the weather breaks. People linger in the streets a little longer. You walk instead of drive that extra five minutes. You sit outside in the cafe, rather than take that table by the door. And of course, you wear slightly less clothing for the first time all year.
It's the first time in three years I've experienced a real winter. Although winter in England is miserable, it rarely gets below freezing. It's dreary, dark, and damp, but rarely too cold.
In Madison winters, we'd often see bright sunny days that would bring the temperature to a toasty warm 3 degress Farenheit. I was, however, able to bring out my skis and go cross country skiing a few times this winter. I can't think of a better way to exercise.
But now, winter is a quickly fading memory. I've started to run outside. I love to walk, and strolling through town in the late evening sun with a light jacket is an incredible feeling. I see people with ice cream cones and I'm tempted. I think to past summers, sitting outside our Union terrace, drinking beer and staring out over the lake. I think back to the late English summers, when 8pm meant two more hours of sunshine. Spring and Summer are about being outside.
I'd never trade the changing seasons for anything. I love experiencing both the cold and the warm. But for now, I'm ready for Spring.

Tutoring

After a few weeks of shuffling and scheduling issues, I've finally met with my learner. He's a native Mexican settling in the United States and I've volunteered to teach him English.
This volunteer opportunity is arranged by the Madison Area Literary Council. They are an incredible organization, if you happen to live in Madison, Wisconsin, and have the time, I highly recommend them.
So I volunteered and this morning I met with Juan (not his real name). Juan's a pretty advanced learner. His conversational skills are quite good. He's got some understanding of basic grammar and a decent vocabulary. We went over the verb to be. We did contractions. We talked about question words. It was basic stuff, and he obviously had seen most of it.

The best part, however, was our conversations. Two or three times we stopped the formal learning and just talked. He told me about walking 11 hours with his father to go to an Easter mass. I told him (very briefly) about being Jewish. We talked about language and how it changes. He mentioned that someone from Spain told him that Spanish from Spain was superior to New World Spanish. I told him I heard the same thing from the Brits, and that it was crap.

When we first met, however, he asked me the most jarring question. He asked "Why was I volunteering?" I had all the token answers about "giving something back" and "trying to make Madison a better place", but facing Juan, those responses seemed also dishonest, if not patronizing.

So why did I do it? Well, partially, those token responses are true. I've been pretty lucky. I had a comfortable upbringing, a good education and right now have a decent job. I also feel that you need to do something to try and make your community better.

I think volunteering is also partially selfish. I've learned quite a bit doing this, even in just a few short meetings. I also am getting to know someone that I probably wouldn't ordinarily know. I suppose it also relives a bit of guilt; I'm doing something to "justify" my relatively cushy life, even if it isn't much.
So, I hope it continues to go well. I also hope that Juan learns half as much as I will.

A customer with a heart of gold

From the "should have been named a saint catagory" comes this story in related in Tom Seitsema's weekly restaurant review in the Washington post:

After a restaurateur complained via my online discussion about customers expecting too much compensation when things go wrong, I received an e-mail from Bonni Cellini, who wanted to remind the industry that "there are decent people out there" as well. The Washington reader wrote: "My father owned a restaurant which caught on fire and burned to the ground right in the middle of the dinner rush. Thankfully everyone got out okay and in time, including my dad. A year later the restaurant was completely rebuilt. On the third night it had reopened a man walked up to my dad and handed him an envelope, leaned in and said, 'I was in your restaurant the night it burned down a year ago. My family and I had just finished dinner when the fire started. I never paid for dinner. Here is the money I owe you.'" Cellini added, "Of course my dad tried to refuse, but the man insisted." Both parties sound like they should have been cloned.

Terri Schiavo

So we've got a war in Iraq. We've got unprecedented federal deficits. Health care costs are sky rocketing and of course, social security is in "crisis". The problems of our government are many and the resources to solve them are few. So what is our brilliant House of Representatives having a special session this weekend to solve? What is Dubya flying back from Texas early to do?
They are stepping in to force Florida doctors to restore Terri Schiavo 's feeding tube. Says Sen. Majority leader Bill Frist in the Washington Post:

Congress 'has been working nonstop over the last three days to do its part to uphold human dignity and affirm a culture of life.'
Frist said he is committed "to see this legislation pass and give Terri Schiavo one last chance at life.'

Schiavo has been in a vegetative state for 15 years. Her parents want to keep her alive; her husband wants to remove the feeding tube. This conflict has led to a very heated and complex legal battle that the Republican leadership in congress (at least mostly Republican) has felt compelled to get involved. My point is not to comment on whether Schiavo should be kept alive or not, but rather to examine the motives of our noble leaders.
Are these the same Republicans that advocate for power to the States? Are these same people that argue that the Federal government "Should stay out of my medicine cabinet"? I wonder how much federal intervention we would have had if this had been an AIDS patient who couldn't afford drugs that could keep him or her alive for 10 more years.
So, why are they getting involved? The article continues:

Republicans acknowledged that the intervention was a departure from their usual support for states' rights. But they said their views about the sanctity life [sic] trumped their views about federalism.

An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who is up for reelection next year and is potentially vulnerable in a state President Bush won last year.

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, which was reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."


Oh right. That whole election thing. My fault. Carry on.

Sex in the capital City

In Wednesday’s Captial Times (a local Madison paper) we get a lovely example of morality gone wrong:

A [state] Republican legislator says he is "outraged" that the University of Wisconsin student health service provides prescription birth control, especially the so-called morning-after pill.
State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said he is drafting a bill to stop all UW student health services from either advertising or providing students with the morning-after pill

This comment from Mr. LeMahieu came after one of the student newspapers contained an advertisement suggesting that women should stock up on contraception before going on spring break. This of course leads to the usual arguments stating that if we make contraception available, we are encouraging students to have sex.

Now, this argument may hold some water in high schools, but most college students are over 18. People who are over 18 can vote, can be recruited to fight in the military, can enter sweepstakes, and, as far as I’m concerned, should be allowed to have sex. Safe sex should be encouraged and made easily accessible. If they want to abstain, they are old enough to have the power to make that choice without hiding contraception from them.

His article brings us to a wider question though. Why is sex such a contentious issue? Why do politicians care so much about who is having it, how they are doing it, and of course, what happens once sex leads to pregnancy?

But what of it? Why is sex so controversial? I guess part of it, is that the consequences of sex can be quite serious. Diseases, sexual violence, negative social stigmas, even crushed self esteem can be the possible results of sex. An unexpected pregnancy is also an obvious possibility, which has many of its own complications and confusions.

Pregnancy within marriage, is of course one of the few socially acceptable reasons to talk about sex. Sex within marriage or within a long-term relationship is generally acceptable as well, but it’s rarely discussed in mixed company.

I consider myself a pretty open-minded person, but don’t often talk about sex with my friends. With online friends, I suppose it comes quite easily. The anonymity of a chat makes it easier to open up about personal things. It’s not that I’ve done a lot that I’m ashamed of, but for some reason I find it quite difficult.

Again, why is this? Why is sex so personal? I’ve heard it explained that it’s one of the greatest contradictions of humanity: We like to believe we are civilized, intellectual, and rational beings. Yet Sex is one of the most animalistic, emotional, and natural things we do. We need to do it to for procreation. We enjoy it on a purely lustful level, and of course it can be a powerful statement of love and emotion. It can also lead to pain, confusion, and terrible illness.

Can we reconcile this? Can we reconcile the pragmatic side of making sex safe and of not selling it , trivializing it, or being degrading? I suppose the key will be to be more open about it, to not make it such a tableaux. Open and frank conversation, along with proper education will take the power away from those who want to push it back into the closet and control that which they have no business controlling.It’s a difficult balance, but something we can make sex a healthy, wonderful thing, rather than a political “sin” to be bandied about.

The Stoutest Stout

I just got back from a Stout tasting competition. Essentially, a bunch of amateur beer makers submitted their own stouts, and a bunch of amateurs and a few "expert" beer tasters chose their favorites. It was a lot of fun, even if most of the beers were, well, odd tasting. They did tend to blur together, but it was fun to begin to taste the various chocolate, caramel, coffee, and god knows what other odd flavors that were found in a stout. Some were tasty, some were smooth, and some were atrocious.
The amazing thing to me is how detailed any of this tasting is. I suppose it's like any hobby: You can get as detailed as you'd like. Wine tasting in particular is filled with detailed aficionados who can distinguish all the various grapes, vineyards, and years.
One of the guys sitting next to us made a stout and had submitted it to the competition. He always had an opinion on the various beers, and thought he could identify his own; It turned out he was wrong, although that choice was one of my favorites.
It does bring up the question as to how much taste is determined by what we think it should taste like. If someone tells you it is supposed to taste good, you train your brain to taste that as good. It's one of the reasons why I think more men drink beer. As teenagers and young college students, they are stigmatized to like it. So, they drink more of it, and develop a taste for it. It's not that women are biologically less likely to like it, it's just that they aren't embarrassed to order a sweeter drink.
Is there a point to this? Probably not. I'm going to go have a Guinness.

The mighty Duhks

I'd highly recommend this cd I just ordered from amazon. It's the self-titled album by the band "The Dukhs". They are wacky Canadians from the icebox that is Winnipeg, Manitoba. As their website describes them:

The Duhks' music-- "contemporary acoustic," "progressive soul-grass," and “kick-ass rock/folk fusion” [are] just a few of the attempts to classify the group.

There are elements appropriated from Irish fiddle tunes, Canadian French and Scots/Maritime folk, and Appalachian Old Time string band in their high-energy music--but from the first sight of The Duhks (pronounced as in "That's Just Ducky" and "Ducks a' L'Orange"), you know that no stab in the classifying dark can quite capture the synthesis and musical attack of this crew.

It's a great mix of music whether you're in the mood to lie on your bed and listen or dance jigs around the room. The website has some real audio clips and a link to the NPR story about them (how I heard about them). Enjoy!

A Reform Jew Speaks

Lots of blogs concentrate on Judaism. I haven’t written much about it personally, but being Jewish certainly plays a large role in my life. I’m currently dating a Jewish girl, and I try to attend services once or twice a month along with the usual observances of Passover and the high holidays.

Few issues raise the blood temperature of Jews more than that of the different denominations that have developed. It’s not easy to sort out who is a Jew, and to reconcile traditional Judaism with modern secular life. It’s something Jews have struggled with throughout their existence, and something with which they will probably always struggle.

It’s not necessarily my goal to tackle this reconciliation in my blog today. Rather, I’d like to talk about my own views on what sort of Jew I am. What I see are the problems and contradictions in my own practice, and perhaps hear what others have to say about this topic.

One of the first questions to tackle is definition. It’s relatively straightforward to define your denomination by the synagogue you attend. But, the synagogue-ian definition of denomination isn’t complete. One might attend a synagogue because it is the only one in the area, or because one likes a given Rabbi. It’s possible that the majority of the congregation practices differently than you do at home. It really makes the whole thing quite complicated. However, for the sake of this blog, I’ll define my own denomination this way.

I feel most comfortable in a Reform synagogue, as that is what I’ve grown up with. I like the communal feel to the service, and the warmth and human focus that surrounds the service, at least the one I grew up in. I’m not a big fan of the organ, but I think that has more to do with my dislike of organ music, than with any spiritual reasons. Instruments in service don’t bother me. Hearing Kol Nidre played on a violin or on a cello is an incredibly spiritual experience.

The egalitarianism of the service is also important to me. Once again, I’ve grown up with it, and have no problems with men and women sitting together, or even a woman Rabbi or Cantor. Those are elements of both reform and Reconstructionist Judaism that appeal to me.

Reform Judaism, by its nature, is difficult. It’s based on principles of informed choice. One is supposed to study all of the ancient and modern texts, and then make personal decisions regarding your life. This principle is inherently contradictory, and almost impossible. Very few, including myself, spend a lot of time studying in this way. I went to religious school, and have an ok background in Jewish history and ethics, but hardly the level of depth needed to seriously make many of those decisions.

It also makes it difficult to define who is a Jew. Can someone who chooses to eat a ham and cheese sandwich on Yom Kippur claim to be a reform Jew? Well, by rules of lineage (maternally or paternally depending on denomination) they are either Jewish or they aren’t. But, by rules of behavior, are they considered Jewish? That’s a tough question. Where do we draw the line? Many would say people who eat pork, or make no attempt at keeping a kosher home aren’t Jewish. Others believe if you don’t keep Shabbat or attend synagogue weekly aren’t Jewish, at least not in practice. The line is blurry. Reform Judaism probably makes it blurrier.

Another difficulty with Reform Judaism is community. One of traditional Judaism’s greatest strength is its sense of community. Because everyone must walk to synagogue, they live close together. They go to the same kosher shops, eat in one or two kosher restaurants, and spend Shabbat with friends and family. Because they only associate with other Jews, intermarriage is less likely. Because everyone is keeping the same holidays and observing similar rules, there is less temptation to secularize.

It’s an amazing feeling to be a part of such a strong community. Some of my best memories in England were the Shabbat lunches and dinners spent with members of the orthodox synagogue. The long evenings or afternoons of eating and talking were really special. There was no temptation to shop, or turn on the TV; it was just conversation and amazing food. Usually there was too much. I wouldn’t walk home, I’d roll.

That being said, I was always ready to return to my secular world afterwards. I wanted to go out with my friends. I wanted to go to the dinners made by my European friends, I wanted to go out drinking on a Friday night, and occasionally, I even wanted to eat seafood.

So where does this leave me? I consider myself Jewish first and reform Jew second. I’ve been to many different services, and can get something out of them. I know that deep down, I am Jewish, and want it to be a center of my life. But I’m not ready to adopt a frum lifestyle. It’s just not who I am at this point in time. But, why can’t both be there.

Why can’t the reform community make Shabbat meals a priority? Even if they are prepared that night, turning the TV off, or not going out on a given Friday night to spend time with family and friends should be a priority for any Jew. Isn’t spending time at home with the family part of the social justice that Reform holds to high esteem? It can begin at home at a table “debating” an issue, rather than falling asleep at the TV. Reform Judaism allows it; it’s just a matter of us to take advantage of that freedom.

Reform services are adopting more Hebrew and tradition to their services. It seems to be the direction of the moment, and I generally think this is a good thing. But as it does this, some of the questions I’ve raised will come to a head, particularly as those of more traditional Reform begin to reject the changes. If these are addressed, the movement, and consequently, the entire religion can only grow stronger.